The old stereotypes of lsi and eie are often backward

[Disturbed]

Eie is often acts more severe and distant and rigid than lsi and lsi is often warm towards everyone and playful. The old stereotype of lsi always acting a hard ass drill sergeant is wrong and misses the point of the type.

gulenko is one of the best about lsi. His SHS is very accurate and disproves a lot of old stereotypes about lsi. They’re one of the most common types in my native Virginia. Going by model a mistypes a lot of lsi.

[Braingel]

I would agree that the LSI can be playful, but I don’t agree that model G gets EIE and LSI right fully.. Mostly because the dynamics of eie and lsi in the externally focused system that socionics is, implies an adherence to hierarchies and aristocracy, judging as rational, where people are, and this is in my view, the most important dynamic of beta rationality.. Plenty get thrown into EIE and LSI without even having the most important means.

Model G in a way, gets socionics more accurate in that it’s intended be a social role model, being externally focused, but aside from this, I don’t believe it gets a lot right.. Social mission idea is good..

EIE and LSI take roles of arbiters of society (broad, collective), judging where people place, what worth is, laws, etc. betas in general theme this, but the rationals will create the order.. IEI and SLE would more give the ideas/vision and fight to bring them (sle)… Rather than enforce the upholding.. EIE broadcasts and teaches the laws.. And can draw attention to things that can need change (so can an IEI), but the EIE actually pushes out in direct interactions.

I would put gamma rationals as arbiters of things on the micro scale that concern smaller, individual matters.. ESI would be a common social worker taking on individual caseloads.. LIE leading individual businesses and plans..

[Braingel]

Socionics is probably so popular to eie and lsi, because it has all do with broad social placement and its role… Socionics is an extroverted system, and lsi dualizes to it..

I personally am not a big fan of socionics, and perceive things as a flow, with Socionics/social role being the result of intrapsychic and inherent traits that make their own dynamics. Socionics has its place of course, but I focus more on the inside.. Socionics is good for broadening communication and for people with weaker self senses, where they would best place..

Socio measures how objects interact with one another.. It’s pure Fe, Se, Ti.. In a both cognitive and behavioral sense, I believe most people integrated into socionics are cognitively extroverted sensors with some ENFJ’s thrown in there (separate from socionics/behavior/social role).

I believe it best to work with typology as its own organ system, rather than just one system.

[Braingel]

(Don’t mean to make a third comment in a row, no one is just responding to your thread).. Another comment I have is that I feel a lot of model G is enneagram and takes too much in the emotional processing area of personality, which is more in the realm of neurosis and whatnot. To an extent, behavior and social roles can inform from enneagram, because they’re closely tied, but I still do not believe the idea of how positive or negative a person is really determines a social role.

If you look at a role of a surgeon, you’d find many that are cold and ruthless, some that try extend over backwards for their patients with nurturance, some maybe who are concrete artists and just want to hands on deal with anatomy to inspire art forms (Se).. Even roles taken in relationships will have different emotional motives and outlooks that inform into the same role. I believe that roles of types also work like this, where it isn’t clear-cut and there are nuances in the social mission blocks that can make a person with the same role-focus with those, behave entirely different, not even fully matching as G outlined otherwise.

Some of renin belongs with inherent traits (not all of it)..

Model G at least focuses on social roles a lot with social mission.. I like that part, but when it makes it too specific and detailed, with too much of the renin (some of them are core baselines that affect, like democratic/aristocratic, central/peripheral), is where it gets inaccurate, and when dcnh is used to slap-on a mistype.

Model G is so detailed and process-like, but then how G types is very result ish..

If Model G simplified itself to just be pure social role and that is absolutely it, it would be the best model for socionics, probably, since socionics specifically measures external markers of objects and how they interact and where they place.

To an extent process and result type dichotomy is also important, but I believe this dichotomy gets misused a lot, and that certain factors can alter which way someone goes. A person who writes a lot because they’ve been invalidated and gaslit a lot, but still seeks to fundamentally reduce/simplify things is still a result type, just a result type with trauma who developed a pseudo process-like seeming behavior. Or because they have executive dysfunction (for why writing a lot happens), or something like autism fixation..

[Tallmo]

LSI has undifferentiated Fe so the warmth can come from that. EIE with differentiated Fe has to take a certain specific attitude in every situation.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

an example of LSI being playful is shoving a kid in a cage as discipline and laughing about it. im not saying thats good or bad, maybe some kids need it.

also LSI keep making jokes then panicking that im gay cuz my phone has sparkly golden case. i bought the phone from a woman and it came with mostly "female" cases tho i can f with the bling lol. n my sister or mother changed the previous case which was more tranparent and was yellow bc of stains, to the golden one. ion want to bother changing it either.

[Distance]

They are insecure in having broad acceptance and also have Fi as a role, so they do not want to be missed on the harmony spectrum.

It vacillates from hard in the head what is false/true separations, to somewhat adjusting to what they seek. It is more adaptive.

Fe base is controlling the external, EJ style, they are immersed in it, they do not want to be bowled over by the goings on, so they shoot for the equilibrium. What bowls you over, bowls me over, will bowl humanity over, mantra.

[Kill4Me]

Why would your Idea of the essence of a given type be more accurate or correct than that of Aushra or Filatova or Ermak or Gulenko or Bukalov or any socionics pro ?

Don't bother with Aushra. Aushra did nothing significant with either Model A or the Functions. Aushra only combined Kepinski with Jung.

My typings are more accurate because none of those socionists control for other typologies...their typings are relics of a one typology perspective.

[Braingel]

Don't bother with Aushra. Aushra did nothing significant with either Model A or the Functions. Aushra only combined Kepinski with Jung.

My typings are more accurate because none of those socionists control for other typologies...their typings are relics of a one typology perspective.

Well, how I view typology is an organ system of things working together. I believe that inherent traits someone has inform cognition, this informs emotions, these together form beliefs/egoic means, then behavior and social role are the excretion means.

I just believe that most models are trying to entail a different placement with the flow of how stimulus enters a person, relative to how their inherent traits result in the development of their organs.

Most typology systems are short-sighted, and don’t realize the existence of a mental body that has its own natural process..

I do not know who you quoted or if you said that yourself to make a point of..

But if people realized that stimulus goes in a flow, like the human digestion system, I believe that people would more accurately type others.. I also have ideas with a counter-flow with ill health.. For instance, I am an introvert who under extreme stress can seem extroverted in behavior, though the behavior still manifests in a withdrawn way.

My understanding of typology is a rather Ni one, as it concerns how things develop at different points of time internally of an object (introversion).. Most people don’t have good cognitive Ni, I don’t view cognition and social role as necessarily tied altogether, because cognition is how everything internalizes and can possibly inform, but emotional residue, bias, experiences, and belief formation which also result from emotions, which would inform by how one’s cognition internalizes stimulus, and the stimulus that is around them determines what they can feel in the formative years (emotional development).


In G social role, you could argue it as Ni+ naturalism, or an Ni- tracking the past movement, but it is still a future-focus, just starting at the beginning and how it reaches into the end. You can argue it as Ni- Ti+ social mission or Ti- Ni+, but I am not an NT type, and my main social purpose isn’t to make a system, I just saw how things naturally work and realized how people focus on typology isn’t congruent with the natural flow of the psychological entity. I saw the psychological entity and most are blinded to it.

[Braingel]

I see socionics as more likely to be resonant with those who internalize/cognitively process with Se, Fe and Ti. Socionics is based on social dynamics and a sort of rational order.. The social dynamics of the collective can be an Fe focus, and Ti with its ordering.. The rest of it is pure Se, as it is what can observe in the social sphere of external reality, how people look physically, concrete observable behaviors..

It is indeed, a very ISTP/ENFJ (FeNi, TiSe) system.. I would also put it as very ESXP, though with a bit of cognitive Te in its conscious, an ESFP would see practical appliance for use, something that can apply in concrete reality, as their Te is a cognition of how to efficiently manage other external objects. Depending on what social role they have (which has distance from just being purely cognitively informed), they’d take this cognitive insight and externalize it from there..

With exceptions, I believe most people into socionics are TiSe, SeTi, SeFi and FeNi at a cognitive level. Plenty more intuitive types when you get to the actual social role behavior.

You probably have a decent amount of reversed/ shadowed individuals or who get stuck in certain belief phases where it throws up and taints their natural cognitive flow.. And who wouldn’t be these major four types. You also have a fair deal of FiSe natural processes into socionics as well, but aside from inter type relations, there is less resonant with an Fi lead, and other than maybe attachment enneagrammatic cores who doubt their own perceptions (cognition), a confident Fi dom wouldn’t as likely need a system to base their like/dislike distance on, unless unhealthy, and the confidence is a false projection. You’ll see a fair deal of FiSe 6 and 9 cores into socionics who attach on out of emotional comfort.

The reason why you see few Fi (outside of esfp being prevalent) or Si axis cognitive types into socionics, is because socionics is not as compatible with an Si algorithm of subjective sensory impressions or of an Fi dom having to rely on a Ti means of approaching Fi dynamics, because their information processing with Fi is superior to that.

Se and Si types are easily the most common in a cognitive standpoint, but in socionics it gives an illusion to them (Si) being lesser, because Si doms like to go with their own sensoric impressions of people and have a sensory motor algorithm they compare to relative to their experience, making them actually poor typists generally, because it’s only based on what they’ve been exposed to concretely; if they’ve not been exposed to enough and haven’t developed their weaker Ne, they will only be able to type from their own incomplete algorithm that has gaps.

[godslave]

Don't bother with Aushra. Aushra did nothing significant with either Model A or the Functions. Aushra only combined Kepinski with Jung.

A little bit of Jung, a little bit of Kempinski, a little bit of cybernetics is the recipe of socionics Indeed. But Aushra also came up with ITRs and the socion which is a global "sociological" system based on the flow of information between TIMs. And incidentally without Aushra you and I wouldn't have this conversation. Btw, Hi nice to meet you !

My typings are more accurate because none of those socionists control for other typologies...their typings are relics of a one typology perspective.

The phenomenology of psychological Types applies essentially within the paradigm of Jungian Psychology (as "guidelines" in the context of therapy). That is to say that acknowledging the phenomenon as Jung explains it implies the acceptance of Jung's Psychology as a whole to be true or at least believing in its validity from a theoretical standpoint.

Aushra has departed from that paradigm. Her TIMs are structured based on her Model of psyche (it's called Model Augustinavičiūtė !) not that of Jung. Meaning that her conceptualization of the structure of the Psyche is different from that of Jung. As a matter of fact, the concept of conscious orientation is not taking into account in Model A at least not in a Jungian understanding of it. Indeed, there is a bias for extraversion and a quisi-denying of the inner world of the subject which is reduced to one of the domain of Ni information Aspect but even that seems illogical because all information aspects in socionics stems from the real world (the external world). Therefore her TIMs and Jung's Psychological types don't necessarily align.

Cross-typology correlationism is not how one is supposed to assess the socionics type. I mean, if you want to learn to play soccer you don't train in tennis. If you want to be a good Mortal Kombat player you don't train in Tekken ! That doesn't make sense to assume that you are a top player in Mortal Kombat because you trained a lot at Tekken and/or Street Fighter

I don't like correlationism, it's a way of justify a typing in one typing system based on the type descriptions of another ; XYZ type in typing system A correlates to XYZ type in typing system B and typing system C therefore assessing the type of a subject according to one of these typing systems (A,B or C) is enough to deduce the type of the two others. That's not a triangulation but an attempt to correlate types of different typing systems based on descriptions which are depictions of theoretical general behaviors (even if famous people are referenced they are all a unique instances of their elledged type), nothing to do with information metabolism dynamics.

This Isn't control because a) there are asymmetries in cross-typology in terms of numbers of types (enneagram - socionics/MBTI- Jung Archetypes- Jung Psychological Types- Psychosophy) so one has to use subtype descriptions to try to match an already stereotypical TIM description of reference which incidentally implies that one has favored a given socionics pro Type descriptions over another for no other reason than convenience b) again, Model A is not about behavior but most typologies are behavior based. Note that most typology pros who use several typing systems (and charge for each typing separately !) claim that each typing system deals with different layers of the psyche, needless to say that this claim is absolute bs that works only on weak-minded...

Now, you can't say "forget about socionics" and play whatever you think is the more accurate typology. I want to play socionics Model A on SSS not enneagram, not MBTI , not Psychosophy, not Jungian Archetypes ! I say, forget about types descriptions people, and use the Model A to justify your typing in Model A, I mean it's just applied logic...

PS. One proper Model A typing is better than one thousand tag typings...

[Braingel]

A little bit of Jung, a little bit of Kempinski, a little bit of cybernetics is the recipe of socionics Indeed. But Aushra also came up with ITRs and the socion which is a global "sociological" system based on the flow of information between TIMs. And incidentally without Aushra you and I wouldn't have this conversation. Btw, Hi nice to meet you !



The phenomenology of psychological Types applies essentially within the paradigm of Jungian Psychology (as "guidelines" in the context of therapy). That is to say that acknowledging the phenomenon as Jung explains it implies the acceptance of Jung's Psychology as a whole to be true or at least believing in its validity from a theoretical standpoint.

Aushra has departed from that paradigm. Her TIMs are structured based on her Model of psyche (it's called Model Augustinavičiūtė !) not that of Jung. Meaning that her conceptualization of the structure of the Psyche is different from that of Jung. As a matter of fact, the concept of conscious orientation is not taking into account in Model A at least not in a Jungian understanding of it. Indeed, there is a bias for extraversion and a quisi-denying of the inner world of the subject which is reduced to one of the domain of Ni information Aspect but even that seems illogical because all information aspects in socionics stems from the real world (the external world). Therefore her TIMs and Jung's Psychological types don't necessarily align.

Cross-typology correlationism is not how one is supposed to assess the socionics type. I mean, if you want to learn to play soccer you don't train in tennis. If you want to be a good Mortal Kombat player you don't train in Tekken ! That doesn't make sense to assume that you are a top player in Mortal Kombat because you trained a lot at Tekken and/or Street Fighter

I don't like correlationism, it's a way of justify a typing in one typing system based on the type descriptions of another ; XYZ type in typing system A correlates to XYZ type in typing system B and typing system C therefore assessing the type of a subject according to one of these typing systems (A,B or C) is enough to deduce the type of the two others. That's not a triangulation but an attempt to correlate types of different typing systems based on descriptions which are depictions of theoretical general behaviors (even if famous people are referenced they are all a unique instances of their elledged type), nothing to do with information metabolism dynamics.

This Isn't control because a) there are asymmetries in cross-typology in terms of numbers of types (enneagram - socionics/MBTI- Jung Archetypes- Jung Psychological Types- Psychosophy) so one has to use subtype descriptions to try to match an already stereotypical TIM description of reference which incidentally implies that one has favored a given socionics pro Type descriptions over another for no other reason than convenience b) again, Model A is not about behavior but most typologies are behavior based. Note that most typology pros who use several typing systems (and charge for each typing separately !) claim that each typing system deals with different layers of the psyche, needless to say that this claim is absolute bs that works only on weak-minded...

Now, you can't say "forget about socionics" and play whatever you think is the more accurate typology. I want to play socionics Model A on SSS not enneagram, not MBTI , not Psychosophy, not Jungian Archetypes ! I say, forget about types descriptions people, and use the Model A to justify your typing in Model A, I mean it's just applied logic...

PS. One proper Model A typing is better than one thousand tag typings...

It would just be better if people saw that typology/personality is an organ system of cause and effect with stimulus flowing through various alignments of developments and transferring them to different centers when it has digested or moved on.. I have conceptualized typology in this way, and am making my own understanding with it.

I was going to comment about how aushura made it possible to begin with, but it technically was Jung who had..

[Kill4Me]

A little bit of Jung, a little bit of Kempinski, a little bit of cybernetics is the recipe of socionics Indeed. But Aushra also came up with ITRs and the socion which is a global "sociological" system based on the flow of information between TIMs. And incidentally without Aushra you and I wouldn't have this conversation. Btw, Hi nice to meet you !

You mean a lot of Jung, a lot of Kepinski

At the end of the day, she combined Jung with Kepinski and came up with a name "the Socion" (sounds like the name of an 8th grade school dance from the 1950s) and a 12th grade social intelligence/human biology angle she could use to market the ideas of Jung and Kepinski. She's good at marketing general statements about human beings...statements like this " "This is because human psyche uses different ways of processing information. " Nothing spectacular there...its common sense. Humans have different ways of processing information...the whole world already knew that before Aushra said it

Try this. Aushra takes Gordon Ramsey and Bobby Flay and then puts them into one steakhouse and call it the Socion and lots of people from all over the world come to eat there and what do she do, she seats them, she gives them menus and she tells them somebody will be along shortly to take their order and maybe she spends a few minutes at their table bullshitting with them. But they're not there for her...they are there for the meals prepared by Chef Ramsey and Chef Flay.

Likewise, most people didn't come to the "socion" because of Augusta they came because of the reputation and respect they have for the ideas and intellect of Jung and Kepinski. IN the analogy, Aushra is just the hostess...she sat us down at the bar, and I ordered a Jack Daniels with my steak and you drank an Ice Tea and then I said to you, "This Flay-Ramsey steak sauce is so out of this world." And you said "we wouldn't be talking at this table if it wasn't for Aushra"....okay, but she's still just the hostess. She just sat us at the bar...that's it. I would have went somewhere else to eat if there was no Ramsey-Flay steakhouse because i love a good ribeye....I would have went to Ramsey's kitchen or i would have went to Flay's kitchen...steak sauce might not have been as tasty but it was better than any steak sauce by aushra. might not have been discussing the Ramsey-Flay steak sauce with you but probably discussing the Ramsey sauce with somebody else. So yeah, okay, she sat us at the bar, its a miniscule contribution. likewise, she combined Jung with Kepinski and people came for that. She's just a hostess.

The phenomenology of psychological Types applies essentially within the paradigm of Jungian Psychology (as "guidelines" in the context of therapy). That is to say that acknowledging the phenomenon as Jung explains it implies the acceptance of Jung's Psychology as a whole to be true or at least believing in its validity from a theoretical standpoint.

Aushra has departed from that paradigm. Her TIMs are structured based on her Model of psyche (it's called Model A

ugustinavičiūtė !) not that of Jung. Meaning that her conceptualization of the structure of the Psyche is different from that of Jung. As a matter of fact, the concept of conscious orientation is not taking into account in Model A at least not in a Jungian understanding of it. Indeed, there is a bias for extraversion and a quisi-denying of the inner world of the subject which is reduced to one of the domain of Ni information Aspect but even that seems illogical because all information aspects in socionics stems from the real world (the external world). Therefore her TIMs and Jung's Psychological types don't necessarily align.

Cross-typology correlationism is not how one is supposed to assess the socionics type. I mean, if you want to learn to play soccer you don't train in tennis. If you want to be a good Mortal Kombat player you don't train in Tekken ! That doesn't make sense to assume that you are a top player in Mortal Kombat because you trained a lot at Tekken and/or Street Fighter

Wrong...if you are good enough to consistently deliver King's ten hit combo in Tekken chances are you will excel at Mortal Kombat once you learn the moves...its the same reflexes, the same type of button mashing and the same type of situational context...one transitions very well into the other. Soccer and tennis train and use entirely different physical movements....Tekken and Mortal Kombat utilize the same exact physical movements against the same back drop. That's why in billiards the top nine-ball players all perform at an ultra high level in other games of pool like one pocket and straight pool once they learn how those particular games are played and the general strategies and tactics utilized in those games....that's because all those games are played on a pool table using a pool cue and requiring a pool stroke for purpose of execution...which their natural ability and hours on a table make them better equipped to do.

I don't like correlationism, it's a way of justify a typing in one typing system based on the type descriptions of another ; XYZ type in typing system A correlates to XYZ type in typing system B and typing system C therefore assessing the type of a subject according to one of these typing systems (A,B or C) is enough to deduce the type of the two others. That's not a triangulation but an attempt to correlate types of different typing systems based on descriptions which are depictions of theoretical general behaviors (even if famous people are referenced they are all a unique instances of their elledged type), nothing to do with information metabolism dynamics.

This Isn't control because a) there are asymmetries in cross-typology in terms of numbers of types (enneagram - socionics/MBTI- Jung Archetypes- Jung Psychological Types- Psychosophy) so one has to use subtype descriptions to try to match an already stereotypical TIM description of reference which incidentally implies that one has favored a given socionics pro Type descriptions over another for no other reason than convenience b) again, Model A is not about behavior but most typologies are behavior based. Note that most typology pros who use several typing systems (and charge for each typing separately !) claim that each typing system deals with different layers of the psyche, needless to say that this claim is absolute bs that works only on weak-minded...

Now, you can't say "forget about socionics" and play whatever you think is the more accurate typology. I want to play socionics Model A on SSS not enneagram, not MBTI , not Psychosophy, not Jungian Archetypes ! I say, forget about types descriptions people, and use the Model A to justify your typing in Model A, I mean it's just applied logic...

PS. One proper Model A typing is better than one thousand tag typings...

Types have physiological tells and psychological markers. People have the ability to size type up through these expressions and mannerisms. That ability evolved for survival advantages....some people have it more than others. A thousand tag typings if done correctly shows mastery over identifying the core kinesthetic the expressions, mannerisms and also other physical/psychological markers that people do not have any control over which are indicative of type. Proper Model A typings without a basis in physical reality is building castles in the sky.

Any serious researcher in the country knows the importance of introducing controls to increase the accuracy of one's results. The same is equally true in typology...here the control is another typology...enneagram. The socionist mainstream authors don't control for enneagram. That's a major flaw. They have a one typology perspective. Their results aren't as accurate. The enneagram mainstream authors do the same thing. There are currently no authors whose work reflects the integration of a dual-typology perspective. There are no authors who utilize a wholly different typology to serve as a control group for another typology in order to increase the accuracy of both typologies. Stackemup Typology presents the first comprehensive empirically-based unification between two separate and distinct typologies.

[Braingel]

You mean a lot of Jung, a lot of Kepinski

At the end of the day, she combined Jung with Kepinski and came up with a name "the Socion" (sounds like the name of an 8th grade school dance from the 1950s) and a 12th grade social intelligence/human biology angle she could use to market the ideas of Jung and Kepinski. She's good at marketing general statements about human beings...statements like this " "This is because human psyche uses different ways of processing information. " Nothing spectacular there...its common sense. Humans have different ways of processing information...the whole world already knew that before Aushra said it

Try this. Aushra takes Gordon Ramsey and Bobby Flay and then puts them into one steakhouse and call it the Socion and lots of people from all over the world come to eat there and what do she do, she seats them, she gives them menus and she tells them somebody will be along shortly to take their order and maybe she spends a few minutes at their table bullshitting with them. But they're not there for her...they are there for the meals prepared by Chef Ramsey and Chef Flay.

Likewise, most people didn't come to the "socion" because of Augusta they came because of the reputation and respect they have for the ideas and intellect of Jung and Kepinski. IN the analogy, Aushra is just the hostess...she sat us down at the bar, and I ordered a Jack Daniels with my steak and you drank an Ice Tea and then I said to you, "This Flay-Ramsey steak sauce is so out of this world." And you said "we wouldn't be talking at this table if it wasn't for Aushra"....okay, but she's still just the hostess. She just sat us at the bar...that's it. I would have went somewhere else to eat if there was no Ramsey-Flay steakhouse because i love a good ribeye....I would have went to Ramsey's kitchen or i would have went to Flay's kitchen...steak sauce might not have been as tasty but it was better than any steak sauce by aushra. might not have been discussing the Ramsey-Flay steak sauce with you but probably discussing the Ramsey sauce with somebody else. So yeah, okay, she sat us at the bar, its a miniscule contribution. likewise, she combined Jung with Kepinski and people came for that. She's just a hostess.



Wrong...if you are good enough to consistently deliver King's ten hit combo in Tekken chances are you will excel at Mortal Kombat once you learn the moves...its the same reflexes, the same type of button mashing and the same type of situational context...one transitions very well into the other. Soccer and tennis train and use entirely different physical movements....Tekken and Mortal Kombat utilize the same exact physical movements against the same back drop. That's why in billiards the top nine-ball players all perform at an ultra high level in other games of pool like one pocket and straight pool once they learn how those particular games are played and the general strategies and tactics utilized in those games....that's because all those games are played on a pool table using a pool cue and requiring a pool stroke for purpose of execution...which their natural ability and hours on a table make them better equipped to do.



Types have physiological tells and psychological markers. People have the ability to size type up through these expressions and mannerisms. That ability evolved for survival advantages....some people have it more than others. A thousand tag typings if done correctly shows mastery over identifying the core kinesthetic the expressions, mannerisms and also other physical/psychological markers that people do not have any control over which are indicative of type. Proper Model A typings without a basis in physical reality is building castles in the sky.

Any serious researcher in the country knows the importance of introducing controls to increase the accuracy of one's results. The same is equally true in typology...here the control is another typology...enneagram. The socionist mainstream authors don't control for enneagram. That's a major flaw. They have a one typology perspective. Their results aren't as accurate. The enneagram mainstream authors do the same thing. There are currently no authors whose work reflects the integration of a dual-typology perspective. There are no authors who utilize a wholly different typology to serve as a control group for another typology in order to increase the accuracy of both typologies. Stackemup Typology presents the first comprehensive empirically-based unification between two separate and distinct typologies.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Se, but I see you focusing too much from the Se base perspective, my boyfriend, an SLE also has this same issue. He only types me as an IEI out of pure physiological reasons and doesn’t believe anything else but the kinesthetic is real.

Typologies fundamentally represent organs that function together and internalize from an entrance that affects all, but have their own distinctions and aren’t an X is Y, so Y is Z..

More, it is A goes into B, and so on… With isolated random combos of where it starts in a person.. As a continual flow..

[Braingel]

You mean a lot of Jung, a lot of Kepinski

At the end of the day, she combined Jung with Kepinski and came up with a name "the Socion" (sounds like the name of an 8th grade school dance from the 1950s) and a 12th grade social intelligence/human biology angle she could use to market the ideas of Jung and Kepinski. She's good at marketing general statements about human beings...statements like this " "This is because human psyche uses different ways of processing information. " Nothing spectacular there...its common sense. Humans have different ways of processing information...the whole world already knew that before Aushra said it

Try this. Aushra takes Gordon Ramsey and Bobby Flay and then puts them into one steakhouse and call it the Socion and lots of people from all over the world come to eat there and what do she do, she seats them, she gives them menus and she tells them somebody will be along shortly to take their order and maybe she spends a few minutes at their table bullshitting with them. But they're not there for her...they are there for the meals prepared by Chef Ramsey and Chef Flay.

Likewise, most people didn't come to the "socion" because of Augusta they came because of the reputation and respect they have for the ideas and intellect of Jung and Kepinski. IN the analogy, Aushra is just the hostess...she sat us down at the bar, and I ordered a Jack Daniels with my steak and you drank an Ice Tea and then I said to you, "This Flay-Ramsey steak sauce is so out of this world." And you said "we wouldn't be talking at this table if it wasn't for Aushra"....okay, but she's still just the hostess. She just sat us at the bar...that's it. I would have went somewhere else to eat if there was no Ramsey-Flay steakhouse because i love a good ribeye....I would have went to Ramsey's kitchen or i would have went to Flay's kitchen...steak sauce might not have been as tasty but it was better than any steak sauce by aushra. might not have been discussing the Ramsey-Flay steak sauce with you but probably discussing the Ramsey sauce with somebody else. So yeah, okay, she sat us at the bar, its a miniscule contribution. likewise, she combined Jung with Kepinski and people came for that. She's just a hostess.



Wrong...if you are good enough to consistently deliver King's ten hit combo in Tekken chances are you will excel at Mortal Kombat once you learn the moves...its the same reflexes, the same type of button mashing and the same type of situational context...one transitions very well into the other. Soccer and tennis train and use entirely different physical movements....Tekken and Mortal Kombat utilize the same exact physical movements against the same back drop. That's why in billiards the top nine-ball players all perform at an ultra high level in other games of pool like one pocket and straight pool once they learn how those particular games are played and the general strategies and tactics utilized in those games....that's because all those games are played on a pool table using a pool cue and requiring a pool stroke for purpose of execution...which their natural ability and hours on a table make them better equipped to do.



Types have physiological tells and psychological markers. People have the ability to size type up through these expressions and mannerisms. That ability evolved for survival advantages....some people have it more than others. A thousand tag typings if done correctly shows mastery over identifying the core kinesthetic the expressions, mannerisms and also other physical/psychological markers that people do not have any control over which are indicative of type. Proper Model A typings without a basis in physical reality is building castles in the sky.

Any serious researcher in the country knows the importance of introducing controls to increase the accuracy of one's results. The same is equally true in typology...here the control is another typology...enneagram. The socionist mainstream authors don't control for enneagram. That's a major flaw. They have a one typology perspective. Their results aren't as accurate. The enneagram mainstream authors do the same thing. There are currently no authors whose work reflects the integration of a dual-typology perspective. There are no authors who utilize a wholly different typology to serve as a control group for another typology in order to increase the accuracy of both typologies. Stackemup Typology presents the first comprehensive empirically-based unification between two separate and distinct typologies.

And I do believe that the whole.. kinesthetic, aesthetical form of typology that concerns the behavioral output does have patterns with physiology and expressions… But this isn’t all there is to typology, and whilst the entrance dictates what can form in the development of a psyche, where it stores doesn’t cut equally across or how the progressive means do..

[Kill4Me]

Don’t get me wrong, I love Se, but I see you focusing too much from the Se base perspective, my boyfriend, an SLE also has this same issue. He only types me as an IEI out of pure physiological reasons and doesn’t believe anything else but the kinesthetic is real.

Typologies fundamentally represent organs that function together and internalize from an entrance that affects all, but have their own distinctions and aren’t an X is Y, so Y is Z..

More, it is A goes into B, and so on… With isolated random combos of where it starts in a person.. As a continual flow..

Thanks hun, you're advocating for a method of typing that I call the mind-body dualist method of typing. Its like Descartes; the mind and body are split.

I can't accept the compliment. My mind-and-body-as-one approach to typing is actually not exclusive to Se but is more common than I'd like to think. The mind-and-body-as-one viwpoint is that the kinesthetic incorporates both the physical and psychological because the mind and body are one, and I've never seen any big-time socionist not accept the premise that the mental connects into the physiological for purposes of typing, that there is a connection between the mind and body...maybe you'll be the first one. That's a compliment by the way. If you ever think about changing your approach, I want you to know that some mind-and-body-as-one typologers focus more on the physiological markers side of the kinesthetic; others the psychological but its two sides of the same coin .

Don't be hard on your boyfriend. He is not expected to be an expert at typing....his mistyping of you doesn't control the analysis. Probably just needs some brushing up on the physiological distinctions between EII and IEI....he'll figure it out.

[Braingel]

Thanks hun, you're advocating for a method of typing that I call the mind-body dualist method of typing. Its like Descartes; the mind and body are split.

I can't accept the compliment. My mind-and-body-as-one approach to typing is actually not exclusive to Se but is more common than I'd like to think. The mind-and-body-as-one viwpoint is that the kinesthetic incorporates both the physical and psychological because the mind and body are one, and I've never seen any big-time socionist not accept the premise that the mental connects into the physiological for purposes of typing, that there is a connection between the mind and body...maybe you'll be the first one. That's a compliment by the way. If you ever think about changing your approach, I want you to know that some mind-and-body-as-one typologers focus more on the physiological markers side of the kinesthetic; others the psychological but its two sides of the same coin .

Don't be hard on your boyfriend. He is not expected to be an expert at typing....his mistyping of you doesn't control the analysis. Probably just needs some brushing up on the physiological distinctions between EII and IEI....he'll figure it out.

Hm, I would say that I believe that the mind and body connect, but have many other connecting processes that influence a means, and that there are different points of time how information flows in, before there is jointing.. And that relative to those time stop points, there are different types/processes.

If I drew it out, it would probably make more sense…

[Braingel]

Thanks hun, you're advocating for a method of typing that I call the mind-body dualist method of typing. Its like Descartes; the mind and body are split.

I can't accept the compliment. My mind-and-body-as-one approach to typing is actually not exclusive to Se but is more common than I'd like to think. The mind-and-body-as-one viwpoint is that the kinesthetic incorporates both the physical and psychological because the mind and body are one, and I've never seen any big-time socionist not accept the premise that the mental connects into the physiological for purposes of typing, that there is a connection between the mind and body...maybe you'll be the first one. That's a compliment by the way. If you ever think about changing your approach, I want you to know that some mind-and-body-as-one typologers focus more on the physiological markers side of the kinesthetic; others the psychological but its two sides of the same coin .

Don't be hard on your boyfriend. He is not expected to be an expert at typing....his mistyping of you doesn't control the analysis. Probably just needs some brushing up on the physiological distinctions between EII and IEI....he'll figure it out.

So, with what you said.. Imagine a heart, brain and stomach.. All by their own self.. These are their own individual organs, yes? They eventually link together and form an organ system, and that functions as one thing, they have their own shared dynamic and purpose, but each process/organ itself has its own role/function before it synchronizes as one.. Does this make more sense? I am more looking at that course of how stimulus flows through…. Tracking its flow and points of time… That don’t necessarily reflect the same, synchronized process right away..

Why do I believe it matters to look at the numerous organs? People often confuse them and mistype someone out of zooming in too much in one zone or on the behavior, and the behavior is the extroverted/excretion of all the sums… But all the sums mean that it has been changed and evolved along time, and that it isn’t fully reflective of how someone internalizes something at its most raw, as prior developments may impact how this goes on.. The end mean is just the gateway to where cycles continue on, with their internalization of re-following.. Behavior comes out for other life forms to internalize through their own process..

The end result is the extroverted-behavioral domain. I believe it’s valid, I didn’t used to, until I had my own revelation of this… But the introversive, hidden dynamics I intuit through a time flow, I believe matter just as much, for other realms they concern in the conscious and to evolve and have a better and more ideal future and come into the spirit of self. It is just natural in the flow of time, starting to arrive at a finish and repeating of this cycle.. It isn’t so much that I am complicating or adding details, as much as I am noticing a big picture flow of where things go.. It may seem that I am focusing on all the details, but I am seeing something raw in its full image of a simplified dynamic flow. The result of existence is its flow and natural course that sails on through, and that course is the result and narrowed theme, which I am zoning out and grasping.

I am always curious though on feedback of how people interpret me (because I’m social image , so here is my— non last name revealing Facebook with a pic of myself https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8721027&type=3)

I also like when people are warm and address me as something like hun or whatever, feels nice and more genuine. Feels like a bit of a psychological touch.. hm, maybe you were warmer with me because I offered a compliment? Fe EP mirror?

And by the way, I certainly believe the mind and body affect one another and have their whole sum of an organism, but do you not believe the physical and mental are separate, in that the physical body perishes and reaches into the mental-astral one day? Specifically the conscious (body) going into its unconscious underlying creation..

But.. A doctor would need to know the anatomy in which a body part is amiss, not merely the synchronous symptoms that work together to alert where that area is. Both things have their time and place.. Both process and result types exist, and honestly, I don’t even believe renin dichotomy works like a neat law and you can have attributes of both or use them in certain ways.

[godslave]

You mean a lot of Jung, a lot of Kepinski

At the end of the day, she combined Jung with Kepinski and came up with a name "the Socion" (sounds like the name of an 8th grade school dance from the 1950s) and a 12th grade social intelligence/human biology angle she could use to market the ideas of Jung and Kepinski. She's good at marketing general statements about human beings...statements like this " "This is because human psyche uses different ways of processing information. " Nothing spectacular there...its common sense. Humans have different ways of processing information...the whole world already knew that before Aushra said it

I agree, in fact I've already said somewhere in this forum something similar about Aushra. I pointed out that the person who created socionics is an economist and that should be a red flag (or something like that).

Try this. Aushra takes Gordon Ramsey and Bobby Flay and then puts them into one steakhouse and call it the Socion and lots of people from all over the world come to eat there and what do she do, she seats them, she gives them menus and she tells them somebody will be along shortly to take their order and maybe she spends a few minutes at their table bullshitting with them. But they're not there for her...they are there for the meals prepared by Chef Ramsey and Chef Flay.

Nice analogy indeed, it a rather original and entertaining way of explaining what effective Plagiarism looks like.

Likewise, most people didn't come to the "socion" because of Augusta they came because of the reputation and respect they have for the ideas and intellect of Jung and Kepinski. IN the analogy, Aushra is just the hostess...she sat us down at the bar, and I ordered a Jack Daniels with my steak and you drank an Ice Tea and then I said to you, "This Flay-Ramsey steak sauce is so out of this world." And you said "we wouldn't be talking at this table if it wasn't for Aushra"....okay, but she's still just the hostess. She just sat us at the bar...that's it. I would have went somewhere else to eat if there was no Ramsey-Flay steakhouse because i love a good ribeye....I would have went to Ramsey's kitchen or i would have went to Flay's kitchen...steak sauce might not have been as tasty but it was better than any steak sauce by aushra. might not have been discussing the Ramsey-Flay steak sauce with you but probably discussing the Ramsey sauce with somebody else. So yeah, okay, she sat us at the bar, its a miniscule contribution. likewise, she combined Jung with Kepinski and people came for that. She's just a hostess.

Fair enough. It is true that the most attractive and interesting part of her brand theory is just what has been borrowed from Jung (which is just a sample of a very small part his work albeit of major importance) and Kepinski (I haven't heard of him at all before I came to socionics). What she added to socionics (except ITRs (??)) is also inspired by already existing ideas but theses additional parts seems very mediocre compared to aforementioned part that mainly constitute the chimera that is socionics (I've already used the term chimera several times to describe socionics).

Indeed, the Meridian idea (among others) is utter nonsense to me.

According to our hypotheses, the connection between the elements of IM and meridians is as follows:

• : Governing Vessel
• : Stomach Channel of Foot and Spleen/Pancreas* Channel of Foot
• : Bladder Channel of Foot and Kidney Channel of Foot
• : Gallbladder Channel of Foot and Liver Channel of Foot
• : Conception Vessel
• : Heart Channel of Hand and Small Intestine Channel of Hand
• : Pericardium Channel of Hand and Triple Burner Channel of Hand
• : Lung Channel of Hand and Large Intestine Channel of Hand

Source : https://augustaproject.wordpress.com...of-humanity-2/

I mean...

 

Did I mentioned that I also half-jokingly said several time that Aushra was a witch (#Aushra was a witch !).

 

source : https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/socion/

Wrong...if you are good enough to consistently deliver King's ten hit combo in Tekken chances are you will excel at Mortal Kombat once you learn the moves...its the same reflexes, the same type of button mashing and the same type of situational context...one transitions very well into the other. Soccer and tennis train and use entirely different physical movements....Tekken and Mortal Kombat utilize the same exact physical movements against the same back drop. That's why in billiards the top nine-ball players all perform at an ultra high level in other games of pool like one pocket and straight pool once they learn how those particular games are played and the general strategies and tactics utilized in those games....that's because all those games are played on a pool table using a pool cue and requiring a pool stroke for purpose of execution...which their natural ability and hours on a table make them better equipped to do.

Okay, maybe my analogy wasn't that appropriate after all but you got the idea ... I haven't play these video game since a very long time.

Types have physiological tells and psychological markers. People have the ability to size type up through these expressions and mannerisms. That ability evolved for survival advantages....some people have it more than others. A thousand tag typings if done correctly shows mastery over identifying the core kinesthetic the expressions, mannerisms and also other physical/psychological markers that people do not have any control over which are indicative of type. Proper Model A typings without a basis in physical reality is building castles in the sky.

Okay, so you have a pure behavioral approach of typing. It seems to me that you type people exactly like you would determine the name of any other object that is to say by it physical appearance and essential nature. It's very Se through Ne answering the "What is" when your Ne Role informs you only on its potential which is calibrated by default to your type images. This raise the question of the very nature of the phenomenology of Type. What is it exactly ? Your approach (Se / Kinetic / survival chance estimation according to physiology (at the observation point time ! )) is probably the most accurate when it comes to identify them. It's incidentally the opposite approach of the intuitive way (using the force ! (no pun intended)). That said, the down side of this methodes is that one must trust you bro !

The blue part is an excellent example of how Ne role manifests in SLE. Note how the Ne information stems from society norms (referencing to People in general is one of the indicators of information stemming from the Mental Track). Role info always metabolizes accurate depiction of the information element they cover.

Any serious researcher in the country knows the importance of introducing controls to increase the accuracy of one's results. The same is equally true in typology...here the control is another typology...enneagram. The socionist mainstream authors don't control for enneagram. That's a major flaw. They have a one typology perspective. Their results aren't as accurate. The enneagram mainstream authors do the same thing.

There are currently no authors whose work reflects the integration of a dual-typology perspective. There are no authors who utilize a wholly different typology to serve as a control group for another typology in order to increase the accuracy of both typologies. Stackemup Typology presents the first comprehensive empirically-based unification between two separate and distinct typologies

Indeed, but yet again this approach works for you best. I don't like asymmetry ! I reckon that people with HP cognitive style sociotypes tend to prefer your approach though !

Now, I've noticed that most typologists in the community have their typology of reference. For instance for Ben Vaserlan it's Keirsey model (I suspect that he calibrated his Model V based on Keirsey types from which he acquired his originel type images and therefore his bias so to speak) for you it's enneagramm for others it is Jung Psychological types or one specific school of Socionics or Dave Powers's OP etc...

So there is a certain relativity in all this regardless. Personally I prefer to stick to a very simple idea : Each typing system stands alone i.e. a total compartmentalisationist approach. It is more abstract though and that's maybe the down side of it. That said, wouldn't be some kind of typological supremacy to claim that a typology system is more accurate than another when people's own worldview /representation is biased to see object from a certain point of view ?

At the end of day, It all boils down to an universal thinking pattern which goes like "be like me, do as I do, my way or the highway" which we are all guilty of. Some think that people are what they are for all their life and that their essence is limited to the confine of their physiological potential, some others see people as where they are according to their potential development etc. It takes all sort to make a world...

.

[Distance]

I agree, in fact I've already said somewhere in this forum something similar about Aushra. I pointed out that the person who created socionics is an economist and that should be a red flag (or something like that).



Nice analogy indeed, it a rather original and entertaining way of explaining what effective Plagiarism looks like.



Fair enough. It is true that the most attractive and interesting part of her brand theory is just what has been borrowed from Jung (which is just a sample of a very small part his work albeit of major importance) and Kepinski (I haven't heard of him at all before I came to socionics). What she added to socionics (except ITRs (??)) is also inspired by already existing ideas but theses additional parts seems very mediocre compared to aforementioned part that mainly constitute the chimera that is socionics (I've already used the term chimera several times to describe socionics).

Indeed, the Meridian idea (among others) is utter nonsense to me.



Source : https://augustaproject.wordpress.com...of-humanity-2/

I mean...

 

Did I mentioned that I also half-jokingly said several time that Aushra was a witch (#Aushra was a witch !).

 

source : https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/socion/

Okay, maybe my analogy wasn't that appropriate after all but you got the idea ... I haven't play these video game since a very long time.




Okay, so you have a pure behavioral approach of typing. It seems to me that you type people exactly like you would determine the name of any other object that is to say by it physical appearance and essential nature. It's very Se through Ne answering the "What is" when your Ne Role informs you only on its potential which is calibrated by default to your type images. This raise the question of the very nature of the phenomenology of Type. What is it exactly ? Your approach (Se / Kinetic / survival chance estimation according to physiology (at the observation point time ! )) is probably the most accurate when it comes to identify them. It's incidentally the opposite approach of the intuitive way (using the force ! (no pun intended)). That said, the down side of this methodes is that one must trust you bro !

The blue part is an excellent example of how Ne role manifests in SLE. Note how the Ne information stems from society norms (referencing to People in general is one of the indicators of information stemming from the Mental Track). Role info always metabolizes accurate depiction of the information element they cover.



Indeed, but yet again this approach works for you best. I don't like asymmetry ! I reckon that people with HP cognitive style sociotypes tend to prefer your approach though !

Now, I've noticed that most typologists in the community have their typology of reference. For instance for Ben Vaserlan it's Keirsey model (I suspect that he calibrated his Model V based on Keirsey types from which he acquired his originel type images and therefore his bias so to speak) for you it's enneagramm for others it is Jung Psychological types or one specific school of Socionics or Dave Powers's OP etc...

So there is a certain relativity in all this regardless. Personally I prefer to stick to a very simple idea : Each typing system stands alone i.e. a total compartmentalisationist approach. It is more abstract though and that's maybe the down side of it. That said, wouldn't be some kind of typological supremacy to claim that a typology system is more accurate than another when people's own worldview /representation is biased to see object from a certain point of view ?

At the end of day, It all boils down to an universal thinking pattern which goes like "be like me, do as I do, my way or the highway" which we are all guilty of. Some think that people are what they are for all their life and that their essence is limited to the confine of their physiological potential, some others see people as where they are according to their potential development etc. It takes all sort to make a world...

.

I reckon you do not subscribe to IEE as type for yourself.

And strongly that is.

You could think you and "Rick" are EIE.

?

[godslave]

I reckon you do not subscribe to IEE as type for yourself.

And strongly that is.

You could think you and "Rick" are EIE.

?

I don't remember having strongly not subscribed to any TIM as type for myself so far but I take your words for it.

Fellow forumites have typed me SEI, IEE, EII-ish, IEI (of course !), LII (), EIE.

I like to be typed but I keep in mind that these typings are relative to the "type images" calibration of the typist. Without proper demonstration, I can't tell if the person who typed me could really identify my TIM/Sociotype through godslave's posts if that makes sense.

Keep your eyes on the cross !!

As far as I know, Rick is IEE. Maybe I am too . Rumour has it that typology aficionados commonly mistake EIE and IEE for one another...

[Distance]

I don't remember having strongly not subscribed to any TIM as type for myself so far but I take your words for it.

Fellow forumites have typed me SEI, IEE, EII-ish, IEI (of course !), LII (), EIE.

I like to be typed but I keep in mind that these typings are relative to the "type images" calibration of the typist. Without proper demonstration, I can't tell if the person who typed me could really identify my TIM/Sociotype through godslave's posts if that makes sense.

Keep your eyes on the cross !!

As far as I know, Rick is IEE. Maybe I am too . Rumour has it that typology aficionados commonly mistake EIE and IEE for one another...

Is there any contradictions with your polarized view away from HP and being IEE?.

[timber]

Eie is often acts more severe and distant and rigid than lsi and lsi is often warm towards everyone and playful. The old stereotype of lsi always acting a hard ass drill sergeant is wrong and misses the point of the type.

gulenko is one of the best about lsi. His SHS is very accurate and disproves a lot of old stereotypes about lsi. They’re one of the most common types in my native Virginia. Going by model a mistypes a lot of lsi.

See I've never gotten the stereotype and that's because as far as positivists go, LSI is usually the most obvious one. They are usually pro-social, pro-group, pro-getting along. Its looking for that Fe seeking. Doesn't;t matter if they are rebel motorcycle gang members, they are still pro "how are you today? fine thanks for asking!". Politely sociable comes to mind.

[godslave]

Is there any contradictions with your polarized view away from HP and being IEE?.

Do I have a polarized view ? I mean, not being a fan of cross-typology correlationism and kinda attributing it to people with HP cognitive style (without making it exclusive to them), is not enough to qualify me as having a "polarized view".

Now, is it really antinomical to be IEE and having a "polarized view" about the typing approach (let's put it that way !) ? The answer is no and here is why :

In each case only one of the two possible conclusion is true.One of them must be more provable. Otherwise the producing element of the Superego is in danger of splitting in two. The IEE knows that the same thing can be both good and bad, their Ego recognizes relativity in ethics. But logic, for the IEE, is not and can not be relative: the same thing cannot be both correct and incorrect, logical and illogical, except in those rare cases when someone else takes full responsibility for it.

source : https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-iee/

As you can see, the problem stems from Ti PolR and has nothing to do with HP.

An object can not be two things (characteristics) at the same time. An apple is an apple not an orange. A person can not be the carrier of two different TIM/sociotype at the same time. People don't always see types the same way for various reasons. It's a "type images" issue. Indeed, there is a significant part of subjectivity in this and therefore a relativity. This problem renders possible the "two objects being two different things" paradox which induces cognitive dissonance in IEE because it brings contradictory information stemming from the Role Se.

So, for the IEE, what would be the alternative or workaround this issue ? Well, the diplomatic but laborious solution is to calibrate its type images to the perspective of each interlocutor and that has everything to do with HP cognitive style

[The Reality Denialist]

0.5 % of the type representatives are responsible 99.5 % of the type stereotypes.


OK, if I started socionics from.scratch I'd probanly start with archetypes. Personal development and so on.
Then there would some sort of reflection functional view on those and so on. It seems like trampling in the weeds if you start it directly from what aunt Aushra told to you.

[Braingel]

So, with what you said.. Imagine a heart, brain and stomach.. All by their own self.. These are their own individual organs, yes? They eventually link together and form an organ system, and that functions as one thing, they have their own shared dynamic and purpose, but each process/organ itself has its own role/function before it synchronizes as one.. Does this make more sense? I am more looking at that course of how stimulus flows through…. Tracking its flow and points of time… That don’t necessarily reflect the same, synchronized process right away..

Why do I believe it matters to look at the numerous organs? People often confuse them and mistype someone out of zooming in too much in one zone or on the behavior, and the behavior is the extroverted/excretion of all the sums… But all the sums mean that it has been changed and evolved along time, and that it isn’t fully reflective of how someone internalizes something at its most raw, as prior developments may impact how this goes on.. The end mean is just the gateway to where cycles continue on, with their internalization of re-following.. Behavior comes out for other life forms to internalize through their own process..

The end result is the extroverted-behavioral domain. I believe it’s valid, I didn’t used to, until I had my own revelation of this… But the introversive, hidden dynamics I intuit through a time flow, I believe matter just as much, for other realms they concern in the conscious and to evolve and have a better and more ideal future and come into the spirit of self. It is just natural in the flow of time, starting to arrive at a finish and repeating of this cycle.. It isn’t so much that I am complicating or adding details, as much as I am noticing a big picture flow of where things go.. It may seem that I am focusing on all the details, but I am seeing something raw in its full image of a simplified dynamic flow. The result of existence is its flow and natural course that sails on through, and that course is the result and narrowed theme, which I am zoning out and grasping.

I am always curious though on feedback of how people interpret me (because I’m social image , so here is my— non last name revealing Facebook with a pic of myself https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8721027&type=3)

I also like when people are warm and address me as something like hun or whatever, feels nice and more genuine. Feels like a bit of a psychological touch.. hm, maybe you were warmer with me because I offered a compliment? Fe EP mirror?

And by the way, I certainly believe the mind and body affect one another and have their whole sum of an organism, but do you not believe the physical and mental are separate, in that the physical body perishes and reaches into the mental-astral one day? Specifically the conscious (body) going into its unconscious underlying creation..

But.. A doctor would need to know the anatomy in which a body part is amiss, not merely the synchronous symptoms that work together to alert where that area is. Both things have their time and place.. Both process and result types exist, and honestly, I don’t even believe renin dichotomy works like a neat law and you can have attributes of both or use them in certain ways.

The sum total is what is equaled to, the end result, the extroverted/put out behavior of all the processes, but you have no way to know which numbers are used from this alone, you just know the total. To get 23, you don’t know if it is 5+5+5+3+5, or 3+4+6+5+ 5..

It is important to know the numbers, the specific numbers that give that combination..

What I am saying probably sounds very process type, but if you understood the system I am making, it would sound more result type..

Behavior isn’t all there is to someone’s personality, I feel.

Overall, things follow a flow of progression, a sequence.. But there are exceptions. For instance, I believe that feeling types may have their emotional processing center/what enneagram tries represent, go right up into the cognition to an extent..

What someone is trying to figure out of the personality is what matters. If you want a way to broaden communication and find how people function together, the end result, behavioral socionics is by far the most superior for this one… Because it is concerning the interaction of objects.

If I am trying figure out how a person best learns… The extroverted way of typing and focus is way less valuable to focus upon. Who they listen to can determine by their outward inclinations-orientations, but it doesn’t mean they’re actually going to be able to understand that information.

If I were a therapist trying to dissect a person’s core motives and emotions, it isn’t going to work alone to focus on just the behavioral dynamics, which is what way too much of psychotherapists do.

The “equation” to focus on isn’t to just always avert on behavioral. There is a time and place for focusing on all the different individual centers that work together, to even make that extroverted one. It may be easy to think, “behavior is sum of all, so it has all the answers”. It really doesn’t, because behavior has numerous influences and you assume too much with it alone.

The whole end result focus of behavior is way too much a bias of extroversion, extroversion in cognition. It would be more of a result type way of thinking as a simplification, but process types also can get into it who have evolved more into a result ish orientation overtime. It isn’t as if someone is black and white process and result, it’s a matter of when it shows up and how it is applied and its quantity. What someone’s default devoid of pressures altering it.

A good analogy I have is that doctors have different speciality areas they zoom in on. A doctor who is trained in general is versed in all domains, sounds kind of like what Kill4me aims for.. But they have a vague awareness of it and would be more likely to conflate things that stem from other processes.

With my math analogy.. If someone had a let’s call it an ascending organ instead of one that doesn’t, and you can’t know this through the sum total, and you assumed it wasn’t, how would you diagnose accurately? Know how to look in that organ as well or of indications..

With the whole extroverted model, people wake way too many assumptions of the inner life that they can’t even see and track, not even focusing on the right means that give away where someone’s inside orients. I would say I am quite skilled at accessing the inside in terms of pattern. Because I am autistic with theory of mind issue, sometimes I struggle with perspective taking outside of my own interpretation.

[Distance]

Do I have a polarized view ? I mean, not being a fan of cross-typology correlationism and kinda attributing it to people with HP cognitive style (without making it exclusive to them), is not enough to qualify me as having a "polarized view".

Now, is it really antinomical to be IEE and having a "polarized view" about the typing approach (let's put it that way !) ? The answer is no and here is why :



As you can see, the problem stems from Ti PolR and has nothing to do with HP.

An object can not be two things (characteristics) at the same time. An apple is an apple not an orange. A person can not be the carrier of two different TIM/sociotype at the same time. People don't always see types the same way for various reasons. It's a "type images" issue. Indeed, there is a significant part of subjectivity in this and therefore a relativity. This problem renders possible the "two objects being two different things" paradox which induces cognitive dissonance in IEE because it brings contradictory information stemming from the Role Se.

So, for the IEE, what would be the alternative or workaround this issue ? Well, the diplomatic but laborious solution is to calibrate its type images to the perspective of each interlocutor and that has everything to do with HP cognitive style

To keep this simple godslave, in my first quote is like you sound like you did not relate to it. Like not involved in it, or with it, like you stand away from it. Like "them people over there in HP."

That is the sentiment read. Usually people will say yeah, i do relate in this way, but... not in a divorcing sentiment statement.

Hence my query.

So, do you relate to Ti PoLR and do you relate to IEE the best?

I think i know the answer, but if you feel like you do, shoot: for the record.

[godslave]

To keep this simple godslave, in my first quote is like you sound like you did not relate to it. Like not involved in it, or with it, like you stand away from it. Like "them people over there in HP."


That is the sentiment read. Usually people will say yeah, i do relate in this way, but... not in a divorcing sentiment statement.

Hence my query.

Indeed, I try to speak from a detached point of view, like an observer. It is true that my relation (or lack thereof) to TIMs is a bit unusual for a socionics forum member. Like I said somewhere here, I don't have typical socionics discussion as if TIMs were an obvious phenomenon of the real world and that might seem confusing. Some forumites probably see me as a heretic but that's fair enough...

So, do you relate to Ti PoLR and do you relate to IEE the best?

I think i know the answer, but if you feel like do, shoot: for the record.

[Kill4Me]

I agree, in fact I've already said somewhere in this forum something similar about Aushra. I pointed out that the person who created socionics is an economist and that should be a red flag (or something like that).



Nice analogy indeed, it a rather original and entertaining way of explaining what effective Plagiarism looks like.



Fair enough. It is true that the most attractive and interesting part of her brand theory is just what has been borrowed from Jung (which is just a sample of a very small part his work albeit of major importance) and Kepinski (I haven't heard of him at all before I came to socionics). What she added to socionics (except ITRs (??)) is also inspired by already existing ideas but theses additional parts seems very mediocre compared to aforementioned part that mainly constitute the chimera that is socionics (I've already used the term chimera several times to describe socionics).

Indeed, the Meridian idea (among others) is utter nonsense to me.



Source : https://augustaproject.wordpress.com...of-humanity-2/

I mean...

 

Did I mentioned that I also half-jokingly said several time that Aushra was a witch (#Aushra was a witch !).

 

source : https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/socion/

Okay, maybe my analogy wasn't that appropriate after all but you got the idea ... I haven't play these video game since a very long time.




Okay, so you have a pure behavioral approach of typing. It seems to me that you type people exactly like you would determine the name of any other object that is to say by it physical appearance and essential nature. It's very Se through Ne answering the "What is" when your Ne Role informs you only on its potential which is calibrated by default to your type images. This raise the question of the very nature of the phenomenology of Type. What is it exactly ? Your approach (Se / Kinetic / survival chance estimation according to physiology (at the observation point time ! )) is probably the most accurate when it comes to identify them. It's incidentally the opposite approach of the intuitive way (using the force ! (no pun intended)). That said, the down side of this methodes is that one must trust you bro !

The blue part is an excellent example of how Ne role manifests in SLE. Note how the Ne information stems from society norms (referencing to People in general is one of the indicators of information stemming from the Mental Track). Role info always metabolizes accurate depiction of the information element they cover.



Indeed, but yet again this approach works for you best. I don't like asymmetry ! I reckon that people with HP cognitive style sociotypes tend to prefer your approach though !

Now, I've noticed that most typologists in the community have their typology of reference. For instance for Ben Vaserlan it's Keirsey model (I suspect that he calibrated his Model V based on Keirsey types from which he acquired his originel type images and therefore his bias so to speak) for you it's enneagramm for others it is Jung Psychological types or one specific school of Socionics or Dave Powers's OP etc...

So there is a certain relativity in all this regardless. Personally I prefer to stick to a very simple idea : Each typing system stands alone i.e. a total compartmentalisationist approach. It is more abstract though and that's maybe the down side of it. That said, wouldn't be some kind of typological supremacy to claim that a typology system is more accurate than another when people's own worldview /representation is biased to see object from a certain point of view ?

At the end of day, It all boils down to an universal thinking pattern which goes like "be like me, do as I do, my way or the highway" which we are all guilty of. Some think that people are what they are for all their life and that their essence is limited to the confine of their physiological potential, some others see people as where they are according to their potential development etc. It takes all sort to make a world...

.

Behavior, eh....that's too loose of a term to describe my approach. Behavior in a broader social context has no relevance to type. For example, if somebody runs for president, that doesn't speak to me about their specific type. If a dictator decides to engage in mass murder, that doesn't speak to me about their specific type. The person's kinesthetic is contained within any general behavior but also always present and consistent throughout all different kinds of behavior by that same individual...its more the things people do instinctively that they don't necessarily have any control over. the kinesthetic nuances behavior in a way that 16 different types can engage in similar general behaviors and still be distinguished typologically.

Call it non-dualistic. Okay, my approach to typing is non-dualistic. I don't do mind-body split. The mind and the body are not split. The brain dies with the body. Every neuroscientist in the country knows that. Every psychologist in the country assesses mental state by looking at a person's body...their vibe...their instinctive expressions. The actual words that come out of a person's mouth carries the least significance of their mental state. Same applies with typology. You don't need to know what spanish actor Luis Zahera is saying to know his type. Functions are processing information. They are mental state. Types are mental state. They express instinctively.. Mind and body are one, so your socionics type has a ripple effect on your physiology. You can't have a lead function and that lead function not be represented through some aspect of your physiology.

Socionics and enneagram are the two typologies to control for because they have such a significant effect on results when either one is controlled for with the other. I could do a 3rd and 4th typology but its not giong to really move any typings. The effect would only be miniscule. With socionics and enneagram, you need to know both to accurately type in one and know them beyond just a superficial understanding of one with a strong understanding of the other. That goes back to what I said at the beginning. Mine are more accurate than the "pro socionists" and also the enneagram authors. Both camps are respectively stuck inside their one typology perspectives. They have business interests. They have money interests.

The old view is one typology. Stackemup Typology turns that into two typologies, one type list. The empirically based unification of two major typologies is a landmark event. Asestrivex tried it years ago but failed. I got it right and it is right. The non-dualistic method of typing is the best approach to typing for two very good reasons, 1 is accuracy and 2 is pragmatism....its more practically effective in the real world to be able to figure out a person's type in a relatively short time. There are negotiations. There are persuasions. There is business, management, leadership. Speed counts. The old model of the old intellectual with the bifocals and goatee sitting in his cavern spending months working out a proper model A typing with his socionics compendium book by his sides....those days are gone. Its the modern era.

[godslave]

Behavior, eh....that's too loose of a term to describe my approach. Behavior in a broader social context has no relevance to type. For example, if somebody runs for president, that doesn't speak to me about their specific type. If a dictator decides to engage in mass murder, that doesn't speak to me about their specific type. The person's kinesthetic is contained within any general behavior but also always present and consistent throughout all different kinds of behavior by that same individual...[???] its more the things people do instinctively that they don't necessarily have any control over. the kinesthetic nuances behavior in a way that 16 different types can engage in similar general behaviors and still be distinguished typologically.

Okay but apparently your method of "distinguishing typologically" is based on how people behave and correlate said behaviors to Enneagram types behavioral descriptions. That's enough to qualify your approach as behaviorist.

Call it non-dualistic. Okay, my approach to typing is non-dualistic. I don't do mind-body split. The mind and the body are not split. The brain dies with the body. Every neuroscientist in the country knows that. Every psychologist in the country assesses mental state by looking at a person's body...their vibe...their instinctive expressions. The actual words that come out of a person's mouth carries the least significance of their mental state.Same applies with typology. You don't need to know what spanish actor Luis Zahera is saying to know his type. Functions are processing information. They are mental state. Types are mental state. They express instinctively.. Mind and body are one, so your socionics type has a ripple effect on your physiology. You can't have a lead function and that lead function not be represented through some aspect of your physiology.

That's very close to SHS which has a rather behaviorist approach to socionics. But a lot of what you are relying on here are just obvious state of facts. But you are also bending the rules of socionics, keep in mind the cybernetic component of socionics which makes it very different of other typologies. Socionics is basically reverse engineering the human mind through Model A, TIMs have more to do with AI than psychology in that sense.

Besides, the Mind-body split in Model A socionics is debatable. Indeed if you look at the description of the Mental-Vital track, you'll see that Aushra talks a lot about the organism and physiological phenomenon happening in the Vital track. The Mental being the conscious thought processes and the vital being the unconscious physiological processes (the body). One can say that there is no split since TIMs encompasses both Mental and Vital tracks.

Socionics and enneagram are the two typologies to control for because they have such a significant effect on results when either one is controlled for with the other. I could do a 3rd and 4th typology but its not giong to really move any typings. The effect would only be miniscule. With socionics and enneagram, you need to know both to accurately type in one and know them beyond just a superficial understanding of one with a strong understanding of the other. That goes back to what I said at the beginning. Mine are more accurate than the "pro socionists" and also the enneagram authors. Both camps are respectively stuck inside their one typology perspectives. They have business interests. They have money interests.

I fully agree with the bold part ! But once again, it seems to me that your understanding of the phenomenology of types is based on comportment. It's like seeing the carrier of the type as an object that does things it's a Te Se approach, it seems to me that the "People are what they do" expression is a t the core of your understanding of types. But fair enough, like I said before, your typing approach is probably coherent and accurate albeit relative.

The old view is one typology. Stackemup Typology turns that into two typologies, one type list. The empirically based unification of two major typologies is a landmark event. Asestrivex tried it years ago but failed. I got it right and it is right. The non-dualistic method of typing is the best approach to typing for two very good reasons, 1 is accuracy and 2 is pragmatism....its more practically effective in the real world to be able to figure out a person's type in a relatively short time. There are negotiations. There are persuasions. There is business, management, leadership. Speed counts. The old model of the old intellectual with the bifocals and goatee sitting in his cavern spending months working out a proper model A typing with his socionics compendium book by his sides....those days are gone. Its the modern era.

Non-dualistic eh.. Fair enough Kill4Me, fair enough !

[Braingel]

It’s just that there is a time and place to treat the body as one functioning entity, and another time to isolate the components of the body… Where you are typing someone in their anatomy is going to affect whether you should split it or treat it as one whole.. It is just people choose the wrong times and go black and white one way or other..

When making a diagnostic, you need focus on the whole entity it encompasses, so as to not misconstrue secondary processes from its source, but you still need to to that source, the epicenter of it. The body functions as one, yet each individual component has its own function that shares the end goal to serve as a unit and help to survive, and for a mind, to learn and evolve stimulus into one’s own entity..

Possible reasons for why others may not factor in the right time and place may have do with weakened cognitive Ni… Maybe they’re an attachment enneagram core who attaches unto a system that is anti Ni, and out of belief formation and valuing a less cognitive Ni means, latch on.. Maybe it is on pure intelligence.. Maybe it is a stress mode taking one from inherently good Ni use on a cognitive level..

[Braingel]

I to an extent understand the whole physical classification; animals have their own species and diverse marks, even prey animals tend have eyes on the side so as to be able to watch for predation, predators a straightforward gaze to track and lack unto preyed unto subject..

I do not dispute that there is a truth in physiology with cognition, and I believe eye movements specifically may indicate means, but the time of when they happen matters; it isn’t as if someone who is emotionally processing is as much engaging their cognitive center as much emotionally. If they are in a thought process, this may say means..

However, I would never rely on physical means to type. More it is of importance to me, to look at not only the timing and development of function use, and their emotional connections of how they conjure reactions, but of what someone is inherently able to understand by a pattern— by a pattern to rule out a manual, artificially through experience acquired understanding. And this would also show if someone was in a transient block state.

My main suggestion/constructive criticism to you, @Kill4Me is that there is a time and place for both applications. I am not here saying your method is wrong, I am saying that the timing in which you use it isn’t fully accurate.. I am here only to help point it out to help improve.. Maybe you’ll like my feedback, given I am a 4D Ni..

And that the timing is when someone shows markers also truly matters. People develop overtime or use different functions in stress modes.. For one thing, looking at the development of a person overtime in pictures and videos is of better, but there has to be a pairing of a cognitive means.

I do believe that someone’s looks and appearances can completely divorce from their internal state in some cases… The whole adage, “resting bitch face”, some can be the most gentle people on the inside, maybe you’d try say that serious Quadra and IEE and EII fit that more, but I don’t believe it’s an isolated phenomenon and can have more than one dynamic of cause.

Then you’ve things like autism (my diagnosis), where it doesn’t even show on the face. Clearly, it’s apart of my neurology, and whilst they are finding a few patterns with eyes and facial means, there aren’t really set physical markers for autism (other than awkward body language and expressions)… You can’t just see that someone has a chronic pain disorder either..

There is a time and a place to focus on how physiology correlates to personality, it would engage a lot of the processes that are closer to the extraction of a psyche. To an extent, you may be able to track eye movements with cognition, they go in the direction they’re thinking or something.. But this method isn’t even reliable if you are only looking at a person in one point of time, when they could’ve developed a specific way.. Not all eye movements happen because of cognition, they can happen from emotional center as well, and whilst cognition does inform emotions, there are different core centers (enneagram) a person can develop for a given type..

I am a 4 core, I can have scowling a lot when I am processing things emotionally— a frustration core outlook.. I can smile more when I am focusing on my ideal fantasy in a slight way.. These things wouldn’t represent my cognition, other than maybe a feeler of you pay attention to the times I do after I think about something and the after result, of what is prompting it with what’s registering in me.

I do believe the physical plane can access into the cognition, after all, there are physical processes communicating between things. It is just with me as an intuitive, it isn’t my default mode, and I really don’t believe it is the most reliable means, probably because of my 4D Ni, I perceive the developments of things and see how people can develop physical means.

If I am measuring how a person is able to understand information, how well, or how poor, it would be the wrong time to avert upon physical markers, it would be better to ask questions and probe responses to see where someone’s strength and deficit lie in the understanding of those informational means.

If I am emotional and in need of consolation from another.. It would be wrong of them to make pure speculations on how I am feeling, just from how I look, telling what is wrong, they’d have to probe inside to excavate my upsets and communicate.. This is especially true with my asd, which results in differential expressions to begin with.

If I come into a doctor, and they make an assumption of my diagnosis based upon how I look— unless it’s a very specific ailment where only that means causes that physical reaction, it is going to be wrong to diagnose me just based on appearances; you’re going to have to go inside— test things inside of me or look and access in there, to make the confirmation.

If someone is suspect for a crime, just because they’ve a more brash personality and look guilty with an expression of such, and a vulgar, harsh face.. It would be wrong to assume them the one culpable, or even if they were, that they were in the mindset, internal space to be able to hold fairly accountable for their wrong-doing.

Without Ni— the averting upon themes throughout time that reveal the development of how something has come to be, the Se method to type is an incompletion, or it is used at times where it isn’t accurate to focus into this metric.

[Braingel]

When things mix in, this is where Se becomes less and less reliable, especially without the Ni to discern the times that help to indicate the accuracy. You can often tell where someone’s ancestors is from looks, but from an extremely mixed gene pool, you wouldn’t be able to grasp a full picture.

And my main stance for it being limited is that internal essence isn’t just the byproduct of cognition, and especially without a cognizance of timing— when cognitive functions reveal in, or how they can develop a show of, it makes for a lesser likely the person is in the possession of those functions strong from mere looks and behavior.

All of these functions exist with reasoning, each have their own place and time when they are better, and yes, indeed, Se will have its own truth into typing. I believe Si is the least suited function for typing; an algorithm of subjective experience and internalization, Se is an objective function concerning observations and detail of dynamics happening in reality.

[Kill4Me]

Okay but apparently your method of "distinguishing typologically" is based on how people behave and correlate said behaviors to Enneagram types behavioral descriptions. That's enough to qualify your approach as behaviorist.

Incorrect. Behavior and kinesthetic are distinct. Kinesthetic is looking at physiological data, including movements and expressions which are occuring at a micro, instinctive level -- beyond that which a person is exerting conscious control over. Behavior is different.


I am not so much correlating enneagram with socionics....that's a simplification. I am not saying IEI correlates with type four and calling it a day. The fact is enneagram authors are confusing Ni Fe for what they call "essential depth" of type four. Likewise, socionics authors are confusing competency triad for what they call Te Ni. There are many more examples of these confusions that have been occurring because of the one typology handicap. In determining enneagram type, I am controlling for socionics types, and in assessing socionics types, I am controlling for enneagram type. As a result, my typings are far more accurate. Eurrent enneagram authors only utilize a one typology perspective. They do not control for socionics type. This handicaps their ability to accurately type. On the socionics-side, current socionics authors only utilize a one typology perspective. They do not control for enneagram type. This handicaps their ability to accurately type.


That's very close to SHS which has a rather behaviorist approach to socionics. But a lot of what you are relying on here are just obvious state of facts. But you are also bending the rules of socionics, keep in mind the cybernetic component of socionics which makes it very different of other typologies. Socionics is basically reverse engineering the human mind through Model A, TIMs have more to do with AI than psychology in that sense.

You don't want to use AI to type. AI sucks. AI is very limited in its ability to type individuals because it has no way of observing physiology/kinesthetic. People can control modify and script the words they speak. However, they have no control over the ripple effect that psychological preferences have on physiology. ChatGPT admits as much:

“You're correct; as an AI, I lack the capability to observe physiology and behavior directly. My assessments are based solely on the text and information provided by users, and I do not have access to non-verbal cues, body language, or other physiological data that might inform a more comprehensive understanding of an individual's personality type.”

Besides, the Mind-body split in Model A socionics is debatable. Indeed if you look at the description of the Mental-Vital track, you'll see that Aushra talks a lot about the organism and physiological phenomenon happening in the Vital track. The Mental being the conscious thought processes and the vital being the unconscious physiological processes (the body). One can say that there is no split since TIMs encompasses both Mental and Vital tracks.

It's not debatable at all. Every neurologist in the country knows that the mind and body are physically connected. The brain dies with the body. Brain injury damages mind. Every psychologist in the country assesses mental state through observation of a patient’s kinesthetic. The plain, blunt fact is that mind and body are connected.

I fully agree with the bold part ! But once again, it seems to me that your understanding of the phenomenology of types is based on comportment. It's like seeing the carrier of the type as an object that does things it's a Te Se approach, it seems to me that the "People are what they do" expression is a t the core of your understanding of types. But fair enough, like I said before, your typing approach is probably coherent and accurate albeit relative.

No idea what you got that from... Just because psychological preferences have a ripple effect on physiology and this produces physiological data which is essential for typing, it doesn't follow that my understanding of the types is that people are what they do. Its my method of typing, to obtain clues about psychological preferences from physiological data. i don't assume that because somebody flips hamburgers at mcdonalds thats the extent of who they are because that is what they are doing....that hasn't been my position at all.

Non-dualistic eh.. Fair enough Kill4Me, fair enough !

...

[godslave]

...

Okay but apparently your method of "distinguishing typologically" is based on how people behave and correlate said behaviors to Enneagram types behavioral descriptions. That's enough to qualify your approach as behaviorist.

Incorrect. Behavior and kinesthetic are distinct. Kinesthetic is looking at physiological data, including movements and expressions which are occuring at a micro, instinctive level --beyond that which a person is exerting conscious control over. Behavior is different.

Oh come on !

There is a slight contradiction between the red and the blue part did you catched it ? Se Ego (and to a certain degree Te ego too) are consciously aware of Kinesthetic informations about objects (and incidentally that of themselves) I mean, you can look at it ! You make it sound like a superpower.

I am not so much correlating enneagram with socionics....that's a simplification. I am not saying IEI correlates with type four and calling it a day. The fact is enneagram authors are confusing Ni Fe for what they call "essential depth" of type four. Likewise, socionics authors are confusing competency triad for what they call Te Ni. There are many more examples of these confusions that have been occurring because of the one typology handicap. In determining enneagram type, I am controlling for socionics types, and in assessing socionics types, I am controlling for enneagram type. As a result, my typings are far more accurate. Eurrent enneagram authors only utilize a one typology perspective. They do not control for socionics type. This handicaps their ability to accurately type. On the socionics-side, current socionics authors only utilize a one typology perspective. They do not control for enneagram type. This handicaps their ability to accurately type.

Okay, I hear you and I understand your point. That said, why an Enneagram author or typist should care about socionics types ? Likewise why would a socionist care about Enneagram types ? these are completely different typologies. They are standalone / closed circuits systems. They product different perspectives on the phenomenology of types. Enneatypes and Sociotypes have almost nothing in common. The only data one can use as a "control factor" are descriptions and the fact that each typology descriptions provide profiles that overlaps and thus create commonalities which can be exploited by cross-typology correlationists. That's the control you are talking about, no more no less.

Now, here is the problem. I remember that some people asked Dr.G why some of his typing are so different that what is commonly admitted in Model A ? Like for instance, most people would associate Dostoevsky with EII but Dr. G typed him EIE, the same type as the fuhrer ! Dr. G said, that of course the types we determine with Model G and SHS method are (or might be) different from Model A, why they shouldn't ? They are different Models afterall ! And that precisely the issue here !

You are assuming that the phenomenology of type is universal and that each type depicted in each typology has its equivalent 1:1 even if there is a numerical asymmetry between Enneagram (9 core types) , Psychological types (8 core types), socionics (16 core sociotypes), psychosophy (24 types)... Using subtypes subterfuges is unavoidable in this endeavor to square circles.

You don't want to use AI to type. AI sucks. AI is very limited in its ability to type individuals because it has no way of observing physiology/kinesthetic. People can control modify and script the words they speak. However, they have no control over the ripple effect that psychological preferences have on physiology. ChatGPT admits as much:

“You're correct; as an AI, I lack the capability to observe physiology and behavior directly. My assessments are based solely on the text and information provided by users, and I do not have access to non-verbal cues, body language, or other physiological data that might inform a more comprehensive understanding of an individual's personality type.”

Yes, I agree about not using AI for typing. Although let's face it, that day will come (and the art of good prompting can orient ChatGPT, some very specialized AI can read facial expression and observe physiology and behavior accurately !). I'm skeptical about the "personality" type. Indeed, all this types are mere NPC not real people with personalities regardless of the typology. But fair enough.

No idea what you got that from... Just because psychological preferences have a ripple effect on physiology and this produces physiological data which is essential for typing, it doesn't follow that my understanding of the types is that people are what they do. Its my method of typing, to obtain clues about psychological preferences from physiological data. i don't assume that because somebody flips hamburgers at mcdonalds thats the extent of who they are because that is what they are doing....that hasn't been my position at all.

Okay, fair enough. That said, the down side of your method (and the ripple effect thing) is, like I told you in another post, that it assess the physiology of a person at a given point in time. If you try to type a very sick SEE in his 30's who have cancer and looks like skin and bones in the hospital, would the ripple effect be still reliable ? If you can only obtain semantic information to assess his type, would your typing be still accurate ? If you don't know what he did and could do before he got sick ? If his friends and family don't give you biographical information about him ?

Anyway, I think I'm going to start a thread about the phenomenology of type. What is it ? For God's sake !

[youfloweryourfeast]

I was stalked by an LSI and I tried to hide under the stairs but she would often find me. It was usually beta sts who would be grabbing students, chasing me and this EIE into the restroom, people were throwing rocks outside and my hand got broken ect., and maybe since I'm Se polr it was really stressful for me bc I didn't know how to deal with it. They made us go outdoors to these cabins to sleep in and would take students phones away, sometimes grabbing them out of our hands. It was something we had to do along with going to the school itself. We had to usually hide our personal belongings so they wouldn't try to take it. So yeah often there were a lot of rules being enforced...

For me majority of my schools administration often were beta sts not really the students though. I realized this when I was in one really bad school what the situation was after I left. But for me personally, it was mostly teachers doing harmful things to students. I analyzed this situation a lot. I wonder if maybe you are mixing up some of the EIEs who did bad things with other types, who are possibly much stronger in Se and Ti, and Te.

I agree tho that you say some lsis can be more warm coming off. I guess since EIEs are negativist Fe valuers. Tbh, I have mostly clashed more so with my EIE relatives since they wanted to be on top of everything too much. The people who were very interactive or talkative in class were usually EIEs, which was well a lot of my classes but I usually got along most of my classmates. So I wonder if your getting a little mixed up in your perspectives.

[youfloweryourfeast]

Yes.