Differentiation of the systemic levels of the psyche as the main problem of social diagnostics
Report V. V. Gulenko at the 21st Conference IIA
September 17, 2005, Kiev
What is a system?
There is no doubt that the psyche is a systemically organized object. However, different researchers put in the concept of "system" non-identical content. Therefore, there is a need to anticipate further calculations with an understanding of the consistency that the humanitarian school uses. Usually, the system is determined either through the structure or through emergent, that is, irreducible to the structure, qualities. Both of these classes of definitions are true in their own way; moreover, they complement each other. However, technocratic schools are more inclined to the system as a structure, while humanitarian schools work with the system as an entity with new qualities.
So, under the system, I will understand the set of parts, coordinated functioning for solving problems of survival. Combining into a system is advantageous due to the synergistic effect, that is, collective multiplication of forces. Remember the parable of the father who taught his sons to stick together and vividly supported his words by breaking the broom. A solid broom does not break even a strongman, at the same time, the individual rods from which it is connected are easily broken. Do not forget the downside of consistency. As soon as it becomes easier to survive alone, the system disintegrates by itself - it breaks down into separate elements.
The second feature of the understanding of the principle of system in humanitarian socionics is as follows. A real, not a theoretical system is impossible without subsystems. That is, combining elements that interact with each other more closely than with other elements of the same system. Thus, in practical terms, the system should distinguish at least three hierarchical levels, namely: system - subsystem - element.
In social and humanitarian practice, the task of distinguishing system levels is particularly difficult. How to determine where the action of the subsystem, and where - the whole system? The difficulties are connected with the fact that the communicative processes are of a fractal nature. Fractality is an organization where parts are like the whole. Other in other words, the mental subsystems are arranged in the same way as the large system itself - the psyche as a whole. As a result, the personality is structurally and functionally similar to its subpersonal components. This leads to a completely logical question: what, in fact, do diagnose “flat” socionics - is the person as a whole or is it one of its subpersonalities?
As we see, the multiplicity and intertwining of the human “I” generates a serious diagnostic problem, the essence of which is in the separation of the type-structures containing the content of the type-structures. We are talking not only about establishing a subordination between them, but also about the nature of the subordinate connections (how firmly they are fixed). In our case, the level distribution is “soft” rather than “hard”. For humanitarian systems, unlike technical systems, this is the norm rather than the exception. Therefore, the communicative structures with which socionics are dealing are of a very amorphous, indistinct character.
Subpersonality, pushing the person into the background, for some time even able to take a dominant position in the psyche, thereby generating a hybrid entity. Moreover, individual subpersonalities tend to compete with each other for the right to shape the behavior of the entire personal system.
Although the question I raised about the fractality and the multi-layered nature of socionic objects is very relevant, but there are no constructive proposals for resolving the crisis. It is no longer possible to hush up this problem, and supporters of “flat” socionics changed tactics: they are increasingly turning to a counterattack under the slogan “you simply cannot figure out the types”. And the one and the other are the attempts to get away from the problem, instead of realizing it and starting to solve it.
What do self-assessment tests reveal?
Socionics now use such tests, where a person evaluates himself. I believe that, at best, self-assessment tests, even if they were built and conducted correctly, do not reveal the type itself, that is, the system itself, but a subtype - the leading psychological subsystem. But even if a person was evaluated by his acquaintances or colleagues and their assessments were somehow averaged (such a procedure is, of course, more reliable and objective), all the same, instead of the deep type, the leading subtype would often be revealed. Why?
First of all, because the person is aware of what is working at the moment. And this is just a characteristic of the subsystem. The system as a whole is non-local, that is, not tied to this place and this time. It is as if spread over the entire communicative space in which the person was before, is now and will be in the future. Non-local structures are poorly understood, perceived as a secondary background.
A subtype cannot be identified with a mask based on artificial role-playing behavior. The actor not only realizes his mask, but also arbitrarily changes it. A mask is another additional layer of personality that builds on an already existing relatively stable subtype. The type variant is formed not at will, but under the pressure of circumstances by natural selection. In the book [1], I suggested calling such an artificially created purely superficial complex - a mask a communicative model.
Experienced socionics are adjusted in relation to the reliability of self-testing critically. Trusting self-diagnosis, from my point of view, is the same as believing advertising. For a more objective assessment of the goods, independent services are created that do laboratory tests or interview consumers. But in the socionic movement, unfortunately, there are no expert organizations that are independent of competing schools to track the quality of diagnostic services.
Multi-level systems from other areas
3.1. Technical analogy
In radio engineering and telecommunications, it is necessary to separate the modulating signal from the carrier frequency, and that, in turn, from the noise that is always present in the communication channel. This procedure is called demodulation. It is in many respects similar to the diagnosis of a sociotype. The object of diagnosis can be compared with a modulator, and the diagnostician himself can be compared with a demodulator. Technicians use special equipment for this procedure, with the help of which the problem of demarcation of signal levels is successfully solved. Not so in the social and humanitarian fields. Reliable "equipment" is not created here. Type and its variant are closely "grown together" among themselves. And the degree of “noise” of communication channels is much higher.
As part of this analogy, it turns out that the type is “coded”, as it were, hidden in its subtypes. The subtype is thus its carrier frequency. The task, therefore, is to restore the original type-structure by removing all shells and later layers from the original core. At the same time, as already mentioned, the diagnostician itself acts as a psychological demodulator. And in order to cope with the task of “getting to the bottom” to the deepest level, the diagnostician himself must be a difficultly organized and integral person. If its system “dimension” (the number of personality levels) is lower than that of the person being diagnosed, then an error cannot be avoided.
3.2. Administrative analogy
In this area, we are dealing with a hierarchical chain "Constitution - law - a by-law act." The Constitution is the most stable part of the legislation, it is similar in its role to the deep psycho type. The laws adopted within the framework of the constitution are similar to subtypes - a sustainable set of behavioral strategies in major life situations. And, in addition to the laws, bylaws are already specific strategies of behavior through which the law is implemented. And now think for yourself: what influences the life of a particular person more - the constitution or by-laws?
As you know, in Ukraine they intend to conduct an administrative-territorial reform. Here are two key points. First, the hierarchy of the system becomes three-level: a community (community) - a region - a region. In fact, the system is four-level, because it is necessary to take into account the highest hierarchical level - the country as a whole. Second, the boundaries of the administrative unit are not made to the size of the territory, but to the number of the population. And this indicator is changing. Will this not lead to the fact that within the boundaries of one district people will begin to encounter different traditions and mentality?
The diagnostic problem here, as we see, is not limited only to the bureaucratic separation of powers between different levels of government. Clearly everything looks only on paper. In reality, we have a strong resistance of the lower levels, for the sake of which, supposedly, this reform is being carried out.
If Ukraine is divided into 33 regions, then this corresponds to the socionic scale of two subtypes within one type (16 x 2 = 32). Perhaps it would be better to have 64 administrative units of the average level (four subtypes within a regional type).
3.3. Computer analogy
Everyone who uses a computer knows the following hierarchy of its levels: Iron - operating system - application program. Let's compare the structure of the psyche with these levels.
The “iron” part of the computer, in my opinion, corresponds to the type itself. This hard ware is a solid product. Hardness is understood not so much as the property of the material itself, as the fact that the computer architecture cannot be changed by software. This fully corresponds to the position of socionics that a person cannot change his type by psychological methods.
Next comes soft ware - a soft commodity, as computer scientists call software. It is divided into operating system and application programs. The operating system plays the same role as the subtype in the common space of the individual. It is subject to change, although it is a rare event. This happens under the pressure of some extraordinary factors. And finally, a behavior strategy is a specific computer program that the user works with. Replacing such a program in the order of things does not cause any special difficulties.
3.4. Linguistic analogy
From the point of view of its existence and functioning, such a means of communication as a natural language has a well-defined hierarchy of system levels. Here it is: a literary language - a dialect - a jargon.
A literary language as the core of the language of a nation or nation really functions only through a whole set of historically established dialects characteristic of a particular locality. First of all, it is noticeable in the pronunciation, which is usually referred to as accent. It turns out that a subtype is a kind of accent, a local variant of the general psychological type.
However, this linguistic differentiation does not end there. This or that professional or social stratum of people imposes additional, even narrower features on the dialect. This is how an even “lower” linguistic layer is formed - jargon. And he is the easiest to change. An intellectual, having spent some time in the proletarian environment, if desired, easily mastered the crude jargon adopted there. I think that many of you have seen the reverse transition - “bringing up a commoner”. The same principle “the more materially embodied, the more susceptible to change” works.
Diagnostic methods
The current socionics are well acquainted with two competing diagnostic methods that have practically acquired the status of separate paradigms:
Diagnosis through rasto identification: implies a neutral approach, an outside view.
This is an analytical, left-hemispheric method, it works with individual signs of the object to be diagnosed; in the special literature it is also called nomothetic,
Diagnostics through identification: it is based on the requirement to feel the other as yourself, to look at the world through its eyes.
This is the right hemisphere mode, it works with the object being diagnosed as a whole; the term used for it in special literature is ideographic.
And if technocratic socionics recognizes only the first, nomothetic method (the second it considers unscientific, because it is weakly formalized), then humanitarian socionics relies on a combination of the first and second. By the way, such famous personality researchers as K. Leongard [2] or A. Kempinski [3] used the synthetic method as the main one.
The same struggle of approaches has long been observed in medicine. As you know, in the West, our medical practitioners are very appreciated. Why? One of the reasons is that they have a good knowledge of synthetic diagnostics: they carefully study the history of the disease, they can listen, tap, test the patient. And put the correct diagnosis without complicated analyzes and calculations of survey data. A standard “western” type of diagnosis specialist, devoting a minimum of time to listening to the medical history and examination, sends the patient to computer diagnostics or difficult (and expensive!) Tests. This is the triumph of the nomothetical, truly "scientific" approach. But I do not think that a very likely victory of the diagnostic paradigm of the Western model will lead socionics out of crisis.
The fact is that neither the first nor the second paradigm does not exhaust the problem of delineating personal levels to the end. I believe that the solution to the problem of separating a type from a subtype should be sought in two main ways.
1. Since the type is “spread out” throughout the communicative volume, and in fact we deal only with its derivatives — with certain behavioral strategies that are controlled by a subtype, then in order to get “primitive,” it is necessary to integrate human behavior either over time place.
Time integration is the study of a person’s biography. From all of his personal history, only those patterns of behavior that have not changed for a long time are taken to establish the type. In the interview technology that I developed, a separate series of questions is provided for this.
Integration by place: the study exposed examples of human behavior in different places and at different communicative distances. The constant of personality is taken into account, which is manifested both at home and at work, and among friends, and alone with himself.
This path is rather slow and scrupulous. It is better combined with analytical, element-by-element diagnostics. Although a combination with a synthetic approach is also possible, but the result is not so convincing.
2. Another quick way. Its essence consists in a sharp increase in the energy load on the type, which leads to the acceleration of all psychological processes. In an unpredictably tense situation, conscious control becomes ineffective. The subtype as if “flies” without sustaining the load, and the type itself begins to act. The interview is done in a special way: a large number of unpredictable questions are asked at a fast pace.
Thus, from the point of view of the interaction “diagnostician - diagnosable”, I distinguish 4 fundamentally different diagnostic styles (in particular, interviewing):
Two extreme styles:
Slow analytical
Fast synthetic.
If the first is brought to the point of absurdity, then we will receive the respondent’s many hours of exhausting thousands of small questions. If you profane the second one, then we will get “labeling” with the argument “I see it so”.
And two medium styles, on which the humanitarian school is oriented:
Fast, but analytical (our first priority)
Slow but synthetic (our second priority).
Each school of socionics, although it tries to master all methods of diagnosis, inevitably leans towards one or two of them, namely, those that it has got better. I take the liberty of asserting that this process proceeds according to the same laws as distinguishing the two leading functions of the psyche.
In this way, the diagnostics crisis, starting in the theoretical field (the psyche as a diagnostic object - flat or multilevel?), Is transferred to diagnostic technologies and leads to the fact that socionic schools, fighting for a place under the sun, crowd out each other. That only on hand to opponents of socionics!
None of the four diagnostic styles is absolute and absolutely true. Truth is attainable only with equal dialogue between all styles. As a result of this dialogue at the same time the question of winners and losers is removed. How do I imagine such a dialogue?
The first scenario: "With open cards"
School representatives sit round the table and hold 4 rounds of negotiations to agree on a diagnostic hypothesis. The first round is chaired by the extreme analytical school, the second is by the moderate analytical school, the third is by the extreme synthetic, etc. After the fourth round, if no consensus is reached, they are replaced by new representatives of the same schools, and so on, cycle by cycle. However, the dialogue of such density is possible only when schools start trusting each other and are not afraid to put their technologies on public display and continue to play openly. Unfortunately, this scenario still has little chance for implementation.
The second scenario: "Without trust"
The schools, based on the results of their diagnostics, regularly make a specific forecast with respect to the consistently chosen object of diagnosis in the expected situation. After the event has taken place, a working group of independent experts decides whose prediction was closest to the actual behavior of the object under study. In this way, a rating of diagnostic schools. The dynamics of this rating for a certain period, for example, for a year, is discussed during socionic conferences.
Literature:
Nomothetics / ideography. Dictionary of psychological terms.
Leonard K. Accentuated personalities. - K .: High School, 1989, p.24.
Kempinsky A. Knowledge of the patient. - Minsk: Your. Sc., 1998, p. 16 - 27.
4. Gulenko V.V. Socionics for the head. - Book 2. Basics of Socioanalysis: Method. Recommendations. - K .: MZUUP, 1993, p.49.
September 17, 2005, Kiev
What is a system?
There is no doubt that the psyche is a systemically organized object. However, different researchers put in the concept of "system" non-identical content. Therefore, there is a need to anticipate further calculations with an understanding of the consistency that the humanitarian school uses. Usually, the system is determined either through the structure or through emergent, that is, irreducible to the structure, qualities. Both of these classes of definitions are true in their own way; moreover, they complement each other. However, technocratic schools are more inclined to the system as a structure, while humanitarian schools work with the system as an entity with new qualities.
So, under the system, I will understand the set of parts, coordinated functioning for solving problems of survival. Combining into a system is advantageous due to the synergistic effect, that is, collective multiplication of forces. Remember the parable of the father who taught his sons to stick together and vividly supported his words by breaking the broom. A solid broom does not break even a strongman, at the same time, the individual rods from which it is connected are easily broken. Do not forget the downside of consistency. As soon as it becomes easier to survive alone, the system disintegrates by itself - it breaks down into separate elements.
The second feature of the understanding of the principle of system in humanitarian socionics is as follows. A real, not a theoretical system is impossible without subsystems. That is, combining elements that interact with each other more closely than with other elements of the same system. Thus, in practical terms, the system should distinguish at least three hierarchical levels, namely: system - subsystem - element.
In social and humanitarian practice, the task of distinguishing system levels is particularly difficult. How to determine where the action of the subsystem, and where - the whole system? The difficulties are connected with the fact that the communicative processes are of a fractal nature. Fractality is an organization where parts are like the whole. Other in other words, the mental subsystems are arranged in the same way as the large system itself - the psyche as a whole. As a result, the personality is structurally and functionally similar to its subpersonal components. This leads to a completely logical question: what, in fact, do diagnose “flat” socionics - is the person as a whole or is it one of its subpersonalities?
As we see, the multiplicity and intertwining of the human “I” generates a serious diagnostic problem, the essence of which is in the separation of the type-structures containing the content of the type-structures. We are talking not only about establishing a subordination between them, but also about the nature of the subordinate connections (how firmly they are fixed). In our case, the level distribution is “soft” rather than “hard”. For humanitarian systems, unlike technical systems, this is the norm rather than the exception. Therefore, the communicative structures with which socionics are dealing are of a very amorphous, indistinct character.
Subpersonality, pushing the person into the background, for some time even able to take a dominant position in the psyche, thereby generating a hybrid entity. Moreover, individual subpersonalities tend to compete with each other for the right to shape the behavior of the entire personal system.
Although the question I raised about the fractality and the multi-layered nature of socionic objects is very relevant, but there are no constructive proposals for resolving the crisis. It is no longer possible to hush up this problem, and supporters of “flat” socionics changed tactics: they are increasingly turning to a counterattack under the slogan “you simply cannot figure out the types”. And the one and the other are the attempts to get away from the problem, instead of realizing it and starting to solve it.
What do self-assessment tests reveal?
Socionics now use such tests, where a person evaluates himself. I believe that, at best, self-assessment tests, even if they were built and conducted correctly, do not reveal the type itself, that is, the system itself, but a subtype - the leading psychological subsystem. But even if a person was evaluated by his acquaintances or colleagues and their assessments were somehow averaged (such a procedure is, of course, more reliable and objective), all the same, instead of the deep type, the leading subtype would often be revealed. Why?
First of all, because the person is aware of what is working at the moment. And this is just a characteristic of the subsystem. The system as a whole is non-local, that is, not tied to this place and this time. It is as if spread over the entire communicative space in which the person was before, is now and will be in the future. Non-local structures are poorly understood, perceived as a secondary background.
A subtype cannot be identified with a mask based on artificial role-playing behavior. The actor not only realizes his mask, but also arbitrarily changes it. A mask is another additional layer of personality that builds on an already existing relatively stable subtype. The type variant is formed not at will, but under the pressure of circumstances by natural selection. In the book [1], I suggested calling such an artificially created purely superficial complex - a mask a communicative model.
Experienced socionics are adjusted in relation to the reliability of self-testing critically. Trusting self-diagnosis, from my point of view, is the same as believing advertising. For a more objective assessment of the goods, independent services are created that do laboratory tests or interview consumers. But in the socionic movement, unfortunately, there are no expert organizations that are independent of competing schools to track the quality of diagnostic services.
Multi-level systems from other areas
3.1. Technical analogy
In radio engineering and telecommunications, it is necessary to separate the modulating signal from the carrier frequency, and that, in turn, from the noise that is always present in the communication channel. This procedure is called demodulation. It is in many respects similar to the diagnosis of a sociotype. The object of diagnosis can be compared with a modulator, and the diagnostician himself can be compared with a demodulator. Technicians use special equipment for this procedure, with the help of which the problem of demarcation of signal levels is successfully solved. Not so in the social and humanitarian fields. Reliable "equipment" is not created here. Type and its variant are closely "grown together" among themselves. And the degree of “noise” of communication channels is much higher.
As part of this analogy, it turns out that the type is “coded”, as it were, hidden in its subtypes. The subtype is thus its carrier frequency. The task, therefore, is to restore the original type-structure by removing all shells and later layers from the original core. At the same time, as already mentioned, the diagnostician itself acts as a psychological demodulator. And in order to cope with the task of “getting to the bottom” to the deepest level, the diagnostician himself must be a difficultly organized and integral person. If its system “dimension” (the number of personality levels) is lower than that of the person being diagnosed, then an error cannot be avoided.
3.2. Administrative analogy
In this area, we are dealing with a hierarchical chain "Constitution - law - a by-law act." The Constitution is the most stable part of the legislation, it is similar in its role to the deep psycho type. The laws adopted within the framework of the constitution are similar to subtypes - a sustainable set of behavioral strategies in major life situations. And, in addition to the laws, bylaws are already specific strategies of behavior through which the law is implemented. And now think for yourself: what influences the life of a particular person more - the constitution or by-laws?
As you know, in Ukraine they intend to conduct an administrative-territorial reform. Here are two key points. First, the hierarchy of the system becomes three-level: a community (community) - a region - a region. In fact, the system is four-level, because it is necessary to take into account the highest hierarchical level - the country as a whole. Second, the boundaries of the administrative unit are not made to the size of the territory, but to the number of the population. And this indicator is changing. Will this not lead to the fact that within the boundaries of one district people will begin to encounter different traditions and mentality?
The diagnostic problem here, as we see, is not limited only to the bureaucratic separation of powers between different levels of government. Clearly everything looks only on paper. In reality, we have a strong resistance of the lower levels, for the sake of which, supposedly, this reform is being carried out.
If Ukraine is divided into 33 regions, then this corresponds to the socionic scale of two subtypes within one type (16 x 2 = 32). Perhaps it would be better to have 64 administrative units of the average level (four subtypes within a regional type).
3.3. Computer analogy
Everyone who uses a computer knows the following hierarchy of its levels: Iron - operating system - application program. Let's compare the structure of the psyche with these levels.
The “iron” part of the computer, in my opinion, corresponds to the type itself. This hard ware is a solid product. Hardness is understood not so much as the property of the material itself, as the fact that the computer architecture cannot be changed by software. This fully corresponds to the position of socionics that a person cannot change his type by psychological methods.
Next comes soft ware - a soft commodity, as computer scientists call software. It is divided into operating system and application programs. The operating system plays the same role as the subtype in the common space of the individual. It is subject to change, although it is a rare event. This happens under the pressure of some extraordinary factors. And finally, a behavior strategy is a specific computer program that the user works with. Replacing such a program in the order of things does not cause any special difficulties.
3.4. Linguistic analogy
From the point of view of its existence and functioning, such a means of communication as a natural language has a well-defined hierarchy of system levels. Here it is: a literary language - a dialect - a jargon.
A literary language as the core of the language of a nation or nation really functions only through a whole set of historically established dialects characteristic of a particular locality. First of all, it is noticeable in the pronunciation, which is usually referred to as accent. It turns out that a subtype is a kind of accent, a local variant of the general psychological type.
However, this linguistic differentiation does not end there. This or that professional or social stratum of people imposes additional, even narrower features on the dialect. This is how an even “lower” linguistic layer is formed - jargon. And he is the easiest to change. An intellectual, having spent some time in the proletarian environment, if desired, easily mastered the crude jargon adopted there. I think that many of you have seen the reverse transition - “bringing up a commoner”. The same principle “the more materially embodied, the more susceptible to change” works.
Diagnostic methods
The current socionics are well acquainted with two competing diagnostic methods that have practically acquired the status of separate paradigms:
Diagnosis through rasto identification: implies a neutral approach, an outside view.
This is an analytical, left-hemispheric method, it works with individual signs of the object to be diagnosed; in the special literature it is also called nomothetic,
Diagnostics through identification: it is based on the requirement to feel the other as yourself, to look at the world through its eyes.
This is the right hemisphere mode, it works with the object being diagnosed as a whole; the term used for it in special literature is ideographic.
And if technocratic socionics recognizes only the first, nomothetic method (the second it considers unscientific, because it is weakly formalized), then humanitarian socionics relies on a combination of the first and second. By the way, such famous personality researchers as K. Leongard [2] or A. Kempinski [3] used the synthetic method as the main one.
The same struggle of approaches has long been observed in medicine. As you know, in the West, our medical practitioners are very appreciated. Why? One of the reasons is that they have a good knowledge of synthetic diagnostics: they carefully study the history of the disease, they can listen, tap, test the patient. And put the correct diagnosis without complicated analyzes and calculations of survey data. A standard “western” type of diagnosis specialist, devoting a minimum of time to listening to the medical history and examination, sends the patient to computer diagnostics or difficult (and expensive!) Tests. This is the triumph of the nomothetical, truly "scientific" approach. But I do not think that a very likely victory of the diagnostic paradigm of the Western model will lead socionics out of crisis.
The fact is that neither the first nor the second paradigm does not exhaust the problem of delineating personal levels to the end. I believe that the solution to the problem of separating a type from a subtype should be sought in two main ways.
1. Since the type is “spread out” throughout the communicative volume, and in fact we deal only with its derivatives — with certain behavioral strategies that are controlled by a subtype, then in order to get “primitive,” it is necessary to integrate human behavior either over time place.
Time integration is the study of a person’s biography. From all of his personal history, only those patterns of behavior that have not changed for a long time are taken to establish the type. In the interview technology that I developed, a separate series of questions is provided for this.
Integration by place: the study exposed examples of human behavior in different places and at different communicative distances. The constant of personality is taken into account, which is manifested both at home and at work, and among friends, and alone with himself.
This path is rather slow and scrupulous. It is better combined with analytical, element-by-element diagnostics. Although a combination with a synthetic approach is also possible, but the result is not so convincing.
2. Another quick way. Its essence consists in a sharp increase in the energy load on the type, which leads to the acceleration of all psychological processes. In an unpredictably tense situation, conscious control becomes ineffective. The subtype as if “flies” without sustaining the load, and the type itself begins to act. The interview is done in a special way: a large number of unpredictable questions are asked at a fast pace.
Thus, from the point of view of the interaction “diagnostician - diagnosable”, I distinguish 4 fundamentally different diagnostic styles (in particular, interviewing):
Two extreme styles:
Slow analytical
Fast synthetic.
If the first is brought to the point of absurdity, then we will receive the respondent’s many hours of exhausting thousands of small questions. If you profane the second one, then we will get “labeling” with the argument “I see it so”.
And two medium styles, on which the humanitarian school is oriented:
Fast, but analytical (our first priority)
Slow but synthetic (our second priority).
Each school of socionics, although it tries to master all methods of diagnosis, inevitably leans towards one or two of them, namely, those that it has got better. I take the liberty of asserting that this process proceeds according to the same laws as distinguishing the two leading functions of the psyche.
In this way, the diagnostics crisis, starting in the theoretical field (the psyche as a diagnostic object - flat or multilevel?), Is transferred to diagnostic technologies and leads to the fact that socionic schools, fighting for a place under the sun, crowd out each other. That only on hand to opponents of socionics!
None of the four diagnostic styles is absolute and absolutely true. Truth is attainable only with equal dialogue between all styles. As a result of this dialogue at the same time the question of winners and losers is removed. How do I imagine such a dialogue?
The first scenario: "With open cards"
School representatives sit round the table and hold 4 rounds of negotiations to agree on a diagnostic hypothesis. The first round is chaired by the extreme analytical school, the second is by the moderate analytical school, the third is by the extreme synthetic, etc. After the fourth round, if no consensus is reached, they are replaced by new representatives of the same schools, and so on, cycle by cycle. However, the dialogue of such density is possible only when schools start trusting each other and are not afraid to put their technologies on public display and continue to play openly. Unfortunately, this scenario still has little chance for implementation.
The second scenario: "Without trust"
The schools, based on the results of their diagnostics, regularly make a specific forecast with respect to the consistently chosen object of diagnosis in the expected situation. After the event has taken place, a working group of independent experts decides whose prediction was closest to the actual behavior of the object under study. In this way, a rating of diagnostic schools. The dynamics of this rating for a certain period, for example, for a year, is discussed during socionic conferences.
Literature:
Nomothetics / ideography. Dictionary of psychological terms.
Leonard K. Accentuated personalities. - K .: High School, 1989, p.24.
Kempinsky A. Knowledge of the patient. - Minsk: Your. Sc., 1998, p. 16 - 27.
4. Gulenko V.V. Socionics for the head. - Book 2. Basics of Socioanalysis: Method. Recommendations. - K .: MZUUP, 1993, p.49.
Another excellent piece of information.
ReplyDelete