Socionics in the Procrustean bed. Timur's answer from Kaliningrad
I write this answer in public, because I constantly encounter a lack of understanding in the socionic movement of the difference in scientific paradigms that has now been well formed. I simply do not have time to explain the same thing every time. Believe me, I have something to do. Here is another example - Timur's letter from Kaliningrad. Timur agreed with my proposal to receive a public response.
When asking questions about socionic practice, people do not think about the general principles of research, they require detail, forgetting that it is the fundamental beliefs that set the rules for their work and in many respects predetermine the nature of their conclusions. What particulars in the methodology can be discussed if you confess the opposite research program? First, find out if we are on the same road, and then we will discuss the bumps and convolutions on the way to the goal.
Every now and then people turn to me who took something from my work and came to the wrong conclusions. The same data set can be interpreted differently in different paradigms without understanding the coordinate system. I am convinced that such a "blind" science does not bring us closer to the knowledge of the truth.
Dear lovers of socionics, eclecticism is unacceptable in our business! You can not use the tools of the HS, being in the information paradigm.
On a specific example. Timur in the letter suggests that I determined the type of V. Putin according to his texts. If you, Timur, read my books and articles, you cannot but know that priority in the HS is given to visual rather than verbal diagnostics. According to the GE, texts are the least reliable way to determine the type. If the "text-writers" took the structure of the utterance - grammar as the basis for the diagnosis, it can still be understood. But no, they only take content - the vocabulary, which is extremely volatile and polysemantic, dependent on the genre and style, is loosely attached to the type itself.
Arguments from physiognomy and bodily constitution are also unconvincing. I have repeatedly explained and continue to explain during practical courses that there is no direct and unambiguous connection between type and bodily constitution. Psychological level can not be uniquely reduced to the physical. Any physiognomy is secondary. Even twins and twins, whose phenotype is practically indistinguishable to the observer, often have different socionic types. The emphasis should be placed not on the static part of the appearance and the constitution, but on the dynamic patterns. There is a scientifically based distinction between static and dynamic signals. Carefully read at least Paul Eckman's book "Know a Liar by Facial Expressions." And many questions you have will disappear.
The following principal position. In Humanitarian socionics there is no typing. Typing is the placement of an observable object in a type like sorting by cells or cells of a table. I do not sort anyone and do not put it into a type. I recognize the socionic type, and with it other functional properties of the psyche that are no less important than the static type.
At least listen to how this word - “typing” - sounds! Like "castration." Using similar terms, you emasculate the essence of our science. In the GE we do the opposite - we distinguish the type, extract it from the psyche, and do not put it in the “Procrustean bed”. Read more about it here.. One type is still very little to assess the specific person. It is like judging the fate of an entire building only by its foundation. In addition to determining the type itself, the diagnostics also includes the identification of a subtype, accentuated functions, and installation bias. This kind of procedure in the humanities has always been called diagnostics.
The socionics-informationists, themselves not understanding why, introduced into use this clumsy-clumsy term, which does not fit either in semantics or in sound. I have repeatedly discussed this issue with supporters of the information paradigm and realized that they do not care how to call a phenomenon. For the most part, these are people with a mathematical or technical education, and they have no sense of humanitarian terminology. Besides the usual conservatism, I can explain their anti-humanitarian stance only by the long-standing rejection of my functional type names, with which I suggested replacing pseudonyms and absurd nicknames.
But back to the type of Vladimir Putin.
I answer your question, does Putin look like an LSI? Yes, it is very similar to a certain version of LSI. You sent me a number of his photos, which allegedly prove his intuitiveness. But this is just your local interpretation of typical signs. “No, the inward-looking gaze means introversion.” Here is a look at his army photograph and modern. Rate the nature of the look. Based on what did you decide that this is a victim's view? First of all, it is an introvert-logical view. And concentrated in touch. Ask a person with a LSI type who is in a similar state to ask a question to make sure that he has not disconnected and has not gone into fantasy. And you will see that he hears you perfectly and does not lose contact with reality.
However, I'm not going to persuade you. My experience suggests that most people don’t give up their established image gallery. Most likely, this also applies to you. People sit deeply and habitually in their paradigm, not aware of the alternative. I just declare that there is no sense in communicating on issues of diagnostics until we accept the criterion that is the only justified in controversial cases — the systemic behavior of a person in typical situations. So here. Putin's behavior is a good example of a tough, but restrained leader, perfectly adapted for solving “beta” power tasks. And the same opinion of political scientists and psychologists.
And now a few words about the ancestor of the diagnostic method in appearance. I mean Alexander Didenko, who developed this method, starting from Aushra and constantly checking with her. She was the best diagnostician for external data, the first began to write on these topics and speak at conferences. She helped many determine the types of a set of photos. Her conclusions were based on rich life experience, and not on theoretical schemes. How did she work? She evaluated a person comprehensively - by face, figure, posture, even skin, gait, voice timbre and many other criteria. And she always emphasized that in the appearance of a person, in most cases, features of several types, as a rule, of two, intertwine. She began to call these intersections and overlays as subtypes, since I had already introduced this term by that time.
I am glad that my work helped someone to come to socionics. But I am categorically against when they take only the form and fill it with alien, incompatible content. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me alone in the conditions of the domination of informationists and a large number of false ideas about the HS it is difficult to defend the scolded truths.
I have repeatedly convinced that newly-minted lovers of socionics often do not know how to orient themselves in the world of people, because this requires a lot of life experience. It is much easier to operate with coarse patterns. Many perceive the world of socionics so narrowly that they do not even admit the thought that there are some other models besides Model “A”. Nobody explained to them that the model “A” is a working hypothesis, which is yet to be tested experimentally. The myth of duality as a guarantee of happiness is still still in the minds of some socionics.
Due to the uncritical assimilation of the ideas of Aushra, which reached them through the third-fourth hands, and also because of the chaos and inconsistency in the socionic movement, so much quasi-socionics, which is primitive and far from life practice, spread, it seriously threatens the original socionics.
If you want to help me clarify the principles of the Humanitarian Socionics of the intellectual community, please contact, write. I would be happy to contact those who take the liberty to propagate our ideas in different cities and audiences. Homegrown modifications of socionics, and even more so attempts to present them in a wrapper of HS are unacceptable! The amateur stage is long over. It's time to work professionally.
When asking questions about socionic practice, people do not think about the general principles of research, they require detail, forgetting that it is the fundamental beliefs that set the rules for their work and in many respects predetermine the nature of their conclusions. What particulars in the methodology can be discussed if you confess the opposite research program? First, find out if we are on the same road, and then we will discuss the bumps and convolutions on the way to the goal.
Every now and then people turn to me who took something from my work and came to the wrong conclusions. The same data set can be interpreted differently in different paradigms without understanding the coordinate system. I am convinced that such a "blind" science does not bring us closer to the knowledge of the truth.
Dear lovers of socionics, eclecticism is unacceptable in our business! You can not use the tools of the HS, being in the information paradigm.
On a specific example. Timur in the letter suggests that I determined the type of V. Putin according to his texts. If you, Timur, read my books and articles, you cannot but know that priority in the HS is given to visual rather than verbal diagnostics. According to the GE, texts are the least reliable way to determine the type. If the "text-writers" took the structure of the utterance - grammar as the basis for the diagnosis, it can still be understood. But no, they only take content - the vocabulary, which is extremely volatile and polysemantic, dependent on the genre and style, is loosely attached to the type itself.
Arguments from physiognomy and bodily constitution are also unconvincing. I have repeatedly explained and continue to explain during practical courses that there is no direct and unambiguous connection between type and bodily constitution. Psychological level can not be uniquely reduced to the physical. Any physiognomy is secondary. Even twins and twins, whose phenotype is practically indistinguishable to the observer, often have different socionic types. The emphasis should be placed not on the static part of the appearance and the constitution, but on the dynamic patterns. There is a scientifically based distinction between static and dynamic signals. Carefully read at least Paul Eckman's book "Know a Liar by Facial Expressions." And many questions you have will disappear.
The following principal position. In Humanitarian socionics there is no typing. Typing is the placement of an observable object in a type like sorting by cells or cells of a table. I do not sort anyone and do not put it into a type. I recognize the socionic type, and with it other functional properties of the psyche that are no less important than the static type.
At least listen to how this word - “typing” - sounds! Like "castration." Using similar terms, you emasculate the essence of our science. In the GE we do the opposite - we distinguish the type, extract it from the psyche, and do not put it in the “Procrustean bed”. Read more about it here.. One type is still very little to assess the specific person. It is like judging the fate of an entire building only by its foundation. In addition to determining the type itself, the diagnostics also includes the identification of a subtype, accentuated functions, and installation bias. This kind of procedure in the humanities has always been called diagnostics.
The socionics-informationists, themselves not understanding why, introduced into use this clumsy-clumsy term, which does not fit either in semantics or in sound. I have repeatedly discussed this issue with supporters of the information paradigm and realized that they do not care how to call a phenomenon. For the most part, these are people with a mathematical or technical education, and they have no sense of humanitarian terminology. Besides the usual conservatism, I can explain their anti-humanitarian stance only by the long-standing rejection of my functional type names, with which I suggested replacing pseudonyms and absurd nicknames.
But back to the type of Vladimir Putin.
I answer your question, does Putin look like an LSI? Yes, it is very similar to a certain version of LSI. You sent me a number of his photos, which allegedly prove his intuitiveness. But this is just your local interpretation of typical signs. “No, the inward-looking gaze means introversion.” Here is a look at his army photograph and modern. Rate the nature of the look. Based on what did you decide that this is a victim's view? First of all, it is an introvert-logical view. And concentrated in touch. Ask a person with a LSI type who is in a similar state to ask a question to make sure that he has not disconnected and has not gone into fantasy. And you will see that he hears you perfectly and does not lose contact with reality.
However, I'm not going to persuade you. My experience suggests that most people don’t give up their established image gallery. Most likely, this also applies to you. People sit deeply and habitually in their paradigm, not aware of the alternative. I just declare that there is no sense in communicating on issues of diagnostics until we accept the criterion that is the only justified in controversial cases — the systemic behavior of a person in typical situations. So here. Putin's behavior is a good example of a tough, but restrained leader, perfectly adapted for solving “beta” power tasks. And the same opinion of political scientists and psychologists.
And now a few words about the ancestor of the diagnostic method in appearance. I mean Alexander Didenko, who developed this method, starting from Aushra and constantly checking with her. She was the best diagnostician for external data, the first began to write on these topics and speak at conferences. She helped many determine the types of a set of photos. Her conclusions were based on rich life experience, and not on theoretical schemes. How did she work? She evaluated a person comprehensively - by face, figure, posture, even skin, gait, voice timbre and many other criteria. And she always emphasized that in the appearance of a person, in most cases, features of several types, as a rule, of two, intertwine. She began to call these intersections and overlays as subtypes, since I had already introduced this term by that time.
I am glad that my work helped someone to come to socionics. But I am categorically against when they take only the form and fill it with alien, incompatible content. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me alone in the conditions of the domination of informationists and a large number of false ideas about the HS it is difficult to defend the scolded truths.
I have repeatedly convinced that newly-minted lovers of socionics often do not know how to orient themselves in the world of people, because this requires a lot of life experience. It is much easier to operate with coarse patterns. Many perceive the world of socionics so narrowly that they do not even admit the thought that there are some other models besides Model “A”. Nobody explained to them that the model “A” is a working hypothesis, which is yet to be tested experimentally. The myth of duality as a guarantee of happiness is still still in the minds of some socionics.
Due to the uncritical assimilation of the ideas of Aushra, which reached them through the third-fourth hands, and also because of the chaos and inconsistency in the socionic movement, so much quasi-socionics, which is primitive and far from life practice, spread, it seriously threatens the original socionics.
If you want to help me clarify the principles of the Humanitarian Socionics of the intellectual community, please contact, write. I would be happy to contact those who take the liberty to propagate our ideas in different cities and audiences. Homegrown modifications of socionics, and even more so attempts to present them in a wrapper of HS are unacceptable! The amateur stage is long over. It's time to work professionally.
Comments
Post a Comment