Examples of Deltas

[Distance]

ENFP .




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY3NTwgxBkk

Who? ^

[nifl]

Mike Rowe ST

F

[godslave]

This made my day ! We think alike !




Either EII (most likely) or SLI

I think that the real God lives in the heart of those who felt his presence, that's the experience of faith. We are the carriers of the light (Lucifer). The rest is literature.

The human being is called "Insân" (no pun intended) in Arabic. This word has the same root as the verb "to forget" (nisyân). It seems that human beings forgot an essential truth that exist in all living thing and that they need to rediscover within themselves. Maybe that's the meaning of life after all.

Edit : 41:42 to 45:50 - Se PolR red flag. He didn't factor Se as part of the human condition and that natural selection is also the survival of strong and the death of the weak. He didn't factor the fact (!) that humans have to fight other humans over resources whether they like it or not and that conflicts are unavoidable and can lead the destruction of humanity by humanity and that would pertain to natural selection too.

I really like this dude !

[Distance]

IEE

[Sol]

Carol Burnett - seems TN

[Distance]

LSE SLI debate, moderated by ILI.

[Sol]

Vladimir Zamanskiy [15:08] - INFJ

[Sol]

Abella Danger - ENFP


Andrey Popov - ISTP

[godslave]

Dewayne has a "Gabin" SLI sociotype imho.

I've posted one or two of his videos before.I really like his simple yet full of wisdom advises. I agree 100% with his take on Andrew Tate !

[Sol]

Anna Babak (Onliner) - INFJ


Christopher Singh - ENFP

[Park]

Rashida Jones - a rare combo of pretty looks with attractive persona. I always felt very comfortable listening to her talk and perform. Seems ethical and introverted, but I don't know about Se-PoLR, so maybe IEE? Or Fi-EII...

[nifl]

Rashida Jones seems IEI

[Sol]

Rashida Jones - a rare combo of pretty looks with attractive persona

Not rare. Most women noticing with "attractive persona" you'll evaluate as having "pretty look". As most of them have similarly and enough "pretty look" and you just accent the attention on this when also like personality traits (including feminin ones).

> I always felt very comfortable listening to her talk and perform. Seems ethical and introverted, but I don't know about Se-PoLR, so maybe IEE? Or Fi-EII

IEI. Who you should like having possible SEE (semiduality). And would be doubtful for SLI (superego) to evaluate her as "very comfortable".

[Sol]

EII may talk "bad" words.



mb not EII.. hm? I typed her to EII from the start and she seems Fi. but words are really "bad"

[godslave]

EII may talk "bad" words.



mb not EII.. hm? I typed her to EII from the start and she seems Fi. but words are really "bad"

She might be EII with caprolalia or Gilles De La Tourette syndrome

[Sol]

She might be EII with caprolalia or Gilles De La Tourette syndrome

She uses those words on a level common for ones who communicated with "intensive users" from early age, and possibly keeps alike communications. Fi prefer be nice, but this depends from a perception of concrete people.
Video consists of raw materials which were cuted off and not supposed initially for wide public. There she behaves by norms of her long time environment, which became common style for her too. Anyway, looks terribly for EII.

[godslave]

She uses those words on a level common for ones who communicated with "intensive users" from early age, and possibly keeps alike communications. Fi prefer be nice, but this depends from a perception of concrete people.
Video consists of raw materials which were cuted off and not supposed initially for wide public. There she behaves by norms of her long time environment, which became common style for her too. Anyway, looks terribly for EII.

Yes, I know it's a blooper kind of video . I was half-Jocking (I said" half" because EII with Tourette syndrome probably do exist but I don't think this ASMR lady suffers from that condition) !

That said, I think cursing is sometimes more of Si (how the words articulation feels in our mouth, some curse words feels (sensation) good to say), and Fe than Fi . It's cathartic and evacuates the frustration. That said, when she posted that video she was very aware of those curse/bad words, but it seems that it didn't bother her.

I curse a lot in private () and sometimes (but not as often as I used to because I'm really depressed !) I repeat over and over again words or little sentences (usually movies quotes or "you're talking to me?" type of rehearsing an imaginary situation) or part of a song or even instrumental music, just because I like how it feels and sounds to do that. For instance this song keeps turning in my head like a rondo since a couple of days ! I'm fascinated by this guy for some reasons, his videos are funny and he's a great dancer !

[Park]

Jim Brainard (mayor of Carmel, Indiana) seems SLI.

[Sol]

Jim Brainard - ISFP, INFP

cursing is sometimes more of Si

Such terms initially are emotional evaluation of something as "bad", - F. In the form of objective term ("it's ***") - Fe.
Should be more used by Fe valued, due to main form and as people prefer (like more) to see positive emotions in others. So in average, Fi talk more softly and polite by social norms, lesser use "bad" words. As cultural environment of concrete people gives them the understanding of acceptance degree and past experience forms common behavior, this makes some difference among Fi.

> when she posted that video she was very aware of those curse/bad words

Such videos are additional content with supposed "trash". A kind of "trash" was supposed bad words. So there she symbolicly distanced from such talking as mistakes and not appropriate.

> I curse a lot in private () and sometimes (but not as often as I used to because I'm really depressed !)

Behavior difference between types is in average for similar conditions. In the context of "bad" words, the most difference should be in communications with random people.
I see negative tendency among younger people born after 1991. They more and more talk alike being arised in far forrest village full of drunken criminals, which also seems is situated near USA army base as they often replace Russian words by English. Such mix of Russian with English exists on national TV channels, even in official news which should be the "face" - they freak and distort Russian language without practical sense (this distortion is made intentionally as news texts are strictly controlled and who writes them have good cultural education; "agents of influence" to destroy national self-perception and culture). Medias become full of "bad" words too, - still not TV shows (but local movies seen on TV got them many already), - in Internet blogging (and hence among younger part of the nation in general) those more and more are used in common talking, not for exceptional anger.

> I'm fascinated by this guy for some reasons

Brian Michael Hinds mb LII

[fbx]

Blet suka

[timber]

Jim Brainard - ISFP, INFP



Such terms initially are emotional evaluation of something as "bad", - F. In the form of objective term ("it's ***") - Fe.
Should be more used by Fe valued, due to main form and as people prefer (like more) to see positive emotions in others. So in average, Fi talk more softly and polite by social norms, lesser use "bad" words. As cultural environment of concrete people gives them the understanding of acceptance degree and past experience forms common behavior, this makes some difference among Fi.

> when she posted that video she was very aware of those curse/bad words

Such videos are additional content with supposed "trash". A kind of "trash" was supposed bad words. So there she symbolicly distanced from such talking as mistakes and not appropriate.

> I curse a lot in private () and sometimes (but not as often as I used to because I'm really depressed !)

Behavior difference between types is in average for similar conditions. In the context of "bad" words, the most difference should be in communications with random people.
I see negative tendency among younger people born after 1991. They more and more talk alike being arised in far forrest village full of drunken criminals, which also seems is situated near USA army base as they often replace Russian words by English. Such mix of Russian with English exists on national TV channels, even in official news which should be the "face" - they freak and distort Russian language without practical sense (this distortion is made intentionally as news texts are strictly controlled and who writes them have good cultural education; "agents of influence" to destroy national self-perception and culture). Medias become full of "bad" words too, - still not TV shows (but local movies seen on TV got them many already), - in Internet blogging (and hence among younger part of the nation in general) those more and more are used in common talking, not for exceptional anger.

> I'm fascinated by this guy for some reasons

Brian Michael Hinds mb LII

Yeah the world is changing
So scary.

[godslave]

Such terms initially are emotional evaluation of something as "bad", - F. In the form of objective term ("it's ***") - Fe.
Should be more used by Fe valued, due to main form and as people prefer (like more) to see positive emotions in others. So in average, Fi talk more softly and polite by social norms, lesser use "bad" words. As cultural environment of concrete people gives them the understanding of acceptance degree and past experience forms common behavior, this makes some difference among Fi.

I would say "emotional evaluation as something bad" is Fi but there is no appropriate emotional display (Fe) without an appropriate evaluation (Fi). So that explains why feeling types are more controlled and deliberate when they chose to use bad words. We must not forget the psychological "impact"(Se) that bad words and cursing have on people in the public environment, so a combination of Fe+Ni+Se valuing can be more prone to use bad words just for Se purposes i.e to make an impact either psychological (intimidation) or physical (inducing fear and all the physiological dynamics that goes with it).

I would say that SLE might psychologically impact people unconsciously because of Fi PolR but when it want to "intimidate" it's via Se and some Fe whereas for EIE it's more often then not the other way around. EIE convinces and influences people more efficiently because people will embrace its cause willingly out of love, admiration, conviction and even indoctrination. I would say that both SLE and EIE are impact driven, both want to influence things, to change things but the methodology of each is different yet efficient.

Such videos are additional content with supposed "trash". A kind of "trash" was supposed bad words. So there she symbolically distanced from such talking as mistakes and not appropriate.

Yes, but she is also sending the message "it's okay to curse, look at me, I curse too !" so in a way she is opening up more and in a way she reduces the psychological distance between her and the public who watched her videos thus inviting the public to her private sphere (as a reminder as I write this she has 780k subscribers and a total views of 205 million...).

Behavior difference between types is in average for similar conditions. In the context of "bad" words, the most difference should be in communications with random people.

Everybody should know the rudiments of mutual respect and manners, even Fi PolR types. I mean, unless one has a mental pathology one don't use bad words in public. Ignoring the basics of manners pertains to antisocial behaviors and individuals of that sort tends to integrates or create groups of individuals that resemble them both ideologically and behaviorally. Prisons are full of people with antisocial behaviors.

So people who publicly use bad words most likely do so because they are part of a group in which it's valued. Curse/bad words are sometimes necessary to integrate a group, for instance hate group or certain cult like satanism, black mass etc... Sometimes even stuff like tattoos are mandatory to be accepted or as a symbol or mark of integration like for instance in the Yakuza society. Also, remember that the art of acting is of the public sphere and actors and comedians often curse and use bad words in stages, movies etc...

I see negative tendency among younger people born after 1991. They more and more talk alike being arised in far forrest village full of drunken criminals, which also seems is situated near USA army base as they often replace Russian words by English. Such mix of Russian with English exists on national TV channels, even in official news which should be the "face" - they freak and distort Russian language without practical sense (this distortion is made intentionally as news texts are strictly controlled and who writes them have good cultural education; "agents of influence" to destroy national self-perception and culture). Medias become full of "bad" words too, - still not TV shows (but local movies seen on TV got them many already), - in Internet blogging (and hence among younger part of the nation in general) those more and more are used in common talking, not for exceptional anger.

You know, I think that every human being has in him/her a "primal fears" one of those is the fear of ostracization. Sine we are a social species, learning how to consolidate our integration within a group is essential and it acquired at the early stages of our psychic development. Freud called it the constructions of the Super-Ego, the censor, in fact modern neuroscience may have even found its location in the brain. Indeed, I think that there is a direct link between the abstract notion of "super-ego" the anterior cingulate cortex, I think it is essential in the regulation of some of our fundamental psychic mechanisms.

I am willing to admit that there is a part in us like in all mammals (and maybe any living thing equipped with a brain no matter its size) that is not tabula rasa, instincts are the best examples among other things. Archetypical images, thoughts etc... are also encoded in our DNA. Phylogenetic memory is in perpetual actualization and we have almost no control over it beside our own optimization of our survival skills through the generations. But I digress.

Brian Michael Hinds mb LII

[Sol]

I would say "emotional evaluation as something bad" is Fi

bad/good - F general. Fe - objective for anyone, Fi - for you, concrete people

read Jung, as you miss the very basics still. after ~2 years on the site

If some idea seems as contradicting to Jung's basics as definitions of functions (general or their e/i variants) - it's either an expansion (other side of the same) or a mistake.
Augustinavichiute formally claimed not contradicting to Jung. In some hypotheses she seems does. Where it's to Jung's basics - there her ideas mean lesser, the same as from anyone else. Only an experiment has a chance to overwheight. As Jung's basics have good basis in the reason and can be seen on practice.

>

emotionality prevents correct thinking

[godslave]

bad/good - F general. Fe - objective for anyone, Fi - for you, concrete people

When it comes to Fi it is better to talk about attraction/ repulsion or acceptance /rejection rapport between the subject and the object. Good/Bad is the "judgement" part which in the case of Fi is subjective and determinant for TIMs who value it and more so for Fi lead. Incidentally the articulation of the taught "good/bad" is Ti because it's a selection of abstract words to express the corresponding attitude (Fi) and/or emotion (Fe).

Good/Bad according to whom ? Either factors independent from the outside world and subjective (inner world dependent) (Fi) or in accordance to emotional expressions communicated by object (from the outside world). Fe is about emotion, it's interpretative and because the Fe "language" is universal (the term objective here is too general and implies the notion of truth which is not necessarily universally acknowledged, perceived or understood ). One could say that Fe encapsulates at its core a pure (archaic) form of communication. For instance the emotions of a new born baby are interpreted and in case of well developed Fe, well understood. The baby doesn't know if his emotions are appropriate or not, his or her emotions speak for themselves and suffice for the communication with the mother and/or care giver.

Of course the pertinence of FI and Fe Judgement depends on the sociotype and the development of those functions in each individual.

read Jung, as you miss the very basics still. after ~2 years on the site

It is difficult to say that socionics is derived strictly from Jung, as a matter of fact Model A has more of Freud than Jung since the structure and nomenclature aligns more with the Freudian model of Psyche but that's another subject. For instance, in socionics it is rare to find someone talking about the subjective factor and the objective (or emperical) factor as "determinant" to explain the main difference between Introverted and extroverted types. Indeed, Sonionics people (starting with Aushra) have been debating about the refinement of the Jungian definitions of the functions in order to best fit the socionics model for years and years, in fact "IE definitions" is one of the main recurrent topic.

So when you say I still miss the basic, first of all it's not really true and second of all if we go by your standards, a lot of socionics aficionados would fall in the "miss the very basics" category since you established the reading of Jung as the condition to not fall in that category...

Now, Solcionics (I use this term with affection and respect and because it's sounds cool ! ) is neither purely Jungian nor a standard socionics. Your approach seems to be a mixture between Filatova (I don't know for sure but I suspect that you use Model J even if I asked you the question before and you didn't answer) Aushra (esp ITR) and a some Jung. So there are some socionics schools that don't align with Solcionics and, as you often said it, are not "real" socionics including Gulenko 's SHS and WSS (I don't know your position about Ermak's SSS) to name a few. It is difficult for me to get you so I can speak the same language and that's what I've been trying to achieve throughout our discussion which I find very interesting and informative.

I know about Jung, I've read him and still check his work for further understanding. That said, I'm not "smart" and I'm kinda slow, that's true.

>

emotionality prevents correct thinking

I sincerely thought that you were joking about Brian Michael Hinds LII typing. That's the reason of that laughing emoji, as a way to say "I get your joke and it actually made me laugh, thank you for lifting my mood with a positive emotion" (a laugh is most of the time a positive emotion that is incidentally very communicative (Fe)".

EDIT : you edited your post and added this

If some idea seems as contradicting to Jung's basics as definitions of functions (general or their e/i variants) - it's either an expansion (other side of the same) or a mistake.
Augustinavichiute formally claimed not contradicting to Jung. In some hypotheses she seems does. Where it's to Jung's basics - there her ideas mean lesser, the same as from anyone else. Only an experiment has a chance to overwheight. As Jung's basics have good basis in the reason and can be seen on practice.

I agree. However, Jung never meant to establish a classification of type as systematical as socionics, imho he would have rejected Model A and probably thought of it as an aberration, an heresy, a monstrous chimera . When you think about the whole socionics system, it is more similar to the sociology of a beehive than the Jungian psychology esp in SHS with the notion of Social Mission, It's more close to beehiviorism than behaviorism . (I'm kidding of course !!).

[Sol]

neither purely Jungian nor a standard socionics

Jung types (by definitions) + some expansions from Augustinavichiute and MBTI (J/P).
This I understand as "Socionics". As IR work with this approach, - the main what Socionics has.
Mistakes (what contradicts to more basic theory or experience/experiments) are not a part of the typology in its objective sense. Doubtful ideas should not and are not obligate to be used.
I prefer to use what think as reasonable and to see practical results, but not irresponsibly play in baseless and contradicting theories what noobs do and many practitioneers. Among Augustinavichiute's ideas almost all are baseless hypotheses, while from Jung about types are mainly interesting definitions and not his secondary interpretations.
As I'm in borders of main ideas by Jung and Augusinavichiute still, - it's same typology, but in restricted theory variant.

I use types definitions by Jung, at least. So it's "pure" Jung typology. Which is used with secondary expansions, with additional theory as IR, some additional details about variants of functions (which not contradict to Jung's basics) and other.
You could notice that I always say about Jung types and not "Socionics types" or "Type of Informational Metabolism". I do not care much what Augustinavichiute thought about types, I just take what think as useful and apply where think it's useful. In this I follow to common critical thinking and so restrict used ideas, check by individual experience of watching how the theory works. This I do for many years and positively enough to continue.
If you'd look in Socionics books (in Russian language) you'd noticed the similar approach - authors do not oppose to Jung definitions, they cite him as part of types understanding and accept dichotomy tests which mimic MBTI (where are same Jung's definitions, except added J/P). As books authors had an experience to notice that Jung is right. They same do not care much what Augustinavichiute would think about relation of types described by her to Jung types, they just use what find as working.

Your claim that only Fi is about emotional evaluation of good/bad contradicts to Jung. Any author which accepts dichotomies and tests based on them should disagree with you, for example. I did not saw the ones who'd not accepted dichotomies still.
Your strange claim that emotional process as blaming is on Si would be thought the same exotic. Any emotions activate in a body physical processes which can be noticed by S, but it's all secondary. The same emotions may arise imagination and even thinking.
You have a mess about theory of types. Don't understand what is more and lesser important, how things are linked. This leads you to wrong conclusions. It's the problem of lacking good study approach, of normal books and of weak T and seems general lack of responsibility (as you shaw strange problems not only with ideas about Jung typology). Jung and Filatova would help you better, than random sources authors of which mistype themselves to own conflictors and of alike quality.

If you want to get a usefulness from types then you need to think better (instead of emotionality). Then you'll be doing lesser of mistakes in types and will claim lesser of nonsense about the theory.
Your rejection of Jung's definition of functions for Socionics is not acceptable. Until you do this - you are using baseless fantasies with unpredictable consequences and make as senseless to talk with you about types.

bonus

1. "чувствуем своей обязанностью предупредить, что мы ничего не придумывали, а лишь
углубляли и уточняли положения К. Г. Юнга" // "we feel as important to say, that we did not invent anything, but only deepened and clarified the ideas of C. G. Jung" (book by Augustinavichiute "Socionika", 1998, vol.1, p.34; section "Basics of Socionics")
This can be understood that Augustinavichiute was not assured to claim direct opposing to Jung in what are types and what are functions. She preferes to say about another or more detailed view, with minor corrections on _the same_. She says using Jung types as the basis for her ideas, but not about creating another typology. This approach fits to what Socionics became on practice further - a mix of Jung and Augustinavichiute ideas, but not opposing in core theory as functions understanding. Augustinavichiute ideas there on practice were taken as addition to Jung, what means that opposing to Jung's function definition was not thought. The same as were used in books and in practice both Jung's and Augustinavichiute's decriptions for E/I. Augustinavichiute's ideas were supposed mainly as a parallel, but not another to Jung typology. Your rejection of Jung's functions definition is exotic behavior for common Socionics practice. Noobs do strange behavior and ideas sometimes, due to lack of understanding.

2. "Работу нельзя считать законченной. В ней еще много неточностей и противоречий" // "This work cannot be considered as finished. It still has many inaccuracies and contradictions" (book by Augustinavichiute "Socionika", 1998, vol.1, p.33; section "Basics of Socionics")
Augustinavichiute in her book notes that understands her ideas have many(!) wrong places and inner contradictions. With such approach she could reject anything in the said. As supposed her ideas developing from Jung typology (by 1st bonus), the main what could be rejected are noticed contradictions to Jung's definitions for types and other his basics.
The main and only openly pointed contradiction to Jung in popular Socionics texts (as I remember) was the idea about weakest 3rd but not 4th function.

[godslave]

Jung types (by definitions) + some expansions from Augustinavichiute and MBTI (J/P).
This I understand as "Socionics". As IR work with this approach, - the main what Socionics has.
Mistakes (what contradicts to more basic theory or experience/experiments) are not a part of the typology in its objective sense. Doubtful ideas should not and are not obligate to be used.
I prefer to use what think as reasonable and to see practical results, but not irresponsibly play in baseless and contradicting theories what noobs do and many practitioneers. Among Augustinavichiute's ideas almost all are baseless hypotheses, while from Jung about types are mainly interesting definitions and not his secondary interpretations.
As I'm in borders of main ideas by Jung and Augusinavichiute still, - it's same typology, but in restricted theory variant.

I use types definitions by Jung, at least. So it's "pure" Jung typology. Which is used with secondary expansions, with additional theory as IR, some additional details about variants of functions (which not contradict to Jung) and other.
You could notice that I always say about Jung types and not "Socionics types" or "Type of Informational Metabolism". I do not care much what Augustinavichiute thought about types, I just take what think as useful and apply where think it's useful. In this I follow to common critical thinking and so restrict used ideas, check by individual experience of watching how the theory works. This I do for many years and positively enough to continue.
If you'd look in Socionics books (in Russian language) you'd noticed the similar approach - authors do not oppose to Jung definitions, they cite him as part of types understanding and accept dichotomy tests which mimic MBTI (where are same Jung's definitions, except added J/P). As books authors had an experience to notice that Jung is right. They same do not care much what Augustinavichiute would think about relation of types described by her to Jung types, they just use what find as working.

Thank you for your time. You have clarified some points. What you said is sound and I understand your "triage" in terms of keeping what is useful from your point of view (I kinda do the same too). Unfortunately, I don't have access to the socionics literature written in Russian and I'm not a Russian speaker (I only know a few words), on the other hand you are and that makes you useful to me and incidentally I trust you as a good resource. However, you should let people know more clearly about your "approach" or theory variation so that they know it and be less confused.

Your claim that only Fi is about emotional evaluation of good/bad contradicts to Jung. Any author which accepts dichotomies and tests based on them should disagree with you, for example. I did not saw the ones who'd not accepted dichotomies still.

No, I said that the part of Fi that judges the "bad or good" (subjectively) is used to evaluate the "bad or good" of Fe cues.

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego (q.v.)and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a
definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection (“like” or “dislike”).The process can also appear isolated, as it were, in the form of a “mood,” regardless of the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations. The mood may be causally related to earlier conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology amply proves, it may equally well arise from unconscious contents. But even a mood, whether it be a general or only a partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.

[725] Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation. 48 Even an “indifferent” sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation. Hence feeling is a kind of judgment, differing from intellectual judgment in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be. When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect (q.v.), i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process .

Psychological types chapter XI (Feeling) Page 464-465

This might explain why F types are efficient in both vertness and T types with an Feeling IE in the polr position seem the most unbalanced in F domain.

Your strange claim that emotional process as blaming is on Si would be thought the same exotic. Any emotions activate in a body physical processes which can be noticed by S, but it's all secondary. The same emotions may arise imagination and even thinking.

Yes indeed. Any emotional "response" to emotional content (stimuli) induces a physiological reaction. We feel emotions with our body. I don't understand what is exotic in this. it's just human emotions 101. There is a reason why we use the verb "to feel" both to express a sensation and an emotion.

You have a mess about theory of types. Don't understand what is more and lesser important, how things are linked. This leads you to wrong conclusions. It's the problem of lacking good study approach, of normal books and of weak T and seems general lack of responsibility (as you shaw strange problems not only with ideas about Jung typology).

Jung and Filatova would help you better, than random sources authors of which mistype themselves to own conflictors and of alike quality.

Yes, I have the Jung "Collect work" and the Filatova book.

If you want to get a usefulness from types then you need to think better. Then you'll be doing lesser of mistakes in types and will claim lesser of nonsense about the theory.
Your rejection of Jung's definition of functions for Socionics is not acceptable. Until you do this - you are using baseless fantasies with unpredictable consequences and make as senseless to talk with you about types.

bonus

"чувствуем своей обязанностью предупредить, что мы ничего не придумывали, а лишь
углубляли и уточняли положения К. Г. Юнга"
"we feel as important to say, that we did not invent anything, but only deepened and clarified the ideas of C. G. Jung"
(book by Augustinavichiute "Socionika", 1998, vol.1, p.34; section "Basics of Socionics")

This can be understood that Augustinavichiute was not assured to claim direct opposing to Jung in what are types and what are functions. She preferes to say about another or more detailed view, with minor corrections on _the same_. She says using Jung types as the basis for her ideas, but not about creating another typology. This approach fits to what Socionics became on practice further - a mix of Jung and Augustinavichiute ideas, but not opposing in core theory as functions understanding. Augustinavichiute ideas there on practice were taken as addition to Jung, what means that opposing to Jung's function definition was not thought. The same as were used in books and in practice both Jung's and Augustinavichiute's decriptions for E/I. Augustinavichiute's ideas were supposed mainly as a parallel, but not another to Jung typology. Your rejection of Jung's functions definition is exotic behavior for common Socionics practice. Noobs do strange behavior and ideas sometimes, due to lack of understanding.

I don't reject Jung's functions definition. Thank you again for your time, it was very informative.

[Sol]

@godslave

Have added 2nd bonus and some links.

To think Fe is not about good/bad, - by this to reject Jung's definition of functions (even general), to reject dichotomies theory and practice - is serious sin and heresy. You did a step away from the light of truth and holy (in some places) Jung, from Socionics in its adequate and working part.

You say that "Fe" is not about good/bad. Evaluation good/bad is a part of the term "emotions", - emotional evaluation, or ethical evaluation. So, if what you name as "Fe" does not contain an evaluation of good/bad then it should not be named as emotions (F, Feelings) or ethic (ethical functions/aspects, types by Augustinavichiute).
Emotional evaluations for good/bad can be not only about subjective (introverted attitude) - for you and concrete people, but with objective (extraverted) sense too - just "good/bad", as for anyone; other difference: Fi - pulling/pushing to/from something (wishes), Fe - general emotinal/energy state, arousement.
A part of Augustinavichiute's ideas may contradict to Jung's definition for functions. But her intention was other - to describe the same from other side. As in other case she would not mentioned as using Jung typology (check bonus1), Jung functions and info related to them, did not used terms with close sense to Jung's terms. Hence, Augustinavichiute's contradictions to Jung's functions definitions (and to comparable Jung's types basics) are her mistakes (check bonus2) and are not Socionics as she supposed her ideas to be, - as additions, deeper view and _minor_ corrections for Jung's ideas about types.

You need a time to reject your "sin" and then mb to return talking with the ones who does not mistype themselves to own conflictors. Only then you'll be able to understand the words of truth about types. Hard to say how long time, as sometimes the way you've chosen is of no return: to do more mistakes and to rationalize them by more of theory nonsense and of baseless hypotheses.

[godslave]

@godslave

Have added 2nd bonus and some links.

Originally Posted by Sol

2. "Работу нельзя считать законченной. В ней еще много неточностей и противоречий" // "This work cannot be considered as finished. It still has many inaccuracies and contradictions" (book by Augustinavichiute "Socionika", 1998, vol.1, p.33; section "Basics of Socionics")
Augustinavichiute in her book notes that understands her ideas have many(!) wrong places and inner contradictions. With such approach she could reject anything in the said. As supposed her ideas developing from Jung typology (by 1st bonus), the main what could be rejected are noticed contradictions to Jung's definitions for types and other his basics.
The main and only openly pointed contradiction to Jung in popular Socionics texts (as I remember) was the idea about weakest 3rd but not 4th function.

Aushra's Model J (the one Filatova uses in her book ) and latter Model A are incoherent with that of Jung because they mess with the Jungian Psychic structure and the psychological dynamics at work within the psyche, no more no less. That's to me the elephant in the room, when you try to systematize something that by nature can not be systematized as rigidly as a static chart then you unavoidably make mistakes and create problems of which the solution might cause a denaturation of the phenomenon. For instance, the claim that Types do not change is one of the main denaturation and contradiction to Jung's Psychology. Another example is the creation of DCNH (solution) to resolve a socionics incoherence with Jungian Psychology.

This map is MBTI oriented but it does the job as a visual illustration

As you can see the nomenclature is different from that of socionics which uses a Freudian terminology.

The truth is that in Jungian Psychology, "Psychological types" (What you call "Jung Types") do change and that change is expected as the individual journey towards individuation progresses and evolve. To reject that fundamental principle of Jungian psychology is to reject the whole Jungian Paradigm. I use the words "Jung Psychology" because Jungian "Typology" is integrate in it (the psyche as a whole) in a coherent way, if you mess with the "typology" then you mess with the whole psychology. This is why I said in another post that socionics is not pure Jungian (it's some Jung Typology + (Kępińsk + Cybernetics) + Aushra (an economist !)) I hope I made myself clear this time !

/Edit : Response to your Edit

To think Fe is not about good/bad, - by this to reject Jung's definition of functions (even general), to reject dichotomies theory and practice - is serious sin and heresy. You did a step away from the light of truth and holy (in some places) Jung, from Socionics in its adequate and working part.

You say that "Fe" is not about good/bad. Evaluation good/bad is a part of the term "emotions", - emotional evaluation, or ethical evaluation.

No , I didn't say that. I said the part of Fe that judge if an emotion is good or bad comes from Fi. Whether you like or not an emotional display stems from attraction/repulsion to an object (Fi). I substantiated my opinion with Jung quotes.

So, if what you name as "Fe" does not contain an evaluation of good/bad then it should not be named as emotions (F, Feelings) or ethic (ethical functions/aspects, types by Augustinavichiute).

Again, I said that to have an adequate judgement of Feeling both subjective and objective you have to be efficient in both i.e. a Feeling Type. No more no less.

As a reminder, the original name was "Extroverted feelings" but in MBTI it Became Fe and in socionics it's also Fe however the definition added the notion of "Ethics" which is a philosophical notion so Fe is called Ethics of Emotions that should be Ee isn't it ? What is "Ethics" and from what function does it originate ? Why do we instinctively recognize emotions as good or bad (sadness/crying with lament = Bad / Happiness/crying with laughter = Good) ?

/Edit : response end.

Emotional evaluations for good/bad can be not only about subjective (introverted attitude) - for you and concrete people, but with objective (extraverted) sense too - just "good/bad", as for anyone; other difference: Fi - pulling/pushing to/from something (wishes), Fe - general emotinal/energy state, arousement.

I think you misunderstood me

You need a time to reject your sin and then mb return talking with the ones who does not mistype themselves to own conflictors. Only then you'll be able to understand the words of truth about types. Hard to say how long time, as sometimes the way you've chosen is of no return: to do more mistakes and to rationalize them by more of theory nonsense and of baseless hypotheses.

[Northstar]

Nick Fortino, EII

This calmed down my angry mood today again, good stuff.

[Sol]

In Russian From Afar - INFJ

[tardigrade]

The YT algorithm worked its magic on me and I ended up in the Amberverse.
Amberlynn Reid takes so much abuse, the internet is vicious. And the women abusing her don't realize they’re digging their own grave.
Anyway, Amberlynn's ex Becky mb SLI



Amberlynn maybe delta NF

Ohh amberverse.
Yeah Becky will be all quiet, unassuming, easy going and then just say something very direct out of nowhere.

In some way she reminds me of Karl Pilkington who gives delta vibes but idk what type and whether he would actually be one.

[Sol]

"Amberlynn's ex Becky" - mb ISTP
Amberlynn - mb ESTP

Karl Pilkington - INFP

[Rusal]

SLE is not a bad typing and Amberlynn is Beta, yes, but EIE imo. She has built her channel around her type:
-inability to let go of her trauma and tendency to make a display of it.
-constantly 'learning' things about herself that seem obvious to outsiders.
-'artful' exploration of her inner world with journals, like an EIE would be more likely to.
- a return in loop to the starting point/issue.
- great love for self-diagnosis of new disorders.
- a desire to study psychology to learn more about herself.
- at her worst, she appears to prioritize her pain at the expense of everyone's around her (when in more stable periods EIEs are actually more self-sacrificing...but they are in love with their personal drama and sometimes decide bring it up most inopportunely).
- A pattern of recurrent 'new beginnings' that are magically going to change her life her life with the subsequent over enthusiasm (maybe closer to dialectical-algorithmic type of cognition)

Other issues (overspending, for example) possibly respond to underlying problems and cannot be reduced to type.

[godslave]

Tusha Buntin - LSE (?) (he doesn't display an E-J vibe so my voodoo is leaning SLI )

[Sol]

Josmog - INFJ

Tusha Buntin - ENFJ

[nifl]

Ahmed Amin
mb IEE

[godslave]

>Tusha Buntin - ENFJ

This typing actually makes sense as I re-watched the video with that typing in mind. I seriously thought about it but for some reasons my mind kept looking for alternatives to the Beta hints I was receiving. I was probably hoping for my first "Sol approved" typing and that messed up my judgement (??). There is too much confusions, too much styles, too much school of socionics methologies, too much typists in my head, too much noises and contradictions for me to make sense of all of it. It's very hard to synthesis all that and coming up with typing that make consensus because even with the common basis people manage to disagree when it comes to typing. From now on I'll try to make things as simple as I can (which is what I should do !) and injected some "Jeet kune do" in my typings !

[Sol]

Ahmed Amin - ENFJ
Nancy Ajram - mb ISFP

[godslave]

Ahmed Amin and Tasha Buntin have nothing in common whatsoever but their FREAKING SOCIOTYPE !!!

[The Reality Denialist]

Daniel Suelo - EII