Name / Name Matters (About Socionic Nomenclatures)

Introduction

The rhetorical question posed by the little girl Alice is only the tip of the iceberg of an endless series of other questions that arise even with a cursory attempt to understand the relationship between things that signify their words and the person using things and words. These questions, albeit in different ways formulated, but illuminating the same phenomenon of language, have interested researchers since antiquity. As human thought progressed, the accumulated ideas turned into a so-called "linguistic turn" in the culture and philosophy of the 20th century. Language, text, word, name, name, sign - this is far from an incomplete list of objects that for a long period occupied the minds of linguists, logic mathematicians, semiotics, philosophers. It is important to note that this work is far from being considered complete today.

It is clear now why Alice could not answer the question given in the epigraph (however, she noted the undoubted practical usefulness of the names). Indeed, why do we need names? What tasks does a person set for himself, calling something with one or another name? What properties should have a good name? Let us try to think about these questions, getting along with the minimum necessary concepts and resorting to special terms only as a last resort. And to understand the properties of the titles will help us excerpts from some works of art that have become classics of the world fund of literature (their very existence indicates the importance of the problem).

To begin, remember J. Swift and his Gulliver. In one of his travels, the hero had a chance to meet the wise men from Laputa, who invented this:

"... The project required the complete destruction of all words; the author of this project referred mainly to its health benefits and time savings. After all, it is obvious that every word we utter involves some lung wear and, therefore, shortens our life. And words are only the names of things, the author of the project suggests that it will be much more convenient for us to carry with us things necessary to express our thoughts and desires ... The only inconvenience is the fact that uchae need to conduct a lengthy conversation on a variety of topics interlocutors have to carry on their shoulders a big knot with things, if the funds do not allow for the hiring of one or two healthy boys. I have often seen these two sages, succumbing under the weight of the burden, like our merchants. When they met on the street, they took the bags off their shoulders, opened them and, taking out the necessary things from there, conducted, thus, a conversation for an hour; then they laid down their belongings, helped each other to load them on their shoulders, said goodbye and dispersed.

However, for short and simple conversations, you can carry everything you need in your pocket or under your arm ... "

Personally, to me, however, it is completely incomprehensible how in this case they communicated on abstract, abstract topics, probably because of the heavy burden of everyday forces they no longer had.

From this example, it is clearly seen that the name is a kind of label, that is, something, in a sense, “glued” to the name, denoting or even replacing it. Between them there is an inextricable link, when it disappears for a given pair, both objects lose the right to be named and called, respectively. The presence of this connection can be demonstrated in another passage, this time from Alice in the Looking Glass by L. Carroll.

"- ... The title of this song is called Buttons for Coats."

- Do you want to say - the song is so called? - Alice asked, trying to get interested in the song.

“No, you do not understand,” answered the Knight impatiently. - This title is so called. And the song is called "Ancient old man".

- I had to ask: is this the name of the song? - Alice recovered.

- Well no! The title is completely different. "With grief in half!" But this is the only name for it!

- What is this song? - Alice asked in complete confusion.

- I was just going to tell you about it. "Sitting on the wall"! What a song it is! "

Alice can not understand what she will hear, because the White Knight manipulates the "name", "title", "title name", etc. It’s hard for a girl to figure out that all these are labels, directly or indirectly (through a chain of intermediary words) pointing to the same song.

More formally, the name and the name are elements of a certain system that contains at least these two elements. Such systems are studied semiotics - the science of signs and sign systems. Traditionally, the third element complements the semiotic dyad, namely the meaning that carries the sign, and the whole structure can be depicted as a so-called. Frege triangle:

It is worth noting that the presented triangle 1a is the most generalized. It is possible triangles without any one or even without two elements. In addition, there are triangles with multiple meanings with one sign (1b, homonymy), and also with multiple signs with one sense (1c, synonymy).

Now we come to the problem from the other side. To do this, we need to recall one of the most important functions of the language (in a broad sense) - communicative, that is, connecting. Proceeding from this, the transfer of information (or rather, the message containing the information) carried by the language is subject to the general theory of communication of C. Shannon, and is expressed by a generalized scheme:

In our case, treating communication as a transfer of meaning, and also considering that from the triad of denotation-concept-sign, only a sign is always material (we will not be like the Laputians, who connected the entire semiotic triad in one material object!) organs of human senses, by encoding you can mean the transformation meaning ® sign (formalization, the CS edge of the Frege triangle), and under decoding - the transformation sign sign ® sense (interpretation, the SC edge of the Frege triangle). Figuratively, one can say that a person "thinks with meanings, but communicates with signs."

Therefore, the scheme takes the following form:

So, based on this scheme, we will try to do the modeling, if I may say so, of "human misunderstanding." Immediately, we note that we are not at all interested in the technical side of communication, and there are no errors in our communication channel (S1 = S2). We will also assume that the sender correctly formalizes his thoughts (C1 ® S1). In this case, the only “weak link” in our model will be the interpretation of perceived characters (S2 ® C2). Here we can distinguish two cases:

but). The process stops at the decoding stage because the recipient is unable to interpret the S2 sign. In this case, the recipient does not get any sense at all in communication (since he has no correspondence between the sign he received and any meaning). We will say that the meaning in this case is lost.

b). The recipient interpreted the sign S2, but at the same time C1 ¹ C2 (this is quite possible, recall the homonymy, Fig. 1b). In this case, we will say that a distortion of meaning occurred.

With any of these options, the communicative act failed.

It is clear that our scheme is deliberately simplified. So, in particular, it is clear that only an elementary communication act is presented, and in most cases the communication takes place not by separate signs, but by their aggregate. In this case, you can extend the definition of S to the sign message, as a sequence of elementary characters:

S = s1s2 ... sn, where S is a sign message, and si is an elementary sign.

Considering the exchange of sign messages, one can note the important role of synonymy. Indeed, in a natural language there are usually many ways to express the meaning of a C message with the help of sign messages S1 = s11s12..s1n, S2 = s21s22..s2m, ..., Si = si1si2..sik. Assuming that each elementary sign carries the same amount of information, it is possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the message as a value inversely proportional to the number of elementary signs in the sign message. In other words, the shorter the message, the more effective it is.

We illustrate what was said with two examples. First: let's take M. Twain's humorous story, in which the Negro-hunter is forced to report to the representative of the authorities about the caught criminal with just one (!) Word meaning "I-caught-wretch-killed-Hottentotka-mother-two-children-who-sat -in-cage-for-fishing-kangaroo-equipped-lattice-covers-for-protection-against-weather. " In fact, M. Twain is ironic about the peculiarity of the German language, which allows for virtually unlimited "gluing" of simple words into one superlong, carrying the meaning of the whole sentence. But for our purposes the question is interesting: is such a message effective? On the one hand, yes, because the meaning of the whole sentence is conveyed in one sign. On the other hand, a word that is actually a combination of other words is no more effective than this combination itself, where words appear separately. Would such a message be effective if there was a shorter word to designate such a criminal? Obviously not.

The second example is simpler: the sentences “I have seen a puppy” and “I have seen a cub of a dog” are obviously equivalent in meaning, but the first is shorter and therefore more effective. In the first sentence, "puppy" acts as the name "baby dog" and helps to see another property that I consider very important for the name: optimizing the transfer of information in the message, and hence the communication.

Thus, summing up all the above, we will assume that in our context, to give the correct name means to designate (i.e. associate with the sign) the so-called object so that, when communicating, reduce the amount of information transmitted without distorting it.

Let's now try to apply this theoretical definition to real life. And immediately the question will arise before us: and with whom, in fact, do we need to build effective communication? Intuitively, you can distinguish two types of dissimilar types of communication, with specialists and with non-specialists. What direction to give preference? What is good for some, undoubtedly, turns into inconvenience for the other side. Thus, the entry “2H2 + O2 = 2H2O” is not only shorter than the similar phrase “hydrogen reacts with oxygen to form water”, but also contains more information, but only for those who understand the language of chemical formulas. For not owning them, these formulas are meaningless, i.e. information is lost (the first unsuccessful communication scenario)!

Natural sciences and mathematics without hesitation solve the above question in favor of professionals, can socionics do the same? In my opinion, no. Socionics, working with a person and for a person, is not and cannot be only professional tools, since not knowing the structure of one’s own psyche is more expensive than not knowing the formula of water. Unresolved issue is communication with representatives of the disciplines related to socionics - psychologists, sociologists, educators and others. In addition, there is an opinion (to which I join) that it would be nice to know the basics of socionics for everyone. Thus, socionics have a dual task: to be understood both by colleagues and by people for whom socionics is not a profession. The first goal pulls in the direction of complication of the socionic language, the second - in the direction of simplification. Such a task is more complicated than a similar task of natural scientists, for them the understanding of non-professionals is not so important. I would say more, the lack of understanding and proper delineation, and, accordingly, the development of both "branches" of the socionic language causes (and will continue to cause) significant harm to socionics as a science. As a confirmation of my words, I want to refer to the compiler and commentator of the first collection of works by A. Augustinavichiute L. Filippov, who, in his comments on the work of Jung, warned against this danger, comparing the development paths of the theories of Freud and Jung. Popularization of the work of the first led to its vulgarization among the masses on the American continent, the complexity and "closeness" of the work of the second led to the fact that a complete understanding of Jung became an attribute only "

What is the way out of this situation? From my point of view, quite simple: it is necessary to develop both parts of socionic terminology in a controlled way, not allowing difficult "professional" terms to be duped by themselves until a vulgar interpretation for "non-professionals", and at the same time purposefully develop the opposite branch, opening free access to simple but not "marginal" socionics. One should not understand the above as a call to put an insurmountable terminological wall between two "castes": "professionals" and "amateurs", where the difference of words will serve as an additional factor of closeness and inaccessibility. On the contrary, in my opinion, well-chosen terms are able to work fruitfully in any environment, revealing in all its versatility when used by experienced socionics, and helping beginners to understand their meaning. In my opinion, this task cannot be considered completely solved at the present time, sincethere is no single, clear to all, without exception, socionics and socionic language that meets all the requirements. One of the particular questions of this problem, namely the study of names and notation for socionic types, is the subject of this work. I would like to immediately note that I did not set out to analyze also various systems of names that are close, but not socionic, for example, from the Myers-Briggs and Kirsi typologies.

For further consideration, I propose to introduce several definitions. These definitions cannot be considered strict in the full sense; however, they are capable of facilitating our task.

A designation is a sign, the use of which in communication leads to a decrease in the amount of information transmitted without distorting it.

Designations, in turn, will be divided into names and formulas.

A formula is a designation that cannot be interpreted outside the system in which it originated, and thus does not contribute any information to the system from outside.

For example, "F = ma", "H2SO4", "Î", "2", "Ñ", "" "," $ "," a "," _ "," ^ "are formulas.

A name is such a designation that can be interpreted in any way outside the system in which it originated, and thus brings external, additional information to the system in relation to it.

For example, "Newton's law", "sulfuric acid" are names (carries, say, information that Newton discovered this law; that acid contains sulfur, etc.).

In practice, "outside the system" means "in another, external to the system in question." Natural language is most often used as such. Thus, the names have "internal" and "external" meanings, and formulas - only "internal".

In the context of socionics, "intuitive-logical extrovert", "ILE", "IL", "IL" will be formulas, and "Don Quixote", "Seeker" - names.

Interestingly, this classification reveals parallels with another, more general classification of signs, developed by the American philosopher Charles S. Pierce. It is based on the correlation between the appearance of the mark and the appearance of what they represent. Thus, according to Peirce, iconic signs are similar in appearance to what is designated, the conventional form has absolutely nothing to do with it, and index ones do not appear to be similar in appearance, but, as it were, indicate, they direct their appearance to their meaning. From the point of view of this classification, the overwhelming majority of the names are conventional signs. However, the analogy is manifested at the level of correlation of "internal" and "external" meanings: "indexality" ("external" meaning indicates "internal") names and the absence of "external", and hence the complete "

Naturally, there is no strict boundary between names and formulas, and there are such designations for which there is reason to classify them both as formulas and as names. An example is socionic terminology of R. Sedykh, who used names for socionic types such as tactile-trades, visual-lingvik, etc.

It is clear that to transfer information within the system, i.e. when communicating with colleagues, the formula is preferable, because they do not carry redundant information and therefore shorter, and therefore more effective. However, when going beyond the limits of such communication, the formula completely loses its meaning. When transmitting information beyond the system, i.e. communicating with non-specialists, the name is preferable, because the additional information they provide helps to interpret the baseline. However, the biggest problem here is the choice of the name so that the additional, “external” information does not distort the basic, “internal” (otherwise it will not be the name and even the designation).

So, in connection with the above, I believe that in socionics there is a need both in formulas and in the names of sociotypes. And their purpose is quite understandable: the formulas are mainly intended for "professional" communication, and the names - for "interprofessional".

Historical overview of systems of names of socionic types

Now, in my opinion, it's time to take a break from our theoretical reflections and pay attention to the notation systems that have been formed in socionics so far. The “genealogy” of the origin of naming systems from different authors is presented in Figure 1 .

Scheme 1. The tree of the most well-known notation for socionic types.

Historically, the Aushra Augustinavichute system's formula systems may be considered the first, although it should be noted that she herself did not pay special attention to issues of the nomenclature. In [3], socionic types were called by the names of the first two functions (EGO block) of Model A, to identify one of the two possible types, the characteristic was “extruded” or “introtim”, for example, “intuitive-logical extratim”. In the works [2, 7], the idea of ​​the non-identity of the terms "extrovert" / "introvert" and "extramit" / "introtim" is expressed. Nevertheless, in a slightly later paper [4], these terms are used as synonyms, and symbolic formulas for the sociotype appear, also representing the first two characters of the functions of the EGO block of model A, for example, "IL".

Tab. 1. The most famous formulaic notation of socionic types (above, respectively: A1, A2, A3 - the complete, abbreviated and symbolic formula of Aushra Augustinavichiute, formulas G - Gulenko, Sv - Savchenko, Sd - Sedykh).

At about the same time, a system of pseudonyms was born in informal conversations and discussions between Aushra Augustinavichiute and her first students, which was used to “revitalize” dry terminology. Subsequently, the system has spread widely and is dominant. Its final form, as it is described in [7], can be seen in Table 2 .

However, even in those times, the Aushra system did not satisfy everyone. Although I do not know direct criticism, a number of publications on socionics, especially the earliest ones, have been characterized by “altering”, “scattering” in the titles. As an example, the name “Descartes” for LII, “Macedonian” for SLE, “Holmes” and “Watson” for a pair of FEL-EII (for example, in [8]), and Tutankhamun for IEI (for example, in [17 ]). It is surprising that the authors changed the pseudonyms completely without comments, why they are not satisfied with this or that name.

There have been attempts and systemic changes. A close associate and one of the first students of Aushra N. Medvedev proposed a similar system of pseudonyms, which consisted entirely of the names of the fictional characters of world-famous literary works. This minimized the danger of perepepirovaniya prototype of the pseudonym due to the accumulation of new facts from the life of a person (eg, new sources, changes in official ideology, etc.), and also simplified the possible adaptation of pseudonyms to the conditions of another language and cultural environment. In addition, the criterion of homogeneity of the system was fully met, which could not be said about the "parent" system. For some reason, the names of Medvedev could not replace the names of Aushra, and since the system was not published or used, the system is presented as it is presented in [35]).

However, the pseudonym system evolved. In the book [26], the authors expressed their opinion that "the system of pseudonyms is tied almost exclusively to the male embodiment of the TIM and does not give a sufficiently correct idea of ​​his female hypostasis." Accordingly, for each socionic type they proposed as the name the name of the artistic woman’s pesonage, for example, "Scarlett O'Hara", "Gerd", "Lolita", etc. However, the nature of the work indicates (and I believe that the authors will not argue with this) that the system of names proposed by them is more entertaining and does not claim to be widely used. View it can also be seen in Table 2 .

Now everything has settled down a bit and practically the system of pseudonyms of Aushra is used in its unchanged form. The only one of the "alternative" pseudonyms that has gained popularity is for the type of SEE. So, quite often the name of the type of SEE “Napoleon” was proposed to be renamed “Caesar”, I think, largely due to the article [23]. In particular, such a point of view was openly expressed in [19].

Tab. 2. The most famous names of socionic types, the system of pseudonyms (above in parentheses are the author: A - Aushra Augustinavichiute, M - Medvedev, NS - Nemirovsky and Simonov).

However, all these attempts at change can be called "cosmetic" because they did not touch on the key, unrecoverable flaws in the pseudonym system (outlined below), which some researchers noticed. As an alternative, Gulenko in 1989 proposed a system of motivated function-role names [9] ( Table 3). Elements of the naming system offered a social role, a function of a sociotype in society, and the motivation of such a name should be respected, i.e. a clear connection between the sociotype and its name. Thus, advancing the name "Seeker" for ILE, thereby emphasizes that the social role of ILE is a search (clarification of the term should be specifically stated so that information is not distorted; in this case it is a search for interesting information, ideas, opportunities) The corresponding property “to search” is characteristic for the majority of ILE representatives and not so typical for other types. Those. it is immediately clear how the type is called: it is proposed to single out one of its most characteristic features, and on its basis a name is given. However, the names should not be taken literally: for example, it’s wrong to believe

The position of V. Gulenko is consistent: since 1995, in all his works, Gulenko uses only motivated type names within the framework of a functional role system. Moreover, his attitude to the system of pseudonyms of Aushra does not change - he sees one of the main problems of socionics in it, especially when establishing contacts with representatives of official psychology [9, 10, 11, 12, 14]. In addition, Gulenko proposed his own formula system for designating socionic types [12] ( Table 1 ).

Strangely enough, but the situation with pseudonyms repeated - the new system did not avoid the “renaming wave”. Schulman, thoughHe expressed his positive attitude to the Aushra system, and immediately put forward his own system, similar to the functional-role system [35]. Kiev researchers V. Meged and A. Ovcharov, who had worked together with V. Gulenko for some time, supported the new naming system [21]. In the future, they made some changes to it, however, the systems are still not very different from each other, and are very similar. Filatova did the same [30, 31], her version is also not much different from the original one. And the Savchenko spouses, from their specific positions of “symbolic” socionics, expressed an opinion about the unsuitability of both the functional role-playing and the pseudonym system (of course, with the suggestion of their own “card”) [24]. Characteristically, no one provided compelling arguments

Slinko suggested his system indirectly, without criticizing the old ones, and without giving any arguments in its favor, using it in his book [27]. R. Sedykh also proposed his system in the book [25], however, on the contrary, he stated that he did this within the framework of the "global" improvement of socionic terminology (and, apart from names, he renamed almost everything in socionics). All the above systems in their modern form are given in Table 1 . and Table 3 .

Tab. 3. The most famous names of socionic types, functional role-playing system (at the top in parentheses are the author: G - Gulenko, MO - Meged and Ovcharov, F - Filatova, Sh - Shulman, S - Slinko).

It should be noted that of all the systems described, only the systems proposed by August (A. Augustinavichiute) and V. Gulenko are widespread. They are used in all types of communication and popularization of socionic knowledge - when publishing magazines, books, on socionic websites, on Internet forums and echo-conferences FIDONet. All other systems are little known and almost no one, except perhaps their authors, are not used. Some of the very “exotic” systems can be found in [34].

So, let's summarize.

In fact, now in socionics there are two systems of names: pseudonyms (author - Augusta) and a system of motivated function-role names (author V. Gulenko). The system of pseudonyms as names suggests names of famous people or artistic characters who possess (according to the author of the system) the same socionic type as the one called. The Gulenko system suggests as a name a characteristic feature, the role demonstrated by this type in society and quite noticeable from this society.

Also in socionics there are also several formulaic notation systems, while, as in the case with names, only those that were proposed by Augusta and Gulenko were distributed. They can be conventionally classified into word and character, the latter into graphic and letter, etc. I believe that the differences between these systems are noticeably smaller than in the case of names. However, in the next section, it is proposed to analyze them.

Analysis of formula systems of names in socionics

Formula systems can be conditionally divided into three such groups: formed on the basis of Young's basis (in the formula the signs are coded in one way or another from the Young's basis), based on the functions of the Ego block of model A (two functions of the model are encoded), and based on small groups ( as the intersection of two small groups). For example, the “canonical” full and abbreviated names of Auschre types can be considered as the representative of the first (although they are strictly “hybrid” between the first and second groups, and the Myers-Briggs code can be a pure representative of the first group from the parallel typology) . Gulenko's two-letter code and Aushra's symbolic formulas are representatives of the second group. And in the third fall, for example, club-temperamental classification Sedykh (type = temperamental group ´ club) and stimulus-argumentative Savchenko (type = stimulus group ´ group of argumentation). The possible options are not exhausted; it is easy to imagine formulas based on other Reinin traits (peripheral right-wing democrat statics), on other functions of model A (for example, on the 1st and 8th), on other groups. In such systems, each type is also uniquely identified, but for obvious reasons such systems are less convenient and therefore not implemented.

As already noted, systems - representatives of the third group are not widely spread. Further, since the first group is represented by only one system, which, in turn, is historically the first, there is practically nothing to compare it with. Among the shortcomings of the system, only a certain “bulkiness” (which eliminates the folding of a formula into a three-letter combination) and “incomprehensibility to the uninitiated” (which led to the creation of names) is usually noted.

The most interesting situation with the second group — with the naked eye — is noticeable that the format of formulas is the same for both competing systems: two positions are the first two functions of model A of the corresponding sociotype. Therefore, it would be wrong to not consider the question of the designation of functions (and aspects) in both systems under consideration. Well, in this case, it seems to me, it is appropriate to quote the authors.

So, Aushra chose graphic images to designate aspects and functions (they were suggested by her acquaintance and participant of the first socionic seminars A. Varanavičius):

"Extroverted sensory, we denoted by a circle +, a figure that gives the impression of the most complete contact with the outside world. Intuition - a triangle), which fits perfectly into the circle. Logic and ethics are the external form and internal content of the same process. Therefore, if logic was marked with a square /, as a symbol of rigor of thinking, then for the inner side of the same phenomenon - emotional intensity, you need to pick up a symbol that fits in a square. This is how a square appeared without a single angle - "[4].

Personally, I appreciate this choice is not quite motivated, and the argument is controversial and even arbitrary. In addition to the above, there is also a version that the angle, the symbol of ethics, is derived from a distorted letter "E". Separately, it should be said about extraverted and introverted, i.e. "black" and "white" characters. The black (shaded) element is associated with objects (A. Augustinavichiute's “body”), and the white one - with relations between them (A. Augustinavichiute's “field”) [6]. Schulman in [36] explains: “Black functions are the realities of the surrounding world, whites are a reflection of these realities as related to them ... Moreover, on the other hand, the blackened, filled outline somehow completely spontaneously feels like something real that exists take in hand, feel this something, feel its reality and definitely

“Sensorics is the most primitive PF (mental function - DP), a reflection of the situation“ here and now ”(“ What I see, I sing about it ”- like Eastern akyns). Therefore, the symbol denoting this function should be simple, easy memorable. The simplest three-dimensional shape in nature is a ball — the minimum of a surface for a given (for example, a single) volume, the minimum of energy.The projection onto a plane — a circle — is the simplest flat figure.

Intuition - “These are some cities that will probably be built somewhere, someday, by somebody” (Aushra). If "built", if the "city", then as a result of the manifestation of "some" or "someone's" mind, for example, human.

The simplest forms, formed with the "use" of Reason, are forms (figures) made up of straight line segments. The simplest figure constructed of straight line segments is a tetrahedron, whose simplest projection onto the plane is just a triangle.

The logical square does not need additional representations.

And, finally, the figure that reflects the most complex type of contacts - contacts between people - is a “sofa”, as they say in St. Petersburg - “ethics”. And a sofa (actually a sofa is like an element of furniture), it is necessary to recognize that it’s very good for these contacts, for conversation, in particular, i.e. to the manifestation of intertype relationships "[36].

Without a doubt, the text is an artistic value, but is motivation added to the selected characters? In my opinion, no, because the association method that Schulman suggests is able to associate arbitrary characters with the same arbitrary meaning (see, for example, [13]), let us recall at least the Rorschach psychological test. On top of everything else, other psychologists in the same geometric figures make a completely different meaning, not even closely correlating with socionic. It is, in particular, about Delinger's psycho-forms [1].

V. Gulenko went another way: in his system, functions and aspects are denoted by letters of the Latin alphabet. Let's give the floor to him:

"E - dynamic ethics, or ethics of emotions. It is indicated by the first letter of the Latin. The word" emoveo "- I worry, I shake.

R - static ethics, or ethics of relationships. Denoted by the first letter of the lat. the words "relatio" are an attitude.

P - dynamic logic, or the logic of the case. Denoted by the first letter of the lat. the words "profiteor" - perform useful actions.

L - static logic, or logic structure. Denoted by the first letter of the lat. the words "logos" - the rule, the rule.

S - dynamic sensory, or sensory sensations. Denoted by the first letter of the lat. the words "sensus" are a sensation.

F - static sensory, or sensory force. Denoted by the first letter of the lat. the words "factor" - influencing, influencing.

T - dynamic intuition, or intuition of time. Denoted by the first letter of the lat. the words "tempus" are time.

I - static intuition, or intuition of possibilities. Denoted by the first letter of the lat. the words "intueor" - I see, penetrating eyes. "[12].

Moreover, these letters can be matched with words from the English language, which is a generally accepted standard of scientific communication - E- motion, R- elation, Practice, L aw / L ogic, S ense, F orce, T ime, I ntuition ).

---

In my opinion, the motivation here is significantly higher.

Now, starting from the above, I propose to proceed to the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of both formula notation systems (which are a direct continuation of the advantages and disadvantages of the symbol systems for functions and aspects).

The first thing that needs to be noted is the very high prevalence of the Augusta system (A.Augustinavichiute), it is understandable to all socionics without exception. Gulenko's system is less common, however, a large number of researchers use it at least as an auxiliary one, and all others at least understand it. This is evidenced by my experience of communicating with socionics from different regions of the ex-USSR, the table of "translation" from the Augusta system with the Gulenko system is a constant attribute of many socionic books, some magazines, rules and the so-called. FAQ ("Frequently Asked Questions") on FIDONet forums and conferences. Augusta herself included Gulenko's lettering in her work on symbols in socionics [5].

The next extremely important feature of the Augusta system is its extreme inconvenience in real communication. The inconvenience is manifested both in writing (the need to draw geometric shapes) and in pronunciation (in a conversation, aspects and functions are spoken with phrases like "white logic", "extrovert intuition", etc., and the type is replaced with its pseudonym). Especially, the problem became noticeable with the spread of computer tools - in the 80s - early 90s of the last century most of the computers used in the CIS did not have the means to simply insert graphic images into printed works. This gave rise to a kind of "slang" among people who communicated using the Internet and Fidonet: abbreviations "BL" - white logic, "Emergency Situations" - black sensorics, etc.

It would seem that with the advent of more sophisticated computers with new operating systems and programs using the Graphics User Interface (GUI), the problem with characters (at least in writing) should have disappeared. Indeed, in 1995 the International Institute of Socionics (IIA) proposed a computer font for socionic symbols. Now, to use them in your work you just need to install it on your computer. However, even such a seemingly simple operation harbors many pitfalls, since this requires:

but). Have the appropriate user skills (yes, not everyone owns them!);

b). To have a file with this font (which almost automatically entails the need to have an Internet connection, and not all have this capability);

at). Have "rights" to install additional fonts on a computer (important for those who are forced to use a "work" and not a "home" PC, since the system administrator can prohibit any change in the software configuration of the computer).

So there is a very real possibility not to be able to use the proposed solution (I really got into situations where, because of points b) or c), I never managed to do it).

Further, a small blitz study conducted by me showed that in modern scientific symbolism graphic symbols are not accepted. Most of the sciences for fixing the described phenomena cost in natural language, as well as the language of mathematics and related disciplines, and using the Latin, and to some extent, Greek, alphabet for designations of basic quantities. I will give a few examples: from chemistry: elements and their compounds (Ag, Se, CO2); from physics: physical quantities - energy (E), force (F), mass (m), time (t), speed (v); from biology: DNA and RNA sequences (-AGCT-), as well as amino acid sequences in proteins (-Arg-Lys-Pro-Val-Cys-). The obvious exception here is only mathematics. However, mathematics is not a natural science, in its essence it is a special form of language with extremely strict syntax, the main requirement for which is the applicability of the results to the descriptions of the real world. In addition, mathematics can not do without a huge number for the designation of all operations, the Latin alphabet is not enough. Another example is astronomy, where symbols are also used for the planets of the solar system (at least they used to be used). Symbols are widely used in astrology, which is a kind of “relative” of astronomy, I will not discuss its scientific status now. It is interesting that at the early stage of the development of chemistry - alchemy, symbolic notation for "primary elements" and "elements" was also widely used, but with the development of this science they were completely superseded. mathematics can not do without a huge amount to refer to all operations, the Latin alphabet is not enough. Another example is astronomy, where symbols are also used for the planets of the solar system (at least they used to be used). Symbols are widely used in astrology, which is a kind of “relative” of astronomy, I will not discuss its scientific status now. It is interesting that at the early stage of the development of chemistry - alchemy, symbolic notation for "primary elements" and "elements" was also widely used, but with the development of this science they were completely superseded. mathematics can not do without a huge amount to refer to all operations, the Latin alphabet is not enough. Another example is astronomy, where symbols are also used for the planets of the solar system (at least they used to be used). Symbols are widely used in astrology, which is a kind of “relative” of astronomy, I will not discuss its scientific status now. It is interesting that at the early stage of the development of chemistry - alchemy, symbolic notation for "primary elements" and "elements" was also widely used, but with the development of this science they were completely superseded. Symbols are widely used in astrology, which is a kind of “relative” of astronomy, I will not discuss its scientific status now. It is interesting that at the early stage of the development of chemistry - alchemy, symbolic notation for "primary elements" and "elements" was also widely used, but with the development of this science they were completely superseded. Symbols are widely used in astrology, which is a kind of “relative” of astronomy, I will not discuss its scientific status now. It is interesting that at the early stage of the development of chemistry - alchemy, symbolic notation for "primary elements" and "elements" was also widely used, but with the development of this science they were completely superseded.

Unlike the Augusta system, Gulenko suggests using Latin letters as symbols, which obviously lack the aforementioned drawbacks: they are equally convenient in writing, pronunciation, and computer typing (because any computer contains Latin fonts by default). In addition, the use of Latin letters lies entirely in the spirit of scientific tradition (as, for example, in physics, chemistry and biology). And finally, the choice of Latin letters gives the green light to interact with foreign colleagues in the same language.

And finally, some not so obvious features of both systems. The first is that while Augusta’s graphic symbols illustrate the connection between extrovert and introverted aspects (“black” and “white”, for example) and *), while the letter designations of Gulenko do not contain such a connection (for example, I and T). Some researchers, for example, D. Lytov, consider this a serious shortcoming of the Gulenko system. Personally, it seems to me that such a flaw should be considered far-fetched, because although visibility really does not hurt a novice, but a person who is seriously engaged in socionics (remember, it is this formula systems) that are perfectly capable of doing without it.

And yet another subtlety was noticed again by D. Lytov: some Gulenko’s symbolic designations may be confused with the symbols of the Myers-Briggs (TMB) typology and Kirsi's temperamental theory. So. In particular, in these typologies the symbol "E" means "Extraverted", "I" - "Introverted", "S" - "Sensing", "T" - "Thinking", "F" - "Feeling", "P" - "Perceiving". As you can see, only two characters do not intersect. However, I argue that the likelihood of confusion is quite small, primarily because the characters are used in the context, and not by themselves, and the contexts can hardly be mixed. And mixing contexts means the incorrect use of either socionic terminology or TMB terminology, or both at once. Therefore, starting to read a paragraph, it is already possible with 100% probability to say which of the typologies is meant here. Further, TMB symbols are used mainly either 4 each (Myers-Briggs type names - ISTP, etc.) or 2 each (SJ, NF, NT, SP are clusters representing Kirsi temperaments), Gulenko symbols are used one at a time (functions and aspects) or 2 (type formula). Obviously, there is a chance to confuse only the two letter symbols, but from the cluster symbols, only one coincides with the type formula - this is SP (by surprising coincidence, this “temperament” for Kirsi is called "Artisan", ie, "Master" The craftsman ", and the name of the sociotype SP by Gulenko is also" Master "in the sense of" craftsman "!). In general, in my opinion, if you wish, you can confuse anything with anything: for example,

So, I believe that the probability of mixing the symbols of Gulenko and TMB may have been in the early years of the development of socionics, but now, when the distinction between these typologies is convincingly shown (see, for example, [12, 18, 20, 28]) leads the requirement of strict demarcation of contexts, it is extremely unlikely.

Now we summarize the advantages and disadvantages of both systems:

Advantages of symbols and symbolic formulas A. Augustinavichyute:

but). Prevalence and pervasive applicability;

b). The link between introverted and extrovert aspects and functions is clearly shown;

The disadvantages of symbols and symbolic formulas A. Augustinavichyute:

but). Inconvenient neither in writing, nor in computer typing, nor in pronunciation;

b). The choice of form is arbitrary, not motivated, there is no correlation with other psychological studies, in particular, with Dellinger psycho-forms;

at). The use of graphic symbols is not in the spirit of scientific traditions;

The advantages of symbols and symbolic formulas V. Gulenko:

but). The use of Latin characters, which lies in the spirit of scientific traditions;

b). Motivation (derived from the appropriate Latin words);

at). Easy to memorize, pronunciation, computer typing and writing;

Disadvantages of symbols and symbolic formulas V. Gulenko

but). Low prevalence compared with a competing system (however, almost complete “comprehensibility”);

b). There is no visual connection between the "black" and "white" aspects;

at). Some (very small) possibility of mixing symbolism with TMB symbols.

Based on the foregoing, it can be stated that each system has both its own advantages and its own shortcomings, often mirrored relative to each other. In my opinion, in short it can be said that the Aushra system has a longer history and is more common, but its drawbacks are more significant, and the Gulenko system is more convenient and promising, but less common. It seems to me that it would be wrong to make the final choice at this stage of development of socionics, so now everyone can choose a system that is closer to him. That is why I consider it necessary to ensure equality in the publication of both systems, and provide a table of translation from one to another. By the way, this solution has its analogs: for example, in mathematics the operation of differentiation can be represented in two ways: y 'in Newton's record, and in Leibniz's record. These records are completely equal and are used by the authors at their discretion. Personally, I have already made my choice - the convenience of using the Gulenko system became a decisive factor.

Analysis of the system of pseudonyms and motivated functional role-playing system of names.

The next stage of my research is the advantages and disadvantages of the systems of both authors, but now titles (the most common systems). Just as in the previous part, I will try to pick up the pros and cons of each of them.

So, paying tribute to the pioneer, I will start again with the system invented by A. Augustinavichiute. The “official” version states that the pseudonym system originated in opposition to the first “bulky and dry” formulas. This step made it possible to make socionics accessible to a very large number of people at the first stage of its development. In addition, D. Lytov noticed another interesting point: during the time of the domination of the “ideologically consistent” concept of “Personality is a product of adaptation to the environment”, brought to the absolute (which, naturally, could not tolerate any innate differences in man) names actually turned socionics into a role-playing game absolutely harmless from the point of view of official science [19]. I will not judge whether such a step was deliberate on the part of Aushra Augustinavichiute,

The natural continuation of attracting new supporters of socionic science with the help of bright and figurative pseudonyms has become the prevalence of this system. As I indicated earlier in the “historical” part of my work, even despite the numerous “unrest” around the system of pseudonyms, it has existed for decades without significant changes. The names used by her are one of the most understood among all socionic systems.

Unfortunately, the advantages of the system end there. By the way, it is interesting to note that around the pseudonym system there was an amusing picture: in this situation, it is quite understandable for socionic groups that criticize this system and do not use it, and socionics who do not criticize it and, accordingly, use another one - those who criticizes it, but uses it (at least offers it as an option) (see, for example, [22, 21])! And for some reason, although the arguments of the opponents of pseudonyms are strong enough and sound quite often, the voices of their advocates are hardly heard. So, rather shy notes in defense are heard in [35], and the most successful and complete (and practically the only) attempt is outlined in [29]. However, in fact, the arguments are not too strong, we will try to disassemble them.

one). "Aliases must be used at least out of respect for Ausra Augustinavichiute."

Well, it's hard to argue, but is rejection of pseudonyms a sign of disrespect? Could it be V. Gulenko, A. Bukalov, V. Meged, A. Ovcharov, G. Shulman, N. Medvedev, R. Sedykh, O. Slinko and many others who tried to improve or change this system did not respect the creator of socionics? In the history of science and technology, such an example is not the first; let us recall at least the device that we know as “radio” - its creator, Popov, called it a “thunder gauge”. It seems to me that the matter is different here - namely, the desire to eliminate the key shortcomings of the system that affect the development of socionics as a whole. And the name of Aushra Augustinavichute will never cease to be less known and respected than it is now.

2). I will quote "It is not yet fully comprehensible, which caused Aushr, an extrovert intuit, to snatch out these sound combinations from the flow of information. We had to watch how a person who first heard his type of pseudonym accepts it as something comfortable, somewhat coincident with self-image, the name "[29].

I leave the first sentence without comment - it can be taken as the idea that the names of Aushra carry a kind of mystical and even almost transcendental meaning. But the second one is really true, however, this particular case is a particular one, and not always everything happens so smoothly. The fact is that each name, or rather the character it identifies, causes people to have different associations, and each has its own, which can cause a subconscious reaction of “rejection” of the name of the type, and at the same time the typesetter and the whole of socionics. The reasons for this can be very different: cultural, personal, religious, random, etc. - in this case, it does not matter. As an example, I will cite a phenomenon that Savchenko’s spouses called “name karma” - many, especially religious people, absolutely do not want so that they are in any way associated with real characters who died at a young age, and also violent death as a result of tragic events [24]. Another example, no longer from socionics, is the story about a dog in a kennel that flashed recently in the newspaper news, which cannot find a new home because the potential owners refuse the original intention after they learn the nickname of the dog - Adolf.

3). A couple of quotes: "Behind each of the pseudonyms is a certain semantic field. After all, these names have long existed in the culture and for the person who grew up in it carry certain associations and differ from abbreviations ..." and "Modern students sometimes do not know about specific people who have given their name to socionic types. And this frees us from the need for confrontation with both the adherents of the pseudonym system and the inventors of new words in socionics. " It seems to me that here one thesis contradicts another. If "Modern students do not know anything about specific people who have given their name to socionic types," then this name can in no way bear for them "certain associations."

Schulman sets forth similar thoughts: “Nevertheless, these pseudonyms are included in all the classical works of Aushra Augustinavichyut along with the“ scientific ”names of TIMs, belong to science and history and are unlikely to ever disappear from the head. And one should not contribute to this, whatever “Shtirlitz” did not seem “funny” to anyone. In the CIS, everyone remembers the television series, and everyone understands who it is and what it is about. And in the West, this “name” can be easily taken as an abstraction.

In general, the majority of family-name pseudonyms, which socionics has been using for almost twenty years, have long been "identified" with their prototypes and acquired the most characteristic features of designated TIMs, sometimes much more accented than their ancestors, and healed an independent life "[35] .

I will try to deal with these statements, using the ideas presented in the introduction. So, behind each pseudonym there really is a “semantic field”, and even two - an “external” one, the one that exists in culture, and an “internal”, purely socionic interpretation of a pseudonym. It is correctly noted that abbreviations, which are essentially formulas, do not have “external” semantics, which is their disadvantage (we remember, only for non-specialists!). And what happens when the “external” field is lost, for example, when someone does not know about the names of the prototypes, and only the “internal” remains? That's right, the name becomes a formula, which means that all the advantages of the names disappear! With the “razlozhdestvennostyu” (thanks for the term G. Shulman! - DP. ) The pseudonym and its type is still more complicated: it is clear that the final stage of this process is also the transformation of the name into a formula. However, not completely “confused” names remain as such, and play a “disservice”, since the “external” meaning in this case may not help in mastering the “internal”, but significantly interfere with this, leading completely the other way! One of the possible mechanisms of such a “failure” is that the characteristic of a sociotype begins to “overgrow” with details from the qualities of the prototype, and, what is most terrible, is beyond the will and consciousness of using a pseudonym (since the connection between the prototype and the pseudonym is half broken). This is the very vulgarization that we talked about in the introduction. that the final stage of this process is also the transformation of the name into a formula. However, not completely “confused” names remain as such, and play a “disservice”, since the “external” meaning in this case may not help in mastering the “internal”, but significantly interfere with this, leading completely the other way! One of the possible mechanisms of such a “failure” is that the characteristic of a sociotype begins to “overgrow” with details from the qualities of the prototype, and, what is most terrible, is beyond the will and consciousness of using a pseudonym (since the connection between the prototype and the pseudonym is half broken). This is the very vulgarization that we talked about in the introduction. that the final stage of this process is also the transformation of the name into a formula. However, not completely “confused” names remain as such, and play a “disservice”, since the “external” meaning in this case may not help in mastering the “internal”, but significantly interfere with this, leading completely the other way! One of the possible mechanisms of such a “failure” is that the characteristic of a sociotype begins to “overgrow” with details from the qualities of the prototype, and, what is most terrible, is beyond the will and consciousness of using a pseudonym (since the connection between the prototype and the pseudonym is half broken). This is the very vulgarization that we talked about in the introduction. the names remain essentially as such, and play a "disservice", since the "external" meaning in this case may not help in mastering the "internal", but significantly interfere with this, taking completely the other way! One of the possible mechanisms of such a “failure” is that the characteristic of a sociotype begins to “overgrow” with details from the qualities of the prototype, and, what is most terrible, is beyond the will and consciousness of using a pseudonym (since the connection between the prototype and the pseudonym is half broken). This is the very vulgarization that we talked about in the introduction. the names remain essentially as such, and play a "disservice", since the "external" meaning in this case may not help in mastering the "internal", but significantly interfere with this, taking completely the other way! One of the possible mechanisms of such a “failure” is that the characteristic of a sociotype begins to “overgrow” with details from the qualities of the prototype, and, what is most terrible, is beyond the will and consciousness of using a pseudonym (since the connection between the prototype and the pseudonym is half broken). This is the very vulgarization that we talked about in the introduction. One of the possible mechanisms of such a “failure” is that the characteristic of a sociotype begins to “overgrow” with details from the qualities of the prototype, and, what is most terrible, is beyond the will and consciousness of using a pseudonym (since the connection between the prototype and the pseudonym is half broken). This is the very vulgarization that we talked about in the introduction. One of the possible mechanisms of such a “failure” is that the characteristic of a sociotype begins to “overgrow” with details from the qualities of the prototype, and, what is most terrible, is beyond the will and consciousness of using a pseudonym (since the connection between the prototype and the pseudonym is half broken). This is the very vulgarization that we talked about in the introduction.

So, what we have: on the one hand, there are significant difficulties in using pseudonyms as formulas for beginning socionics and non-specialists, since there is no “external” meaning behind it (this is a general problem of formulas). Moreover, it is not necessary for a person to be uncultured in order not to know prototypes: it may just be the younger generation (they may not know J. Gabin, Huxley, etc.), or a foreigner (they may not know Gorky, Stirlitz, etc.) ). Hence the inevitable problems in transferring the meaning of the names to another language environment and / or at another time, so to speak. On the other hand, there are still big problems with those for whom the “external” meaning is still present - they will have a long “break” of liberation from the incorrect superfluous “external” meaning by identifying the name and the prototype. This problem is relevant for absolutely all types of names, and its solution lies in the preliminary release of the name from the "redundant" meaning. In this regard, the names of famous people or characters look extremely unprofitable, since famous people, especially geniuses, never "are so simple and ordinary to invest in a common framework" [33]. And I agree with Filippov that “the totems of types should be not so much bright, harmonious, multi-faceted individuals, as, on the contrary, simplified images” [33].

four). "The tougher the concept, the narrower the scope of its definition. But the concept of type is quite wide and applies to all areas of life. That is why it does not fit the narrow professional definition." Then comes the argument that, for example, from the name "Analyst", for example, you can derive a tendency to logical reasoning, but you can not deduce dislike for fights, and from the name "Robespierre" - you can. It is from this, obviously, that the advantages of more complex and multifaceted names follow.

Curiously, when analyzing the previous argument, we arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions! Moreover, as it turned out, we are not alone and Phillipov agrees with us! So, in someone's reasoning, a mistake was made, and we will try to find it. Yes, indeed, it is possible to derive more from the name "Robespierre" than from the name "Analyst". For example, the fact that the average carrier of the LII sociotype should have the dictator's manners and a penchant for bloody reforms, and with a special desire, you can even “pull out” your intended height, weight and gender. I exaggerate, of course, but the given example shows the incorrectness of such a "conclusion" (and what has happened at that time, has already been shown above).

Further, in the discourse on the breadth or narrowness of concepts, it is not clear what is at stake - the content or scope of the concept. After all, it is known that the content and volume are inversely proportional to each other, the larger the content - the smaller the volume, and vice versa. In this case, the content is the set of attributes and qualities of the object of the concept, and the volume is the set of objects possessing these qualities. In this case, the concept of "Robespierre" (as a specific person) generally has many signs that identify it, and therefore a large content, but its scope is limited to a single historical character. Considering "Robespierre" as a name for a sociotype, that is, for a large number of people, obviously, the volume should increase, and the content (and hence the number of signs) should decrease. But just in the previous paragraph, we showed that when the signs of a person "Robespierre" "are being chased through the door", increasing the scope of the concept, they are "returning through the window" because of incomplete "rastozhdestveniya. And the concept of "Analyst" on the contrary, has not too much content, but a much larger volume initially.

five). And finally: about the painful mis-typing of prototypes of pseudonyms.

I will not convince right now about the correctness and incorrectness of typing of certain historical personalities, but I would only note that the very presence of prototypes among people of which the type is incorrectly defined is not only incorrect from a scientific point of view (as if we called Newton's law, for example, Descartes' theorem), but also throws us into the cycle of the problems already discussed. In case of incorrect identification of the prototype type IM, the entire “external” meaning of the pseudonym unambiguously works against its transformation into the “internal”, distorting the meaning. Everything happens in the same way as in the case of incomplete “identification”, the only difference is that in that case at least some correct meaning is transmitted, in this it is distorted from the very beginning. If we completely "identify" the pseudonym and the "type", it does not matter,

You can also note such an interesting phenomenon as a tendency to shorten, simplify pseudonyms. After all, time has shown that with real communication, few people use the original long names - they are reduced. Those of them that consist of two words are reduced to one, and shorter, for example, Maxim Gorky ® Maxim, Jack London ® Jack, Don Quixote ® Don. And during informal communication, even single-word names are reduced: Robespierre - Rob, Dostoevsky - Dostik or Dost, Zhukov - Beetle, Yesenin - Hes, etc.

What is behind this trend? I see at least two reasons for this. The first, more simple: as we found out, shorter names correspond to more effective communication, which is the engine of this process. However, is it only? Looking ahead, I will say that for a role-playing system, where not less long names are found, such a trend is not observed at all. But here everything is explicable. It seems to me that the second reason is hidden in the fact that, by changing the form, the name quickly becomes a formula, discarding the “extra” and incorrect meaning, thus, this process facilitates the painful stage of the “lack of identification” of the name. For the names of the role system, where the “parasitic” meaning is initially minimized, there is no such problem.

Well, last but not least, a remark made on the basis of Lytov’s idea of ​​early socionics as a role-playing game: times have changed, and the image of the role-playing game, which played so well at the beginning of its development, now cannot but harm it. After all, today socionics, in which its participants endow each other with the names of "unreal" people and characters, is perceived from the outside as a "role-playing game" in its worst sense - empty fantasy divorced from life, in which, moreover, the real world is replaced by a virtual one. And those involved in socionics are like people, at best, "not of this world", at worst - as "schizophrenics." And these are not empty assumptions, a good illustration of the above is an interview with a professional psychologist E. Volkov, a specialist in destructive cults,

So here, sadly - but a fact: the shortcomings of the pseudonym system have a very adverse effect on the development of socionics by beginners, as well as on its image among non-socionists. And most importantly, the reasons for the negative impact is not so easy to identify, but its manifestation can now be seen firsthand.

What can oppose this alternative motivated function-role system introduced by V. Gulenko in response to the presence of the unavoidable shortcomings of the A. Augustinavichute system?

Again, in this system, the social role of a sociotype in society, or, more simply, a quality that is well visible from this society and is able to benefit society, comes out as a name. Since only one characteristic feature of the sociotype stands out (but the most characteristic one), the content of the concept, as already shown, is small, and the volume, on the contrary, is quite large. This largely eliminates most of the above-mentioned shortcomings of the pseudonym system: there is almost no “parasitic” meaning, which means there are no problems with its elimination, there is no need for “identification”, which means the names cannot be reduced to formulas. Since the names are fairly neutral, they are easy to “try on” for people, and if translated correctly, there are no problems with their transfer to another language environment. Besides,

The system’s lack of V. Gulenko is, and it is rather difficult to overcome. This disadvantage is that it is not so easy to select the most characteristic quality of a type in a society - for this you just need huge statistics and real work experience with real people. And then the choice does not become unambiguous. That is why the Gulenko system has so many options, some of which are promoted by people who once worked with him. And Gulenko himself has changed several names in his system since its introduction.

However, as can be seen, this deficiency manifests itself at the stage of selection of the name, and not at the stage of its use (with the correct choice of the name, the selection criteria are in the next part). Thus, it seems to me that Gulenko’s motivated functional role-playing system demonstrates convincing advantages over competing ones. And it remains only to regret that, so far, despite all its advantages, or rather even, despite the shortcomings of the competing system, it has not yet received the corresponding recognition. I have already indicated the reason - a very difficult perception of deficiencies in the system of pseudonyms of Aushra.

And finally, once again about the advantages and disadvantages of both systems in a concise form:

Advantages of the A. Augustinavichute system of pseudonyms:

It allows you to present the basic concepts of socionics in a vivid, memorable, figurative form, allowing socionics to avoid censorship and repression in due time.

Disadvantages of the pseudonym A. Augustinavichiute system:

but). The need for a correct definition of the socionic type of the pre-image of a pseudonym, and incorrectness arising from its incorrect typing;

b). Different perceptions of the name, ranging from unconditional acceptance to complete rejection, followed by an emotional reassessment of their attitude to socionics;

at). Difficulties in transferring the meaning of names when transferring to another language and / or temporary environment.

d). The use of pseudonyms creates the illusion of a prolonged period of "role-playing" in its worst meaning, which prevents the establishment of contacts between socionics and other specialists.

d). The spontaneous reduction of pseudonyms due to the difficulties of their “identification” with the properties of the pre-image and, in part, of long two-word names.

Note that almost all comments refer specifically to the distortion of information that occurs in certain cases, and only the last comment relates to the effectiveness of information transfer.

The advantages of the system of motivated function-role names V. Gulenko:

Advantages: the same as the system of pseudonyms, and the bright form does not depend on time and (if correctly translated, taking into account the nuances) of the language environment. The names are neutral and rather short (from one word). In addition, there is no need for socionic diagnosis of famous personalities and characters.

Disadvantages of the system of motivated functional-role titles V. Gulenko:

All the shortcomings of the pseudonym system are largely eliminated. The disadvantages include the fact that it is very difficult to choose a word that conveys the most characteristic property of the type (however, this is a consequence of the complexity of the psyche in general). Thus, the main drawback is manifested at the stage of choosing the name.

Conclusion: as already noted, the Gulenko system has more advantages and fewer disadvantages compared to the Aushra system. Note that while the analysis was carried out without the involvement of specific names, i.e. potential systems were compared. Naturally, in order to really use any of them, it must be filled with content, i.e. name that, in general, immediately and was made by their authors. But we will deal with the analysis of this content in the next part of the work.

Analysis of the filling of functional role systems

Let us try to formulate the requirements by which we will evaluate the suitability of a word as the name of a sociotype. I consider the introduction of such requirements as an absolutely necessary condition for any comparison, otherwise the name can only be appreciated from a subjective point of view (like it or not, like it). These requirements I consider:

1. Typicality

2. Inclusion in the system

3. Emotional Neutrality

4. Unambiguity

Typicality - mutual matching of the selected name to type. In the case of a functional role system, the name should represent the role that this type plays in society, and show its characteristic behavior patterns.

Inclusion in the system - the name should correspond to the whole system, i.e. a word that is not a role should not be a name, otherwise the homogeneity (homogeneity) of the system disappears. Unfortunately, the authors, introducing their systems (except V. Gulenko), did not take care to present their names. It remains only to guess what exactly is the criterion for combining names into the system, what they wanted to say with one or another name and how to understand it. For the purposes of further analysis, it will be necessary to assume that all the systems considered are functionally role-playing.

Emotional neutrality - a word claiming the name should not cause sharp negative or positive reactions (“ham”, “leader”). This condition is introduced because of the peculiarities of the perception of the name by people, which may cause prejudice and psychological rejection of socionic methods.

By unambiguity, I will understand the absence of other clearly expressed meanings and, at the same time, clarity (it is clear that these are two sides of the same coin: polysemy, on the one hand, and unambiguity of an incomprehensible word, on the other hand).

It can be seen that the requirements are tough enough, and it is very difficult to fulfill them strictly for all the names, therefore only a good approximation to them will suffice. On the other hand, these criteria, from my point of view, are the necessary minimum for any functional role-playing system of names. Different authors can also add their own criteria: I myself, for example, would add such a rather difficult formalizable criterion as "usability" - the ability to use the name in different communicative situations (in the business environment, the environment of professional psychologists, at school, etc. .) without further explanation. And D. Lytov believes that the name should be translated into common European languages ​​without stretch. In addition, the authors notice a different approach to the balance of the content / scope of the concept,

It is completely understandable that even with the fulfillment of all the necessary conditions, there is sufficient “freedom of maneuver” in choosing a name. It is also obvious that it is difficult to develop a system that will satisfy everyone. But in this case there is a temptation to have many name systems that are ideally suited for use in a particular case or field. However, it seems to me that this path faces many problems and inconveniences, both for the socionics themselves and other specialists. So, in particular, in [15], the professor of the Irkutsk University, based on the sociotype names he has, made an incorrect conclusion that socionics operates with three dozen types, whereas practically none of the existing directions in socionics question the number of sociotypes equal to 16. In fact, among the list provided by V. Danilenko, there are both different names for one sociotype, for example, Inspirer and Advisor for IEE, and names that are not socionic, but similar in form (for example, Altruist, Fighter, Educator, Diplomat). Thus, this example shows that unnecessary complication contributes to the misunderstanding of even the foundations of socionics, and turns into inconvenience for the socionics themselves.

---

The following is the actual analysis.

Comparison of names by Gulenko, Shulman, Meged and Ovcharov, Slinko, Filatova.

The brackets indicate the authorship of the name. The following systems were used: Gulenko in its present form, Schulman by [35], Meged and Ovcharov by [21], Slinko by [27], Filatova by [30, 31], and some others. In addition, at the request of Schulman, the modern version of his system was considered, where some changes were made. For convenience, a later version will be located after the earlier one (described in [35]).

The most successful names (from my point of view) are in bold italics.

Intuitive logical extrovert (ILE):

"Seeker" [Gulenko] - this title reflects a very characteristic feature of this type - its constant search for interesting information. In addition, in everyday life ILE is often rather absent-minded, and therefore they are often engaged in the search for things that they have managed to shove somewhere. And therefore deserve the title of "household finder."

“Generator” [Shulman] is a less successful name, since causes unnecessary associations with the electromechanical device, besides, the generator (of ideas), as it is often described, is not any ILE, but only one of its subtypes.

"Innovator" [Meged, Ovcharov] - usually an innovator is called a person who introduces and implements something new (principles, ideas, techniques, etc.). However, if everything is in order with the introduction (proposal) of ILE, it is impossible to say about the implementation of this. It is difficult for him to embody or seek from others their embodiment of his new ideas.

"Wunderkind" [Slinko] - being applied to an adult, has a distinct ironic tinge, so this word is not suitable for the type name.

Sensory-ethical introvert (SEI):

“Mediator” [Gulenko] - conveys the ability of this type of communication, to establish psychological contact between several people, as well as the characteristic position of “not to stick out” for this type, to keep in between.

"Brownie" [Schulman] - most likely, the author wanted to emphasize the "domesticity" of this type, but this word has its specific meaning, significantly different from the one that the author wanted to put into it, namely, "a mythological creature living in a house."

Sibarit [Slinko] is an uncommon, rare concept: "a person inclined to idleness, pampered with luxury." This characteristic is not typical, as it can equally not belong to a significant part of representatives of this type, and it also characterizes other types. At the same time the word has a negative emotional coloring.

Ethical-sensory extrovert (ESE):

"Enthusiast" [Gulenko] - this name emphasizes the energy and optimism that accompanies the ESE throughout his life. Almost all the cases for which ESE is taken at will, he begins with enthusiasm, on an emotional high. To convey this charge of positive emotions is the social role of this type.

“Furious” [Schulman] is a characteristic rather than a social role. Moreover, in one way or another, any extrovert ethics can be “violent” (unrestrained, turbulent), and if one takes incontinence not only in the sphere of feelings, then almost any type can be taken.

"Communicator" [Meged, Ovcharov] - perhaps the author wanted to emphasize sociability? In any case, there is no such word in Russian, therefore everyone can understand it in their own way, which increases uncertainty. In confirmation of this, I note that other authors see "Communicators" in representatives of other sociotypes (see the note to a similar name of the IEE type).

"Player" [Slinko] - this name really well identifies a subtype of one type, but not only ESE, but EE.

“Flinserer” [used by D. Lytov on the site http://www.socioniko.net ] is a less successful name, primarily because it does not have a distinctive power, since the same characteristic can be attributed, for example, to the type of LIE. The only difference is that ESE, without a doubt, will dominate the material, "sensory" part of life.

Logical-intuitive introvert (LII):

“Analyst” [Gulenko] - conveys the tendency to analyze all incoming information in a logical way (that is, what the real analyst usually does). Naturally, this feature is more or less characteristic of other types, especially intuitive logic, but only LII does this all the time, and as fully and deeply as possible in these conditions.

“Scoutman” [Shulman] - again, regardless of what the author of the title wanted to put into this word, such a word has a certain meaning in Russian, namely “a person who mines gold in an artisanal way”. This value can hardly characterize the type of LII.

“Workaholic” [Schulman] - this name, it seems to me, does not meet the criterion of typity - after all, it’s rather the personal quality of an individual person, rather than a feature of a socionic type, especially an introvert.

"Sophist" [Slinko] - is clearly expressing a negative connotation, because a sophist is usually called a person who uses sophisms — logic-correct reasoning, which contain a deliberately disguised intentional mistake, or simply reasoning so abstrusely and elaborately that it is extremely difficult to verify what he has stated.

Ethical-intuitive extrovert (EIE):

"Mentor" [Gulenko] - the type name reflects the ability of "instruction", i.e. edifying, educative learning. Such “instruction” can manifest itself in EE even in non-traditional forms, for example, child-EE, “instructing” its parents. The name of the type, unfortunately, reflects the characteristic features of not all EE. But this is a problem, in my opinion, and cannot be solved more correctly due to the simply huge natural diversity of representatives of this type, which simply does not reduce their characteristics to one capacious word without losing meaning for most of them. Therefore, for the very part of this type of representatives within the framework of humanitarian socionics, Gulenko entrenched the complementary name Player, which reflects the passion of this subtype for the game in the broad sense of the word. A legitimate question arises: and on what basis do we assign such dissimilar people to the same type of EE that unites them? The answer can be expressed simply: in each Player there is a Mentor's share, and in each Mentor there is a Player's share. The fact is that both the Mentor and the Player are two sides of the same type, in the representatives of their qualities they coexist, and differ only in their quantitative ratio. But the quality, which is less, no, no, yes, and it will break. Proof of this can serve as facts from the lives of some famous people, when with age there was a shift from the Player to the Mentor. and differ only in quantitative ratio. But the quality, which is less, no, no, yes, and it will break. Proof of this can serve as facts from the lives of some famous people, when with age there was a shift from the Player to the Mentor. and differ only in quantitative ratio. But the quality, which is less, no, no, yes, and it will break. Proof of this can serve as facts from the lives of some famous people, when with age there was a shift from the Player to the Mentor.

"Ideologue" [Shulman] - the author of the name believes that this name is more suitable than others, who allegedly "underestimate the capabilities and abilities" of this TIM. I believe that "opportunities and abilities" are more personal qualities of a particular person. Only a very small number of people can be called ideologists, but there are much more carriers of this type.

"Artist" [Slinko, Filatov] - unfortunately, also applies to a much smaller EIE circle, therefore less successfully.

Logic-sensory introvert (LSI):

"Inspector" [Gulenko] - conveys the property to monitor the correct functioning of the system, i.e. rules and norms established by society, as well as the use of objects (resources) that it considers to be the subject of its competence.

The “master” [Shulman] - in the author’s opinion, it is “economic” that is a specific feature of this type, so that he can be an “inspector” and many more. However, I believe that this is not the case: people of the LSI type, who perform such controlling duties inherent to them, are not always (and consider themselves) the owners of the controlled object (for example, any verification of documents for compliance with formal requirements in any state structure). Therefore, this name is too broad (in the sense of the scope of the concept: all owners are to some extent inspectors, but not all inspectors are owners). Any manager has a chance to become a good owner.

"Mechanic" [Slinko] - shows only one, not the most important and common feature of LSI, good work with mechanical devices. In addition, it has a very specific meaning - one of the professions.

“Systematic” [Filatov] is characteristic not only for this type, by virtue of which the name does not fit the first of the proposed criteria - typology.

Sensory-logical extrovert (SLE):

“Marshal” [Gulenko] - the ability to wage a successful fight (not necessarily a power one) under critical conditions of lack of time. Success is achieved by cold-blooded analysis, and skillful use of resources, including human, but in the interests of the cause, the needs and feelings of individuals are often not taken into account. Unfortunately, in the Russian language there is no word that adequately describes such abilities, therefore, the analogy with the commander-organizer is used, which, in order to be successful, must possess precisely such qualities.

“Warrior” [Schulman] - such a name too focuses attention on military talents of the type, while its civilian properties remain undisclosed. In addition, the soldier soldier, who is also a warrior, may well do without specific "marshall" qualities.

"Leader" [Meged, Ovcharov] is a very broad, ambiguous concept, for example, the leader of a sporting event or a political leader - people with different qualities, so this characteristic cannot be attributed only to the type of the SLE. For example, many SEEs and EEs have “leadership” qualities.

Legionnaire [Slinko] is an incomprehensible title; the author probably wanted to convey their collectivism. However, their tendency to compete usually leads to the opposite: SLE do not cooperate, but compete, each with its own group (which does not consist of SLE).

“Realist”, “Organizer” [Filatov] - both names are unsuccessful due to non-typicality, because many can be called organizers, and anyone can be realists at all.

Intuitive ethical introvert (IEI):

"Lyric" [Gulenko] - the ability to subtly feel emotions in everything, as well as the change of emotions in time. Also conveys some "insecurity", the need for self-care.

"Dreamer" [Slinko] - has a pronounced negative hue ("not adapted to the life of a person", "fruitless dreamer", etc.).

"Peacemaker" [Shulman] - in principle, the name, despite some pathos, reflects the characteristic features of the type, but it is too wide. Similar features may also have SEI and EII.

“Idealist” [Shulman] - on the one hand, such a name is quite capable of being the social role of a sociotype. On the other hand, it can hardly be considered emotionally neutral, since the situation with such a name, in my opinion, in many ways resembles the situation with the name "Dreamer", namely, its negative nuance, since idealism is often understood as being divorced from the real world .

Sensory-ethical extrovert (SEE):

The “politician” [Gulenko] - in this case, the meaning is not a “dishonest, unprincipled person who can talk in the language, a demagogue who changes his position for money,” ie a set of qualities that, in our realities, is associated with almost all representatives of this profession, which we can observe, and "tacking, balancing between opposite sides, and able to find advantageous sides in such tacking." This name, of course, loses by the criterion of unambiguity, but it greatly gains in the other parameters.

“The Lord” [Shulman] - firstly, a rather pompous, “bookish” word, and secondly, the presence of a ruler implies the presence of subordinates. All this limits its use, so I believe that the carriers of this type are much more than the people who can be called by this word (as well as in the case with the name “Ideolog”).

"Massovik" [Slinko] - "inventor"? In this case, only one side is emphasized, namely, the ability to manifest itself in show business, to be great leaders for various entertainment programs and events (but not designed to exacerbate the situation in the process), for example, a toastmaster, etc. In another case, the meaning of the name is not quite clear.

"Leader" [Filatov] - see the commentary on the SLE.

Intuitive-logical introvert (OR):

"Critic" [Gulenko] - the name clearly reflects the social role of this type - a critical analysis, identifying the weaknesses of the object or phenomenon in question, a warning about negative aspects that allow society "not to leave the ground."

“Encyclopedist” [Shulman] - this quality, in my opinion, depends only on the general level of education and intelligence. Although the carriers of this type are indeed such more often than other types, there are much more real representatives of the type that are not encyclopaedists.

“Knowing” [Schulman] - like many others, this property can be considered inherent not in the socionic type, but in its individual representatives it is a quality of a person, not a type. In addition, not only people of this type have extensive knowledge - without a doubt, this is not a socionic parameter at all.

“Planner” [Slinko] - again the origin of the name is not clear. Obviously this feature is not typical for all OR.

Logical-intuitive extrovert (LIE):

“Entrepreneur” [Gulenko] - again, it’s not the meaning of “a private entrepreneur, a person who runs his own business”, but as a derivative of the word “undertaking”, don’t give up, don’t give up (but as a special case business). In this case, his motto and social role are visible - “to act, while others doubt!”. This name, just as in the case with the name “Politician”, does not meet the uniqueness criterion, but acceptable alternatives No, and invent them is not so simple.

“Selfmedman” [Shulman] - there is no such word in Russian, which makes it not a very convenient name. The meaning that conveys meaning cannot be expressed in one word of the Russian language either. Moreover, this characteristic is not typical. The proposed alternative name "Entrepreneurial", as well as "Furious", is not a social role, but simply a property.

The “seeker” [Schulman] - as already noted, Gulenko calls another type, ILE, with the same name. However, if it is explained that it is possible for ILE to "search" without difficulty, then it is much more difficult to answer the question that a LIE "searches" After all, the motto of this type is rather “Do it!”, And not “Search!”.

The "experimenter" [Meged, Ovcharov] - in general, the name characterizes the type quite well, especially when compared with other Scientists, in his club he most deserves this name. However, if we consider the type in quadra, and especially in society, it becomes clear that the name is narrowed, since the "entrepreneur" includes experimentation, above all his own business. In addition, all intuitive extroverts are more or less inclined to experiment.

Ethical-sensory introvert (ESI):

“Guardian” [Gulenko] - the name corresponds to the social role, the purpose of which is to preserve relations (not only to people, but also to other objects), traditions, norms of society, etc., i.e. the preservation of all that is valuable, which is a solid base of human behavior in the world of other people.

"Canon" [Schulman] - is almost inextricably linked with church activities, such associations are hardly necessary type name.

“Guardian” [Slinko] - in principle, this word is practically synonymous with the word “keeper”, but outdated, bookish, and therefore obscure. This significantly reduces its value as a name.

Logic-sensory extrovert (FEL):

“Administrator” [Gulenko] - conveys the ability to administer (manage and control) several processes in parallel without harming any of them. At the same time, the processes may be of different nature, but necessarily of a material nature.

"Manager" [Meged, Ovcharov] - in practice, is the translation of the word "administrator". Therefore, this name is not worse than it, the only circumstance that restrains its use is its low prevalence (only its authors use it). Accordingly, of the two equivalent names, preference should be given to the one that is more common.

“Researcher” [Schulman] - this name is completely incomprehensible to me. What qualities the author wanted to emphasize is a mystery.

The “steward” [Schulman] is very much like the “administrator” or “manager”. Thus, different authors see the role of this sociotype approximately equally.

"Operator" [Slinko] - and again I absolutely do not understand what the author wanted to show with this title ("operator" of the movie? Mobile communication? Machine milking?).

“Professional” [Filatov] is traditionally too broad a concept. After all, a professional can be any sociotype, each in its own field.

Ethical-intuitive introvert (EII):

“Humanist” [Gulenko] - and again the name expresses the social role of the type of EII - by its example show the principles of humanity, understanding, philanthropy (moreover, love is for a person, and not abstract to all humanity, like in EIE).

“Psychologist” [Slinko] - without even taking into account the ambiguity of the word (as already noted, the name of the profession is not a very good candidate for the role of the name of a sociotype), I note that any of the ethical-intuitive types can be a psychologist and not be them). This is confirmed by the fact that other authors call this name other types, such as IEE.

"Understanding" [Schulman] - this name does not meet the criterion of inclusion in the system. The fact is that it well demonstrates the role of this sociotype, but not in society, but in a small group. Accordingly, it can work well in a naming system similar to the functional role-playing, but reflecting role in the group (by the way, such a system has not yet been proposed).

Intuitive ethical extrovert (IEE):

The Advisor [Gulenko] is the social role of a person standing apart from the cause, phenomenon, object, but nevertheless capable of giving accurate and independent advice in a timely manner, based on a few facts and an outside view of the situation.

"Enthusiast" [Shulman] - this name is absolutely not a good one. The adviser is an enthusiast in only one respect for advertising promising people and ideas that he likes, as well as the “Seeker”, it’s difficult to implement them, so when it comes to actions in the real world, all of the IEE’s “enthusiasm” from ESE, disappears somewhere.

"Inspirer" [Meged, Ovcharov] - this name conveys the characteristics of IEE better than the previous one, but nevertheless correlates with the more successful name "Adviser" as well as the names "Ideologist" and "Mentor", since The number of IEE-type representatives who can rightfully call themselves "inspirers" is much less than those who can call themselves "advisers."

"Communicator" [Slinko] - see the note to the similar name of the type ESE.

"Psychologist" [used by D. Lytov on the site http://www.socioniko.net ] - see the note on the name of the type of EII.

“Initiator” [Filatov] - this name is not clear to me. In theory, the author wanted to convey the fact that he was starting something, but this is what the name does not reflect.

Sensory-logical introvert (SLI):

“Master” [Gulenko] - here this word carries the meaning not “extra-class specialist”, but “master” as “craftsman”, a person who knows and knows a certain craft well, is a qualified professional. First of all, it concerns people whose results depend entirely on themselves, especially in the field of manual labor. In this and its social role - individual production and services.

"Handyman" [Schulman] - in general, a good name, includes all the meanings of the previous name, except that "Handyman" implies skills and mastery in at least several areas, which is much less common.

"Designer" [Slinko] - and again the name of the profession in the role of the name, it does not characterize the type, it is just one of the possible professions for the representative of this (and not only) sociotype.

Findings:

one). So, on closer examination, the notation problem turns out to be not at all as simple as it may appear at first, and some researchers present it (see, for example, [29]). It is also not insignificant or trivial in its importance for socionics, because, as it turned out, a lot depends on the choice of names - starting from the emotional reaction of a person who has only become acquainted with socionics and to the understanding of each other by her followers, from her image Sciences to the prospects and pace of its development. It is also possible that precisely the unfortunate names will become the additional stimulus that will reverse the development of socionics, replacing progress with primitivization and degradation, and some signs of this phenomenon can already be seen, in particular, among non-specialists actively promoting socionics. Thus, the future of socionics, including the nearest, depends on the solution of this problem.

2). An attempt by the author to classify notation systems made it possible to identify and summarize two different classes of their nature: formulas and names. Analysis of these two classes leads to an understanding of their equal value for socionics, and naturally gives a purpose, each of them: while communication using formulas allows the most effective communication between professionals, the names greatly help newcomers to master this deceptively simple in appearance, but a very complex discipline. It is also important to note that any ill-conceived bias in the preference of either of the two classes of designations in the current conditions leads to the wrong development of socionics, either turning it into an obscure super-complex tool (unrecognized) geniuses, or simplifying to such an extent

3). The historical excursion allowed us to single out quite a lot of the proposed notation systems for socionic types that have been formed to this day, however, we have to admit that only a few have any noticeable popularity or application. This state of affairs can be explained by the fact that the existing systems did not satisfy many researchers who tried to rectify the situation, but in most cases the products of their “improvements” turned out to be even less convenient for practical application. It can also be stated that attempts to propose a system that can be applied in any conditions, and which will suit everyone, or at least the absolute majority of socionics, are almost certainly doomed to failure.

four). Comparison of the two most common notation systems A. Augustinavichiute and V. Gulenko, both formula and title, confirmed this assumption, since both advantages and disadvantages of each of them were distinguished. However, their nature is different: if, in the case of formulas, the quantity and quality of positive and negative sides are comparable with the systems of A. Augustinavichiute and V. Gulenko, which allows them to freely use both depending on the preferences of the researcher without negative consequences, then in the case of the pseudonym system, it is her many and serious shortcomings lead to most of those undesirable and harmful phenomena in socionics, which are described above. Thus, the system of functional-role names by V. Gulenko is a much more attractive choice from the point of view of the development of socionics, as a science.

five). Even within the framework of the functional-role system, its various filling with names is possible, as demonstrated by a number of modifications of the original names of V. Gulenko by other socionics. The criteria for filling can be completely different depending on what the names will be used for and how, and on the author’s personal views on sociotypes. Thus, once again confirms the idea that it is impossible to create one system of names, suitable for "all occasions", and satisfying all and in all conditions.

6). Of the presented name systems, Gulenko’s system is currently the most balanced for everyday use, even if it’s not perfect, even if individual names need to be corrected — but no one has suggested a better system. Thus, in order to solve the problem of creating a universal name system acceptable to all, it is necessary to take it as the basis, and not to try to start from the beginning to invent new systems. And to work on this issue, the best solution would be to gather around the round table the leading socionic experts with the aim of creating a working group.