Why Model A is incoherent

[Braingel]

Beebe, has a pretty bad handle on nuanced view of functions (or anything, really) where he would have to put it in a right hierarchical box. Something like bad sensing can come out as being sensing type out of his mouth because of sensing is mentioned. He has given a pretty lengthy pity session on ISTJ autism and their suffering, having hypersensitive sensing in this loud world. There is plenty of similar bunny trails. I have watched and listened to his videos enough.

He may be a case where his book is far better than any of his directly said claims. Before throwing him all into the trash, knowing his framework would be a bit better.. I will try and quote some things a bit later.

It is unfortunate if the case, that his book is way different than of what he has said, because it is quite good, and his book is less accessible and costly (unless you get it somehow as a pdf), and his YouTube videos are the primary go to probably.

[Braingel]

He may be a case where his book is far better than any of his directly said claims. Before throwing him all into the trash, knowing his framework would be a bit better.. I will try and quote some things a bit later.

It is unfortunate if the case, that his book is way different than of what he has said, because it is quite good, and his book is less accessible and costly (unless you get it somehow as a pdf), and his YouTube videos are the primary go to probably.

I am not going to bother to do this all at once, so you’ll have read back, though you probably won’t if you have an already bad taste of him and what I quote furthers this.

For now, it will just be two things..

Rather than quite the full passages of the take, I am going to only the most important parts, because this would be seriously too much to quote, and I don’t have the energy for that detail level..


Know all these quotes are from Energy Patterns in Psychological Type. i seriously don’t feel like having to cite every page and all.

Most important parts on the hero:

“From the standpoint of depth psychology, the hero is the archetypal role model for ego/identity, described for his fellow psychoanalysts by Erik Erickson as ‘ the accrued experience of the ego’s ability to integrate all identifying with the vicissitudes of the libido, with the aptitudes developed out of endowment, and with the opportunities offered in social roles’ (Erickson, 1963, p. 261).”

“Will is perhaps the most characteristic attribute of the ego once it assumes place at the center of consciousness…”

“There are, according to Jung, various functions of consciousness that the ego may decide to differentiate to varying degrees in the course of deploying the will. These ego functions, specified in Jung’s theory of psychological types, can be named thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition, and each can be deployed in either extroverted or introverted ways.”

Sample of the Demon:

“This is a tale that goes to the heart of the paradox we find in the demonic personality— that though it is an image of undermining pathological narcissism, it can, when confronted and contained with integrity, start to make an effort to be unusually compassionate.”

”Clinical observation has shown me that the function of consciousness that is most distant from our ego consciousness can be deployed in both terribly undermining and in surprisingly positive ways. In a man whose hero consciousness expresses expresses itself through extroverted sensation, for example, the function of extroverted intuition tends to take on a perversely destabilizing role, leading him to embrace the wrong possibilities and reject the right ones, except when, very occasionally, it is the source of a moment of unexpected good sense. Likewise, if introverted feeling is the man’s leading, heroic function, then he tends instinctively to use introverted thinking to undercut himself and other and only occasionally ‘gets it right’ with that function.”

@The Reality Denialist ^ this is why I say it would be far more likely for me to be an infj, who can’t use Si as maturely, than it would be for an ISTJ.. (By the reasonings you proposed based on what Beebe has claimed, meaning what Beebe has said is less congruent with his function, as Si demon wouldn’t be able to verify sensations as well until they grow into it, even if an Si dom is more sensitive overall, they will master it more and have a stronger will to deal with it and develop more skills). Based on the intellectual premise, not any blanket statement he’s proposed to the public, and his focus of the autism spectrum may be a specific shade of it that wouldn’t capture my own. I am not the classical form of autistic where I obsess on routine or where I am not sensitive to emotions in myself and in others; I’ve no alexithymia.

Hopefully this shows why I like his approach, as it is far more dynamic than of socionics, for the most part.. What is lacking in it, is more of a deeply cognitive way of processing, b it this is probably because as a psych professional, he had to zone in on behavior and psychopathology within it all.

This would also go for @Metaphor (my entire past posts as of this evening in this thread).

Don’t forgot that I also quoted a small excerpt of the oppositional placement already, and I personally have intuited that aushura focused on a more healthful, “light” phase of this conscious, and beebe focused on its form in the dark/shadow, pathologized.

I haven’t really read any of aushura’s stuff, with her, I filled it in completely via patterns.

It is improtant to realize Beebe is an 88 (soon to be 89) year old man. Anything he’s stated of recency can be a reduced cognitive state and of mixing up things, if he isn’t as agile as was once. I don’t see it as EP inconsistency or a “Ti polr” (some have speculated he is IEE, which I believe you have also).

[The Reality Denialist]

I'm just saying that he has no logical consistency or good grasp on putting things into the right places. I have spent many (too) many hours listening to his lectures. It had interesting content. Conclusions were weird but interesting content.
Do I have bad taste for him? Again, clearly no. He is just ill-equipped for something that requires rigor in depth.

[Metaphor]

Well you're always free to hold some random opinion, but there's a reason you aren't writing thoughtful comments containing details justifying your opinions, and it's because there is simply no core rational basis for socionics, and so you could not possibly justify your opinions in any rational coherent way. That's why you could not actually say anything useful here other than... "I disagree", or "I'd rather go with SSS". Yes, good for you, you have a feeling and a preference. In the real world beyond this cyberland of quackery people do not base science on feelings or preferences, they will just laugh you out of their office and delegate you off to some small broom cabinet in the basement that has been recently renovated into your new office.

Haha, turns out I have been talking to a toxic individual after all along. I prefer not to waste my time indulging within such an attitude then.
And no, I don't have any feeling nor preference - these never exist and I simply found SSS to be more practical and applicable, that's all.
And surely enough, I am not going to speak anything in front of these quackery people and keep it to myself - it is foolish to tell anyone at all.

[Metaphor]

John Beebe is by far the best in taking a more dynamic outlook of the function appliance, and of the less conscious functions dictating primary focus under a continued stress flare..

His model is the best at grasping unhealthy use of cognitive patterns, and of how functions develop overtime both from poor health, or can integrate in due to better health, and they would fit egoic block..

I believe he could’ve defined functions better, and I believe that was his laziest point, but the actual model construct of shadow and of the jungian archetypes tied into function placement is quite superior..

I disagree considering the fact that he misinterpreted Jung in the first place and made these constructions as if they were real - none of them really exist.

[Metaphor]

Ah, I get it, you are weak-minded... Just so you know, there are no gears in the head, and it's not a mechanical system. And the next time you see boobs on your phone screen, don’t try to disassemble it with a stick and a stone (for some reason I'm sure these are your favorite tools), they are not there.

I hardly get such kind of a stipulation whereas they demand a biological model to be fully-mechanistic as if it really works that way.
So yes, I couldn't agree more and I'm fully convinced that the OP is just becoming obtuse enough about his view on Socionics.
Not to mention that he hardly grasped the fatal flaw in Socionics, which is nowhere near anything he has tried mentioning thus far.

[Braingel]

I'm just saying that he has no logical consistency or good grasp on putting things into the right places. I have spent many (too) many hours listening to his lectures. It had interesting content. Conclusions were weird but interesting content.
Do I have bad taste for him? Again, clearly no. He is just ill-equipped for something that requires rigor in depth.

I haven’t heard any of his lectures, so I don’t have any opinion on them, and based on what you’re saying, it sounds like what he claims there is incongruent with his book, so for now, without all the information, I am inclined to believe the possibility that he is inconsistent in literature versus said claims.

But to be honest with you, I know you like Gulenko, but he is too.. At least from things I’ve skimmed in his type descriptions within his book, and with typings he’s made of people who paid for such, sometimes authors will update or change understandings and if the book was written far into past, it may outdate with their opinions now. Beebe’s book was written in 2017, believe G’s was like 2020 or 19.

[Braingel]

I disagree considering the fact that he misinterpreted Jung in the first place and made these constructions as if they were real - none of them really exist.

Hm, well, I haven’t really read Jung, I’ve only read a few excerpts of things by him, so no comment. I don’t believe that something has to follow the original source to have validity, and I do believe that every system gets some facets right, and others wrong, and it’s more the matter of taking the tidbits that are right and trying put them into one appliance.. I really should delve more into Jung at one point..

That being said, I do like his ideas of the transient states that one can shift processing into. (Beebe’s, realized that it can sound like I’m talking about Jung).. I am honestly not a huge fan of how Beebe defines functions, and I don’t use that as much and go with my own and fill it in.. I also noticed a pattern with how I intuited scs, that it overlaps into Beebe.

[Braingel]

I disagree considering the fact that he misinterpreted Jung in the first place and made these constructions as if they were real - none of them really exist.

As I said, I don’t believe something has to match the original to be valid, but it may be interesting for you and @The Reality Denialist to learn Beebe’s structure a bit more, and see what he could’ve meant in the equivalent of Jung… And where his placements would go into Jung. I didn’t get this from what I’ve skimmed, but with what TRD claimed, maybe he for instance, places Si into Ni a bit..

It is true that Ni has branched out into being this sort of mystical, all-knowing function, when indeed, it does actually base on a collection of pattern accumulation, but rather than of Si, which I believe also does this and it’s not in socionics, it collects patterns on less obviously observable and concrete themes and focuses on filling in logic and of grasping energies of their developments.. Si to me, is more an accumulated concrete, sensoric data that stores right into the psycho-motor memory, which is often how it gets in my opinion, a connotation of focusing on the “past” (as memories are past).. Of course, it is also a heightened awareness of how things resonate inside of oneself physically, so it can make one aware of comfort sentiments, which is probably where socionics gets its idea, and being more aware of those sensations, it can make one more aware of their body’s health state and how it feels.. Then, it would also have those sensations evoked to have a subjective perception of space and how much it can handle to feel at ease physically.

Socionics is obviously by its name, a sociological, external focus, far more built for extroversion in my opinion.. I prefer psychological focus, and would rather avert on the actual digestion process happening within the subject, rather of how the subject interacts with others in external time (extroversion in my view).

[The Reality Denialist]

I haven’t heard any of his lectures, so I don’t have any opinion on them, and based on what you’re saying, it sounds like what he claims there is incongruent with his book, so for now, without all the information, I am inclined to believe the possibility that he is inconsistent in literature versus said claims.

But to be honest with you, I know you like Gulenko, but he is too.. At least from things I’ve skimmed in his type descriptions within his book, and with typings he’s made of people who paid for such, sometimes authors will update or change understandings and if the book was written far into past, it may outdate with their opinions now. Beebe’s book was written in 2017, believe G’s was like 2020 or 19.

I only take sides in terms of truthful statements and a contradiction will break a deal. I play no favourites. Like U said I studied it and found it largely similar with model G but I need to reshuffle it first. I have stated this multiple times.

[DogOfDanger]

I hardly get such kind of a stipulation whereas they demand a biological model to be fully-mechanistic as if it really works that way..

Well you are obviously incapable of reading, there has never been any suggestion anywhere that a biological system can be fully modeled using socionics - again socionics is predicated on rational idealism, there is a giant post right above explaining what that is and how it relates to socionics, but this idea of a mechanical model is inherent to socionics, if you don't accept the premises of socionics then don't do socionics.

So yes, I couldn't agree more and I'm fully convinced that the OP is just becoming obtuse enough about his view on Socionics.
Not to mention that he hardly grasped the fatal flaw in Socionics, which is nowhere near anything he has tried mentioning thus far.

Before you concern yourself with the fatal flaw in socionics you should address the fatal flaw in your own concept of socionics, namely that your approach has no scientific or formal rational basis whatsoever, and you actually scoff at the very idea of one, meanwhile you actually just base this crap on your arbitrary preferences. Really you are just engaging in pseudoscience, you should not be taken seriously, yes you belong in a renovated broom cabinet.

The pseudoscientific attitude you people have is why we now have 20 incoherent models, and socionics is not taken seriously.... it is actually now commonly referenced as an example of modern pseudoscience.
Carry onward

[Braingel]

As I said, I don’t believe something has to match the original to be valid, but it may be interesting for you and @The Reality Denialist to learn Beebe’s structure a bit more, and see what he could’ve meant in the equivalent of Jung… And where his placements would go into Jung. I didn’t get this from what I’ve skimmed, but with what TRD claimed, maybe he for instance, places Si into Ni a bit..

It is true that Ni has branched out into being this sort of mystical, all-knowing function, when indeed, it does actually base on a collection of pattern accumulation, but rather than of Si, which I believe also does this and it’s not in socionics, it collects patterns on less obviously observable and concrete themes and focuses on filling in logic and of grasping energies of their developments.. Si to me, is more an accumulated concrete, sensoric data that stores right into the psycho-motor memory, which is often how it gets in my opinion, a connotation of focusing on the “past” (as memories are past).. Of course, it is also a heightened awareness of how things resonate inside of oneself physically, so it can make one aware of comfort sentiments, which is probably where socionics gets its idea, and being more aware of those sensations, it can make one more aware of their body’s health state and how it feels.. Then, it would also have those sensations evoked to have a subjective perception of space and how much it can handle to feel at ease physically.

Socionics is obviously by its name, a sociological, external focus, far more built for extroversion in my opinion.. I prefer psychological focus, and would rather avert on the actual digestion process happening within the subject, rather of how the subject interacts with others in external time (extroversion in my view).

I have proposed that you actually have two types; the digesting, inward and how you process information, then with how you behave and interact with others. Ideally, you’d have a model that captures both, and for some subjects it would go right in and reflect, but some people have other factors that have evolved and formed their behavior, beyond their digesting process, as cognition isn’t the only hand in behavior, it just is how all information comes in, and of how all the factors that can affect behavior would receive the information.

Think of it as if a digestive tract that results in a different appearance (behavior) than when how it first entered and got digested.

[Darth Cultis]

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung


0 to 2:28...beebe knows what type actually is...
I think Adam does too...
Braingel might...or is close...acknowledges shadow and persona...sees through everyone's ego obfuscation...
"not sensitive" -> ScaredKnowing knows the actual difference between extroversion/introversion...


gears...haha. Jerry is also Ni-polr...

[Kurt Gabin]

No real scientist would ever take your ideas seriously, your ideas would be laughed at in any university or research center... The justification for socionics is the notion that the model is rational, the moment you abandon that and turn it into a taxonomy system you require a statistical and scientific method to justify the system you're creating, and you have followed no such method. The need for such a method is apparently incomprehensible to you, because you are a quack, but the actual scientific community will just completely ignore you / your ideas.

This idea that cognition is rational and can be modeled that way is the most central idea of socionics. It is not just Augusta that has written about information metabolism, Gulenko has written about it extensively, and many crap models have attempted to elaborate on model A in this respect.
It's like if I were to say... let's play a baseball game. But there will be no gloves. And no bats. And no balls. But we're playing baseball. We're calling it baseball. It's like.... no... you're not playing baseball.

What the f* community are you talking about? You haven't even finished primary school.

TBH, I planned to come here every day to laugh at your stupidity, but now I see that you are just sick. Bye.

[DogOfDanger]

I'm talking about the scientific community, which is a term broadly referring to scientists doing research in various fields, in this case it would be other "scientists" in the field of psychology assessing your crap theory. Have you never heard of science? Did they not teach you in school about the scientific method?
Actually I have a masters in STEM from a major university, which makes me alot more qualified to discuss scientific methods than your psychology degree from the community college.
The scientific community is expected to take a theory seriously if it was developed using some reasonable scientific method. Besides, even if you're not concerned about the broad acceptance of a theory... you should follow sound methods just so that you know what you're doing, so that you don't end up lost in a sea of babble and nonsense (which is what your theory is).
But no, I'm sure the scientific community is just too dumb to comprehend your profound armchair theorizing.
Keep trying

[Metaphor]

As I said, I don’t believe something has to match the original to be valid, but it may be interesting for you and @The Reality Denialist to learn Beebe’s structure a bit more, and see what he could’ve meant in the equivalent of Jung… And where his placements would go into Jung. I didn’t get this from what I’ve skimmed, but with what TRD claimed, maybe he for instance, places Si into Ni a bit..

It is true that Ni has branched out into being this sort of mystical, all-knowing function, when indeed, it does actually base on a collection of pattern accumulation, but rather than of Si, which I believe also does this and it’s not in socionics, it collects patterns on less obviously observable and concrete themes and focuses on filling in logic and of grasping energies of their developments.. Si to me, is more an accumulated concrete, sensoric data that stores right into the psycho-motor memory, which is often how it gets in my opinion, a connotation of focusing on the “past” (as memories are past).. Of course, it is also a heightened awareness of how things resonate inside of oneself physically, so it can make one aware of comfort sentiments, which is probably where socionics gets its idea, and being more aware of those sensations, it can make one more aware of their body’s health state and how it feels.. Then, it would also have those sensations evoked to have a subjective perception of space and how much it can handle to feel at ease physically.

Socionics is obviously by its name, a sociological, external focus, far more built for extroversion in my opinion.. I prefer psychological focus, and would rather avert on the actual digestion process happening within the subject, rather of how the subject interacts with others in external time (extroversion in my view).

I have read the PDF of his Energy Patterns and I called those as utter nonsense masquerading themselves as a self-explanatory compliment to Psychological Types, which is not. Also, it's not the matter of origin, but reliability, accuracy, and clarity of the aforementioned model. For instance, I'm against the specifications of 8-functions model and would rather create my own (I theorized 6-functions model) than such a nonsense that is renowned as Beebian claiming themselves as one of which is psychological-focused by approach. Also, I highly suggest you to read Psychological Types as you will eventually see what I have been talking about. Or else, if you want the full-picture, read his Collective Works.

[Braingel]

I have read the PDF of his Energy Patterns and I called those as utter nonsense masquerading themselves as a self-explanatory compliment to Psychological Types, which is not. Also, it's not the matter of origin, but reliability, accuracy, and clarity of the aforementioned model. For instance, I'm against the specifications of 8-functions model and would rather create my own (I theorized 6-functions model) than such a nonsense that is renowned as Beebian claiming themselves as one of which is psychological-focused by approach. Also, I highly suggest you to read Psychological Types as you will eventually see what I have been talking about. Or else, if you want the full-picture, read his Collective Works.

It wouldn’t hurt me to delve into Jung so as to be more informed, but as I have explained, I believe there are two types; the external orientation, the digestion process. Sometimes the digestion will lead to a clear-cut behavioral match-up, but I believe it nuances and isn’t of an always case. For instance, I digest with Fi and Ne, but behave more of an Ni and Fe (to where in western socionics I’d more fit beta values).. To truly type well, I believe you need a comprehension of overlapping mechanisms, and then, you need look at the timing themes of the digestion and behavior, to rule out them primary or of transience.

[Braingel]

I'm talking about the scientific community, which is a term broadly referring to scientists doing research in various fields, in this case it would be other "scientists" in the field of psychology assessing your crap theory. Have you never heard of science? Did they not teach you in school about the scientific method?
Actually I have a masters in STEM from a major university, which makes me alot more qualified to discuss scientific methods than your psychology degree from the community college.
The scientific community is expected to take a theory seriously if it was developed using some reasonable scientific method. Besides, even if you're not concerned about the broad acceptance of a theory... you should follow sound methods just so that you know what you're doing, so that you don't end up lost in a sea of babble and nonsense (which is what your theory is).
But no, I'm sure the scientific community is just too dumb to comprehend your profound armchair theorizing.
Keep trying

What has you so invested in trying to persuade everyone? Science is one facet to approach life, philosophy is another.. Do you just believe that it is harmful and more destructive overall, or something? Maybe if someone replaced this with severely needed psychological intervention, it could be.

[Braingel]

It wouldn’t hurt me to delve into Jung so as to be more informed, but as I have explained, I believe there are two types; the external orientation, the digestion process. Sometimes the digestion will lead to a clear-cut behavioral match-up, but I believe it nuances and isn’t of an always case. For instance, I digest with Fi and Ne, but behave more of an Ni and Fe (to where in western socionics I’d more fit beta values).. To truly type well, I believe you need a comprehension of overlapping mechanisms, and then, you need look at the timing themes of the digestion and behavior, to rule out them primary or of transience.

The assumption that internal life and processing reflect how one fully projects outward is a fallacious one. There will most certainly be themes that emanate from the inner, but there is a broader chemistry of the content one would put out, than merely how they digested the information.. I don’t believe that digestion has to equate to the output, though different parts of the digestion tract will come together instead, and the actual shape of the excretion process and all of
this..

Do you really, for instance, believe that someone who is taking in information from Te and Ni, is going to be behaving the same as another Te Ni if they were raised significantly worse in a traumatic environment, are an enneagram 3 and the other person was an 8.. This person is a Buddhist and the other person had no religious-orientation… One person has schizophrenia, the other ADHD.

Why can’t people who both intake with Te and Ni behave dramatically different? Why try and early define and place people into 16 places.. When something as behavior is way broader than of a mere 16 placements.. And to be honest, there are probably more than 16 ways of digesting information, who says they all have to follow one particular order, or some people can develop other functions overtime..

[DogOfDanger]

What has you so invested in trying to persuade everyone? Science is one facet to approach life, philosophy is another.. Do you just believe that it is harmful and more destructive overall, or something? Maybe if someone replaced this with severely needed psychological intervention, it could be.

I do think bad ideas should be corrected on principle. But part of it is a process of churning that goes into developing any set of ideas. But why do you come to this website? At least part of it is due to your interest in socionics, right...? Or at least originally that's what drew you here, maybe you lost your interest in socionics over time. Part of why alot of people are losing their interest in socionics is the theory has become a completely incoherent mess. They hear some random new piece of gobbledy-g00k about socionics and they completely zone out since they can sense it's a waste of their braincells. If we're here, and the website is dedicated to socionics... if we're going to be doing it, we may as well do it right. You don't want to spend years of your life talking and thinking about something that is incoherent nonsense, do you? That could warp your brain. Infact... most people on this website probably have portions of their brain previously reserved for some other purpose now dedicated to untangling socionics concepts / imagining the functions, etc.. Not good.

[godslave]

The assumption that internal life and processing reflect how one fully projects outward is a fallacious one. There will most certainly be themes that emanate from the inner, but there is a broader chemistry of the content one would put out, than merely how they digested the information.. I don’t believe that digestion has to equate to the output, though different parts of the digestion tract will come together instead, and the actual shape of the excretion process and all of
this..

I think I've already talked about somewhere in this forum but what you said gives me an occasion to say since it's on topic.

What we call the "internal life" is, according to both Jung and modern Psychology, at least as significant as the "external life" (most which translate as behaviors). it is true that in socionics there is some sort of "denial" of the inner world of the subject by not integrating that aspect of the human mind in the Model. That state of fact reminds us that socionics has almost nothing to do with psychology and more to do with cybernetics. In socionics Model A, the inner world of the "subject" doesn't seem to exist spontaneously in and of itself.

The reason behind this paradox is very simple ; all information aspects theoretically exist in the "objective world" of reality which encompasses the notions of both objects and fields. One could say that socionics has an extroverted orientation bias. Indeed, although the subjective factor does exist to a certain degree in socionics, it is however reworked to fit the Model. As a reminder, Aushra said that the superego Block in socionics is always objective, it can't be subjective (or at the risk of PolR hit).

Therefore when Introverted TIMs gather information from the Role function, said information have to be an objective. The problem is that Introverted TIMs have Introverted aspects in their role Function, it doesn't really matter if the IE is internal (Ni or Fi) or Eternal (Si or Ti). That induces a nonsense that contradict the Jungian notion of Introversion and also a "bug" or error in term of nomenclature (how can a function be submitted to the subjective factor if it is always objective ?).

This is by the way one of the reasons why I don't consider socionics as neither Jungian nor of the domain of Psychology. Socionics doesn't deal with the inner world, it can't interpret the content of a subject dreams because dreams are of the domain of the inner world of the subject and again, it doesn't exist in socionics.

[Braingel]

I think I've already talked about somewhere in this forum but what you said gives me an occasion to say since it's on topic.

What we call the "internal life" is, according to both Jung and modern Psychology, at least as significant as the "external life" (most which translate as behaviors). it is true that in socionics there is some sort of "denial" of the inner world of the subject by not integrating that aspect of the human mind in the Model. That state of fact reminds us that socionics has almost nothing to do with psychology and more to do with cybernetics. In socionics Model A, the inner world of the "subject" doesn't seem to exist spontaneously in and of itself.

The reason behind this paradox is very simple ; all information aspects theoretically exist in the "objective world" of reality which encompasses the notions of both objects and fields. One could say that socionics has an extroverted orientation bias. Indeed, although the subjective factor does exist to a certain degree in socionics, it is however reworked to fit the Model. As a reminder, Aushra said that the superego Block in socionics is always objective, it can't be subjective (or at the risk of PolR hit).

Therefore when Introverted TIMs gather information from the Role function, said information have to be an objective. The problem is that Introverted TIMs have Introverted aspects in their role Function, it doesn't really matter if the IE is internal (Ni or Fi) or Eternal (Si or Ti). That induces a nonsense that contradict the Jungian notion of Introversion and also a "bug" or error in term of nomenclature (how can a function be submitted to the subjective factor if it is always objective ?).

This is by the way one of the reasons why I don't consider socionics as neither Jungian nor of the domain of Psychology. Socionics doesn't deal with the inner world, it can't interpret the content of a subject dreams because dreams are of the domain of the inner world of the subject and again, it doesn't exist in socionics.

As I had said earlier in this thread and a few other means, I do believe that socionics biases unto extroversion, and I believe that is responsible for why some people couldn’t grasp my points, as it requires an introverted, internal spehere of object (not its external interactions) to fathom.

I haven’t really studied Jung, and this should change. But a reason why I prioritize a model like Beebe has largely deal with that not only is it psychologically complex, but it accounts for transient function usage, and I like this idea a lot…

I believe society overlooks the inner life in general, the entire point of my movement is to of this change.. https://www.instagram.com/movingmind...&utm_source=qr

I definitely have not been objective and when I’ve looped into Fi-Si in my cognition, it has resulted a lot that I don’t feel like getting into..

I can describe my internal life in a vast detail, but will save that for a later on time.

[Braingel]

I do think bad ideas should be corrected on principle. But part of it is a process of churning that goes into developing any set of ideas. But why do you come to this website? At least part of it is due to your interest in socionics, right...? Or at least originally that's what drew you here, maybe you lost your interest in socionics over time. Part of why alot of people are losing their interest in socionics is the theory has become a completely incoherent mess. They hear some random new piece of gobbledy-g00k about socionics and they completely zone out since they can sense it's a waste of their braincells. If we're here, and the website is dedicated to socionics... if we're going to be doing it, we may as well do it right. You don't want to spend years of your life talking and thinking about something that is incoherent nonsense, do you? That could warp your brain. Infact... most people on this website probably have portions of their brain previously reserved for some other purpose now dedicated to untangling socionics concepts / imagining the functions, etc.. Not good.

The thing is, this mess, as you call it, are the tidbits that go into something that in later time, would fall into something that would be more functional, and it is the theoretical phase of a science, it isn’t ready to be conducted and needs develop more overtime. This is all theory and speculation and looking for patterns of grasp, making it a philosophical approach. Sure, people take it as absolute truth, and even myself, I can bias into the patterns I perceive.. But these things symbolize real processes, but they aren’t sufficient enough to capture the entirety of one’s essence; their overall make up and internal sphere especially.

Many years from now, these models will build upon and some things will sift around.. The patterns that were grasped can equate to different processes that were mistaken as one or as something non-related to what this tries encapture, but of some other phenomena that occurred and these types of people had of such.

Some of the patterns would verify by science later on in time, and are very much real, are just not verified by the means of science, and something needs not be verified to be real..

[Braingel]

I do think bad ideas should be corrected on principle. But part of it is a process of churning that goes into developing any set of ideas. But why do you come to this website? At least part of it is due to your interest in socionics, right...? Or at least originally that's what drew you here, maybe you lost your interest in socionics over time. Part of why alot of people are losing their interest in socionics is the theory has become a completely incoherent mess. They hear some random new piece of gobbledy-g00k about socionics and they completely zone out since they can sense it's a waste of their braincells. If we're here, and the website is dedicated to socionics... if we're going to be doing it, we may as well do it right. You don't want to spend years of your life talking and thinking about something that is incoherent nonsense, do you? That could warp your brain. Infact... most people on this website probably have portions of their brain previously reserved for some other purpose now dedicated to untangling socionics concepts / imagining the functions, etc.. Not good.

And well, if someone occupies their entire time on these subjects, sure, it can take away from soul development and other areas. I personally don’t; I have made my own spiritual philosophy, I write poems, I study aromatherapy, coming this August, I will be starting a community college yoga certificate program, I study the enneagram, I used to write tons on Quora, but parents took this away… And I never got the money I made from asking questions and they discontinued this program.. I have a lot of theories with dreams, and if I tried explain this, one could take it wrong and ascribe it to schizotypal personality, but I believe dreams can affect physical reality.. I have also started a societal movement and I have some projects I have procrastinated on, and sure, typology has deviated that focus a bit.

Have a long distance boyfriend with plans of marrying one day.. Attend a developmental disability program that’s 3 days a week and concerns art (no, not poems, poetry is my own inborn gift and I am learning about drawing to be able draw symbolical art and allegories— to be able to inspire humanity towards an ideal future and also to be able to express my pain and be seen). The yoga I will eventually possibly work one day a week in a drug rehab and try and get people there on a holistic replacement of their substance use… Improve the state of society and its relations with less divorce and making better able to be parents, car accidents, abuse, arrest, entrap into a dysfunctional medical and mental health system, and indirectly save lives by allowing medical workers and law enforcement to have time for more important things that aren’t preventable like natural disaster, by those I’d reach with my spiritual direction, yoga and aromatherapy in the rehab.. (I am too introverted to do anything beyond once a week, I’d probably have to spend 3-4 hours in a rehab, I am assuming, for different tracks/client groups). And then it will be primarily for my own self and pleasure and then I’ll tie it into enneagram and into my movement and further my mental abilities.

I don’t struggle in time management, though I’m sedentary and procrastinate.

I would consider even working in a prison, but I don’t believe such a holistic welfare exists that would be job, it would be volunteer.

I am going to have a meaningful impact and bring about a better future without reinforcing its (society’s) lame ways of now, what I am averting on is far from mundane.. Is spiritually fulfilling with a life given to higher ideals and depth and loving more in the ideal of heaven.. And there is no loss from indulging typology.

[Metaphor]

It wouldn’t hurt me to delve into Jung so as to be more informed, but as I have explained, I believe there are two types; the external orientation, the digestion process. Sometimes the digestion will lead to a clear-cut behavioral match-up, but I believe it nuances and isn’t of an always case. For instance, I digest with Fi and Ne, but behave more of an Ni and Fe (to where in western socionics I’d more fit beta values).. To truly type well, I believe you need a comprehension of overlapping mechanisms, and then, you need look at the timing themes of the digestion and behavior, to rule out them primary or of transience.

There is no such things as an overlapping mechanism in Jung (denoted as J), only MBTI and Socionics as illustrated on this (outdated) chart below:

[Braingel]

There is no such things as an overlapping mechanism in Jung (denoted as J), only MBTI and Socionics as illustrated on this (outdated) chart below:

What I meant by overlapping mechanisms was psychopathology, and other means that can affect how one appears to process information or of their behavior. This would be far more towards the external/extroverted/objective type, but I can see something like mysticism making someone develop magical thinking that can look Ni or Ne, or something like very heavy sport use that they were forced into in childhood causing someone to appear like they can use Se, or something like autism who has hyper sensitivity to sensory input mirroring Si on mild levels. Typology wasn’t made to account for everything in the psychological and behavioral realm, and inevitably, there will be overlaps, just as there are in other clinical means, for instance, with Ni and because it is less common, psychologists being easily assuming to bias it into schizotypal disorder.

[Braingel]

If typology was to develop more seriously in the future, which it will, there will be a heavy need to know both cognitive and behavioral psychology beyond the scope of typology to ensure that what is being used as a basis to type doesn’t overlap any look-alike variables.

You’d also be able then, to see if any process psychology has captured would actually be typological without knowing, @Metaphor.

Something as a cognitive distortion can most certainly overlap, and it can even be that certain functions in specific placements are more prone in the development of said distortions. Enneagram type would be a large role, but of course, the functions one takes in with inform the emotions, which those bring the realm enneagram captures.

Also, rather than Beebe having no place, I am more inclined to believe that he actually tried to make a behavioral/external system of the internal world, which I don’t like and have critiqued this to be more cognitive in a nature, but with himself promoting extroversive focus with his Ne, it is understandable how he made this error. Typology needs far more introversion within it.

[Braingel]

Imagine a surgeon.. Who only knows one anatomy of the brain, and specifically, also only one procedure. This is essentially how typology is applied in equivalence. If something is amiss; wrong, atypical, or otherwise, there is no way to dissect the person well.. There is no knowledge of other causes that may be resulting in the issue being operated upon, and one is only going by one test, one procedure, one area of looking at.

Add to what I said, that it is equivocal to operating on without having conducted tests and ruled out other areas for the root of the issue, and merely performing surgery upon the area that “seems” to be the cause.

[The Reality Denialist]

There will be no type if you want to dissect them. Emergent potentials bubbling out of human perception is the reason why we may want it in the first place.

[Braingel]

There will be no type if you want to dissect them. Emergent potentials bubbling out of human perception is the reason why we may want it in the first place.

I don’t agree with that, but I believe that extroverts will have a harder time generally typing the dissected/inward parts of the dynamics, and that probably has a lot of reason in why most models are too outwardly focused. At a best, there would be a meeting in-between. But yes, I prefer there to be two types; one of how the person processes and with how the internal life is set up, then the external behavioral and of how one interacts via the outside world.

[Braingel]

What I meant by overlapping mechanisms was psychopathology, and other means that can affect how one appears to process information or of their behavior. This would be far more towards the external/extroverted/objective type, but I can see something like mysticism making someone develop magical thinking that can look Ni or Ne, or something like very heavy sport use that they were forced into in childhood causing someone to appear like they can use Se, or something like autism who has hyper sensitivity to sensory input mirroring Si on mild levels. Typology wasn’t made to account for everything in the psychological and behavioral realm, and inevitably, there will be overlaps, just as there are in other clinical means, for instance, with Ni and because it is less common, psychologists being easily assuming to bias it into schizotypal disorder.

@Metaphor, some can try and correlate pathology and the such to certain ways of function intake and there would be a bit, but I don’t believe it is the only cause. To take it further, I believe pathology would manifest differently across a type, but that type isn’t the only coefficient in why behavior manifests, and that other things such as stress can affect digestion.

[Braingel]

I don’t agree with that, but I believe that extroverts will have a harder time generally typing the dissected/inward parts of the dynamics, and that probably has a lot of reason in why most models are too outwardly focused. At a best, there would be a meeting in-between. But yes, I prefer there to be two types; one of how the person processes and with how the internal life is set up, then the external behavioral and of how one interacts via the outside world.

(Because extroverts orient their focus and intake outward, and the direction of their energy naturally suits to the grasping of external interactions and dynamics, noticing of how things occur between one another, not inside of one or of things). Many have tried type me as an extrovert by *online* behavior (which isn’t even the best to fully type behavior by anyhow), and in terms of how I focus and grasp energy, it is the furthest away from being anything extrovert, which should be very evident in how much I focus inward in my own self and in others, and other subjects.

The pattern is that primarily extroverts aren’t able to understand my ideas and thought process in all of this, with a few exceptions. An introvert like Godslave though, is able to grasp my proposition. I showed an ILI 5 I talk to on messenger who is in the community whom I showed my ideas to, and he also had been able to grasp the premise of my ideas and conclusions..

I perceive that a sensory introvert would more focus on raw, facets of in reality details of things, what is happening, but then compare it into their own database of past accumulated experiences and therefore, it becomes less about reality and how they internalize reality instead. To a point they can actually even become more subjective than an intuitive introvert, because what is based from past and of how one deeply processed the details of reality compared to their own running it through their processing of stimuli via 5 senses and the sensory psychomotor means that triggers this, would make it bias significantly from past conditioning, thereby being far less objective than a more Ni ish theme approach, even though it still isn’t as objective as extroverts.

[timber]

Any organism that has consciousness will have to prune the incoming raw sensory information, then integrate it into its value structure / commit it to long term memory. There's a little more to it than pruning, there's also some interpretation that occurs, the person has to make sense out of what they've perceived, but discussing pruning keeps it simple. I'm basically saying that there's an underlying cognitive process that is universal to all cognitive creatures, and it's within that grounding that we must specify types and styles. I've described some of how this works in the link at the top, you can check it out if you're interested. But I'm sorry to say the very concept of a SEE is a model A concept and is incoherent. So no, it isn't that SEE is performing some Ti pruning, SEE does not really exist. I know that's not something people want to hear, they've spent their lives chasing after these concepts... but it is just undeniably the case. What SEE really means in practice is "person who is basically using Se as their dominant function, but who also has a more ethical bent to them". That concept can be accommodated by a new model (such as the Wheel model, or even MBTI which takes a purely empirical approach), and is a useful concept / works fine in practice... Since socionics is so abstract the underlying incoherence of its ideas may never be noticed and you can just practically / intuitively use them, as many others have done for a long time. But no,.....

I agree by and large, dude/dudette. Still I hope what is being done isn't an attempt to remove ALL categories, (and the factors that make up those categories), because what is even the point of any of it? Its like I go into a wildlife patch and declare "those are trees", turn around and walk back to my truck and drive home. I would't be invited back, given that its my job to use a system, probably more-so a Te type one with Ti under pinnings, in order to describe real, tangible aspects of the trees I'm seeing, such as "broken tops, co-dominant stems, interfused lateral branches, ect". Stating a forest stand is just trees is like, no shit sherlock. What species, what age, what growth aspects, home much fibre volume, ect?In doing so, there ARE unique differences between trees of even the same species, or broad families. So really socionics is kind of the same thing and in my humble opinion a line of best fit is fine, given this is a applied technician type exercise, and never will be exact.

In the same way, I see the functional placements, ego, super ego, ect, as being theoretically "close enough" albeit often hidden, but apparent once you learn the technical application of what is being witnessed, for instance "where is this coming from, ego, super id, ect" and that takes skill and deep understanding of both the human condition and self awareness and questioning.

People in Neo-socionics are going with gradients of a personality, or fuzzy blurred personality types, and I think this is best version. Clearly, people dont all get a long, or they do, or they gravitate, even for a greater or lesser amount of time, and some of that is explained by information metabolism. People also change and grow and develop and use different IEs throughout their life, which just to me means "X" sociotype using "x" IE, and this might be in a conscious sense outside of normal function placement.

In the same way I am constantly surprised by where and how I see tree species growing, for example outside their traditional range and traditional habits. For example a tree growing on a sunny hillside that usually enjoys a cold and wet riparian zone. Regardless, its still that species.

btw, edit: I have personally and purposely made a huge effort offline to break my habit of trying to type people irl. but what i do do is say "thats Si, or thats Fi, or thats Se" and I'm not sure I will ever stop because its kind of how i trained myself over the years, in the same way its nearly impossible to stop reading after you learn to think when you see letters. But really hard and firm personality typings I won't do. BUT I do applaud people who practise it and are good at it and i think a number of people on this site actively are good at it, even if they dont practise it anymore.

If you are going to Debug modal A, all the power to you, but it probably won't be changing how I see people and IEs interacting in real time irl. I'm sorry.

[Exodus]

If someone tells you to jump out of a window, you will obviously be stupid enough to jump.

It's 2024 and no one in their right mind takes Aushra's books seriously. Most have never even read it and did the right thing.

She really had the unfortunate idea of ​​having two rings, mental and vital, and with the help of them she tried to justify duality. But no one has ever seen these rings, simply because they are not there, they do not appear in any way. Now no one in socionics remembers them. The most adequate theories group them into blocks in accordance with how they are used together in certain situations.

It is absurd to try to compare functions from mathematics with functions from another field just because they are called by the same word. Do you even know that words sometimes have different meanings?

Basically this. Augusta's ideas on information flow were speculative and are basically impossible to relate to any actual practical manifestations of type. In practice what we see is blockings.

Not to mention the idea that we have to take Augusta as the everlasting bible of socionics and can't question her ideas without throwing out the whole theory, this is obviously absurd.

If you want something that tries to model finer differences between the "kinds" of IMEs, see here. (I wrote earlier articles with some ideas on "information flow" but they remain speculative.)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I agree by and large, dude/dudette. Still I hope what is being done isn't an attempt to remove ALL categories, (and the factors that make up those categories), because what is even the point of any of it? Its like I go into a wildlife patch and declare "those are trees", turn around and walk back to my truck and drive home. I would't be invited back, given that its my job to use a system, probably more-so a Te type one with Ti under pinnings, in order to describe real, tangible aspects of the trees I'm seeing, such as "broken tops, co-dominant stems, interfused lateral branches, ect". Stating a forest stand is just trees is like, no shit sherlock. What species, what age, what growth aspects, home much fibre volume, ect?In doing so, there ARE unique differences between trees of even the same species, or broad families. So really socionics is kind of the same thing and in my humble opinion a line of best fit is fine, given this is a applied technician type exercise, and never will be exact.

In the same way, I see the functional placements, ego, super ego, ect, as being theoretically "close enough" albeit often hidden, but apparent once you learn the technical application of what is being witnessed, for instance "where is this coming from, ego, super id, ect" and that takes skill and deep understanding of both the human condition and self awareness and questioning.

People in Neo-socionics are going with gradients of a personality, or fuzzy blurred personality types, and I think this is best version. Clearly, people dont all get a long, or they do, or they gravitate, even for a greater or lesser amount of time, and some of that is explained by information metabolism. People also change and grow and develop and use different IEs throughout their life, which just to me means "X" sociotype using "x" IE, and this might be in a conscious sense outside of normal function placement.

In the same way I am constantly surprised by where and how I see tree species growing, for example outside their traditional range and traditional habits. For example a tree growing on a sunny hillside that usually enjoys a cold and wet riparian zone. Regardless, its still that species.

btw, edit: I have personally and purposely made a huge effort offline to break my habit of trying to type people irl. but what i do do is say "thats Si, or thats Fi, or thats Se" and I'm not sure I will ever stop because its kind of how i trained myself over the years, in the same way its nearly impossible to stop reading after you learn to think when you see letters. But really hard and firm personality typings I won't do. BUT I do applaud people who practise it and are good at it and i think a number of people on this site actively are good at it, even if they dont practise it anymore.

If you are going to Debug modal A, all the power to you, but it probably won't be changing how I see people and IEs interacting in real time irl. I'm sorry.

I don't think it's necessarily even a problem if you label or type people in your head like that. I think it's only an issue if it gives you too much angst or it feels like it interferes too much with your daily function or something. And it depends on if you are doing it with a good heart or not. And obviously if you don't go up to people and rape them with it if they don't want to hear about it lol. I don't really see that happening though- much more likely to happen online or in a socionics meeting obviously but not in a normie job like that. You could always lie, it's not any of their business. "Why are you so quiet?" a normie asks. "Oh I was just thinking how you are a LSE asshole businessman type!" I don't think ppl would actually say that, more like they would manipulate and say 'oh just thinking about what weather we're having!' I think the biggest issue is that often in society, there isn't enough of a boundary with people's minds. They want to know what you are really thinking, when it isn't any of their business. (see lady in my avatar)

[Still Alive]

I think every model is ultimatively doomed to fail, as there are just too many variations. one person of a type is going to be super aware of their environment, the next person with the same type is super clumsy. if you only use the 8 functions, you are not going to get anywhere, unless you use the broadest definitions possible, but at that point you are really not going to say much

[Alomoes]

My problem with this stuff is the fact that keep it simple stupid was ignored completely, leading to a bunch of people disagreeing on even basic theory.

[Still Alive]

My problem with this stuff is the fact that keep it simple stupid was ignored completely, leading to a bunch of people disagreeing on even basic theory.

The problem is more that the stuff socionics claims is at odds with actual reality making it a rather useless theory for empiricism which is the most superior scientific method right now