Jack Aaron and Ben Vaserlan: Model A vs Model G
After Jack's video criticizing Model G as unnecessary, he and Ben Vaserlan decided to have a conversation about the respective merits of Model A and Model G (and why Model G might replace Model A and better unify our understanding of Socionics). By an unfortunate accident, their discussion wasn't recorded, so instead Jack recorded a new video by himself where he outlined what was spoken about in the discussion. Jack's first video on Model G was quite a disappointment for me, not because I was surprised that he took issue with Model G, but because the reasons he gave for dismissing it were rather cheap and simplistic. The only purpose such a video serves is pointless polarization that impedes us from collectively getting to the nuances and the heart of the issue. In fact, Jack and I had already discussed Model G before, and he merely reiterated his positions without addressing my criticisms. However, this time he had a lengthy discussion with a high profile user of Model G, and he highlighted the importance of "steel-manning" and bringing to bear the strongest version of Model A and Model G to get to the truth of the matter. If that is indeed going to be his approach, then I can very happily support it even if I don't agree with his conclusions. We're off to a much better start, but there remains quite a ways to go. Here is Jack's video on what was discussed between him and Ben:
Aftermath Of Model G Debate: What Went Down
As usual, I will address the video point by point:
Table of Contents:
1) Jack frames Ben Vaserlan as claiming that Victor Gulenko believes that Model G has already assimilated information metabolism into an energy-information metabolism, and that it is meant to function as a replacement of Model A
2) Jack says Model A and Model G haven't done a very good job of complementing one another so far
3) In Model G, Jack says there are no metaphysical blockings, such as Ne-Ti and Se-Fi, molecules of information as it were
4) Jack says Model G doesn't allow vertical blocking
5) Jack says that the functions at the left are responsible for the more visible and best behavior of the type
6) Ben says that the Suggestive function is better in certain conditions, presumably than the functions further to the right than it
7) Jack says that the suggestive function can't be better than the mobilizing function, because otherwise we can't distinguish between types that have the mirror relationship
8) Jack says that the mobilizing function's placement at the right of the Model G chart indicates its relative lack of importance
9) Jack says that even if the suggestive function is conditionally better, that doesn't mean it deserves to be on the left of the chart
10) Jack says that in Model A, someone changing in different situations is explained by evaluatory/situational
11) Jack suggests that ILE behaves most like EIE, LSE, and SEE because these are the other types in its benefit cycle as shown by Model G (but what Ben really said in their discussion was that ILE enacts a complementary role with the other members of its Benefit Ring)
12) Jack says that it would be more plausible for an ILE to mimic an ESE rather than an SEE, as the extroverted ethics is more their motivation
13) Jack says that the transition to SEE isn't believable because it engages the vulnerable function, and because the Super-Ego is meant to fail
14) Jack says that the ILE behaves like an SEE in the sense of Se-Fe rather than Se-Fi
15) Jacks worries that an ILE behaving like an SEE would be indistinguishable from behaving like an ESE given that what is being emphasized is Se and Fe
16) Jack says that an experiment from the Socionists Shekhter and Kobrinskaya is what lead to the creation of Model G. Summarily in this experiment, groups of people in the same benefit cycle were brought together, and they became more energized and accomplished tasks with greater enthusiasm and psychic energy
17) Jack points out a number of lackings or defects about this experiment by Shekhter and Kobrinskaya, such as its unavailability for us to examine, its possible lack of peer review, its unknown sample size, and its methodology which could contain flaws
18) Jack asks whether this experiment (or probably any set of reasons) can justify the sacrifices Model G is making: blocking, mobilizing as consistently more important than the suggestive, and theoretical confusion
19) Jack says that this discussions is about the MODELS more than the people, getting to the truth of the matter. He asks which model will unify our understanding, and open our understanding of people and world. To determine this, he says each model must be steel-manned, not straw-manned. That is, we need to see the strongest showing these ideas have to offer
1) Jack frames Ben Vaserlan as claiming that Victor Gulenko believes that Model G has already assimilated information metabolism into an energy-information metabolism, and that it is meant to function as a replacement of Model A
After talking with Ben myself, it sounds like what he really meant is that Model G has replaced Model A in practice as the main model used by the School of Humanitarian Socionics. This is true. What Jack may have taken this to mean is that Model G has replaced Model A as some kind of singularly authoritative model in all uses of Socionics in any school, which is not the case. It is merely that it is not accepted anymore as an authority or dogma by the School of Humanitarian Socionics (rather it is just another potential tool), and that it has proven to be a less effective tool for capturing the Sociotypes in Humanitarian Socionics as compared to Model G. Of course, Victor Gulenko supports the approach of Humanitarian Socionics above other approaches, but that doesn't mean Model A is banned forever and that it will not find some contextual use in the future. In any case, both Information Metabolism and Energy Metabolism are not subsystems of Model G, but rather subsystems of the Sociotype which is the real object of study of Humanitarian Socionics. Should information metabolism come to the fore of studying the Sociotypes again, it is possible that Model A or some retooling of Model A could be used, but the Humanitarian School currently prioritizes studying energy metabolism.
From Psychological Types by Victor Gulenko, pg. 383: "The energy model of a socionic object does not abolish Model A, but complements it to a unified model of energy-information metabolism (EIM)."
That seems straightforward in principle. It says the exact same thing on the article detailing the basics of the Energy Model: Energy Model. What is it?
Gulenko also refers to Model A as "the revision socionic model..." (pg. 382). Gulenko defines Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) as "the nature of interaction of the sociotype with information; the way in which the sociotype perceives, interprets, processes, and issues information in the solution of the vital task that has arisen. TIM is described by the revision socion model (Model A)" (pg. 381).
None of this suggests a singular replacement of Model A or information metabolism to me, in the broadest sense.
In Clock of the Socion, Gulenko says: "There is also a view of socion from much greater distance. This is the secondary level of organization of the socion: the quadra and the rings of supervision and benefit. It's another question what kind of rings we should consider. Here there are many hidden contradictions since there are two types of rings: rings of supervision and rings of benefit. When we take Model A, which was discovered by A. Augusta, we're looking at functions from point of view of rings of supervision. We can also use a different model, one that is based on considering the rings on benefits instead, and this model is different from Model A. The word "rings" in this articles will denote benefit rings. We must give credit to A. Augusta here because she has discovered both types of rings, however, she gave priority to the informational revision chains i.e. supervision rings. However, rings of benefits are more dynamic and better reflect the development of the socion as a single unit."
To me, the above doesn't sound like a wholesale rejection of the revision model of Socionics (Model A). However, Gulenko does seem to think there are reasons to prioritize the rings of benefit (reflected in Model G), over the rings of supervision, at least in situations that are more dynamic and better reflect the development of the socion as a single unit.
In Sociotype, TIM, TEM - connection and differences of concepts in socionics, Gulenko says: "The type of informational metabolism is especially important if we seek to study the interaction of people or other social systems, since the interaction itself occurs precisely through information exchange. However, studying the type of energy metabolism is preferable in the sense that we cannot directly study the laws of informational metabolism (TIM) directly, but we can observe the processes and laws of energy metabolism directly, and in many ways even without special tools (with our own eyes)."
This further supports my point, because while it is saying that there are good reasons to focus on the energy model, there are still especially important reasons to keep information metabolism around, and as I cited above, information metabolism is described by Model A.
In Types of models in socionics and their properties, Victor Gulenko says: "On the other hand, the dominant position of Model A in socionic research, its “eternity” and “non-alternativeness” leads to the fact that it becomes a dogma. However, the scientific model is just a tool that is suitable for working in some conditions, and completely unsuitable for others, in which other models work much better. Therefore, in humanitarian socionics, where the combinatorial method is recognized as a full-fledged modeling method, the creation and use of new models is welcomed, the only requirements for which are the correctness of their construction and the possibility of verification."
Explain Model G dimensions: "It is necessary to distinguish between informational and energy dimensions. For model G, more relevant energy dimensions. They are understood as the degree of freedom of action of a function occupying a certain position. The functions of energy pessimum have the minimum dimension. For example, the eighth, which has only one degree of freedom: on or off. It is always on, a person cannot stop controlling the surrounding space through it. For example, the Administrator cannot stop monitoring L. The seventh has two extreme states - not to manifest itself or manifest itself strongly. For example, the Mentor most often very closely follows the appearance of S, but under certain circumstances it can dispense with it."
The most problematic function in Model G is a different function called the Control function, which corresponds to the Ignoring function in Model A. There have even been Model A advocates who agree with Gulenko that the Control/Ignoring is the most problematic, such as Roan LaPlante, though Roan disagrees with much of the rest of Gulenko's theories.
These are axiomatic and phenomenological differences between the schools of Socionics which factor into how typings happen to begin with. These axioms were derived from experience in order to make typings maximally meaningful, penetrating, clear and realistic. Surely both starting points are deserving of exploration on their own internally consistent terms. However, Jack's assumption that the Super-Ego and Vulnerable are essentially meant to fail seems so primitive and inflexible that it can use at least a tweak or two.
14) Jack says that the ILE behaves like an SEE in the sense of Se-Fe rather than Se-Fi
This is a false dichotomy, because +Se (SEE) is in the same position with respect to +Fi and -Fe in an SEE as it is in an ILE (as it is for all types). So this is just an irrelevant pseudo-problem. It's both Se-Fe and Se-Fi, not a choice between options.
15) Jacks worries that an ILE behaving like an SEE would be indistinguishable from behaving like an ESE given that what is being emphasized is Se and Fe
SEE and ESE behavior are readily distinguishable in Humanitarian Socionics:
-SEE habitually uses the functions +Se and -Fe, and is a Flexible-Maneuvering Irrational Static type
-ESE habitually uses the functions +Fe and -Se, and is a Linear-Assertive Rational Dynamic type
This is also an odd point because by the same logic, the mirror types in Jack's own use of Model A would not be distinguishable. For example, an SEE and ESI both use Se and Fi, but surely we can distinguish them? Maybe Jack's response would be that we distinguish mirrors only (or primarily) by the mobilizing and suggestive functions. If we are really limited to that method in distinguishing mirrors, then that is a serious weakness which renders our diagnostic methods primitive and tenuous, depending on one thing that can easily be blurred by circumstances. Therefore, I am hoping there is more to distinguishing mirrors then that, and if so, then why can't we distinguish quasi-identicals?
16) Jack says that an experiment from the Socionists Shekhter and Kobrinskaya is what lead to the creation of Model G. Summarily in this experiment, groups of people in the same benefit cycle were brought together, and they became more energized and accomplished tasks with greater enthusiasm and psychic energy
I for one had never heard of this experiment before it was mentioned by Ben. In fact, the conductors of the experiment that Jack mentions don't even sound like people associated with Humanitarian Socionics, which is where Model G stems. The experiment sounds interesting but vague to me, as Jack tells it, though maybe there is more to it in reality. Here is a report on the experiment: Small Groups in Socionics. Here is what it says about Order Rings: "A homogeneous group of 4 people. The relationships of superego and social order are presented. There is some tension in the group. Interpersonal contacts are obscured. Feeling of emotional and intellectual balance. There is an excess of energy compared to other groups. Communication is not exhausting. Comfortable enough, but there is no sense of security, as in quadra. The topic of conversation is almost unchanged. All participants noted a specific tension in this group. Communication in pairs almost fails, only all together. Going into such a group after quadra gives a sense of stability. If the communication does not last more than 20-30 minutes, then certainly it is a plus due to the mobilizing effect on the participants. If longer, then begins to exhaust. Joint rest in such a group is difficult, as participants find it difficult to relax."
It is interesting that such experiments have been done which support these observations, but it is nothing decisive on its own. Nonetheless, there are a wealth of other reasons for Model G and the Energy Paradigm:
Sociotype, TIM, TEM - connection and differences of concepts in socionics: "The concepts of sociotype, type of informational metabolism (TIM) and type of energy metabolism (TEM) are some of the key in socionics, however, their degree of study is uneven. If the properties of a sociotype are studied most well, the properties of TIM are well enough, then the properties of TEM have not been studied well enough to date, although this concept in socionics arose simultaneously with the concept of TIM before the concept of sociotype."
"However, each of these actions (not to mention the implementation of the solution) requires certain energy costs. In addition, each form of mental activity (i.e., function) requires a certain level of activity, which means energy costs. It is the laws and dynamics of these processes that describe the type of energy metabolism."
"The type of informational metabolism is especially important if we seek to study the interaction of people or other social systems, since the interaction itself occurs precisely through information exchange. However, studying the type of energy metabolism is preferable in the sense that we cannot directly study the laws of informational metabolism (TIM) directly, but we can observe the processes and laws of energy metabolism directly, and in many ways even without special tools (with our own eyes)."
Psychological Types by Victor Gulenko, pg. 2: "What is the difference between HSS and other schools of socionics? Socionics started as a cross between cybernetics and psychology. First of all, it was a mathematical approach to the human psyche where the theory of informational metabolism by Anthony Kempinksi was crossed with Jungian types and developed into a system with clear interfunctional relations by Ausra Augustinaviciute. All of these early researchers believed the nature of socionical interaction also included an exchange of energy. Due to the materialistic fashion of post-Soviet education, many researchers chose to study the information exchange alone and rejected the idea that humans exchange energy with their external environment. Nevertheless, Dr. Gulenko has continued this research along with the energy component - the energy-information metabolism where types of behavior are characterized by the intensity and nature (quality) of energy exchange with the environment. The energy in socionics is quite tangible: some people are more energetic and active, while others can be rather laid back, economizing on energy in their everyday lives. It seems the function of energy also has a quality aspect (not only quantity). Therefore, other schools continue to research how humans perceive and proceed with information (informational metabolism) while HSS highlights attention on human behavior and performance (energy metabolism)."
Psychological Types by Victor Gulenko, pg. 383: "Why was the energy model developed? The focus of modern socionics should be modeling energy-information processes: how energy generates information - a new order, valuable experience, or proven knowledge in practice. After all, knowledge (information armament), even the most reliable, without the application, is worthless. In order to start using it, you need energy. The impact of a word as a carrier of information on a person or a group of people is ineffective unless energy is produced. That is, there is also need to excite or interest a person (to transfer to a higher energy level). Practicing psychologists, PR specialists, and political technologists have known this for a long time: the energy of the psyche begins to come to the fore. Proceeding from such considerations, an energy model of the psyche has been developed as more closely matching the criterion of optimal vital activity in the material world."
A Debate With Jack Oliver Aaron (reasons to treat Energy metabolism as more than the micro-transactions in the cells that feature in the Information Metabolism of Antoni Kepinski): "Energy exists in the microtransactions within the cell, but also the overall behavior of the system and its efficiency of movement and information processing. There is micro energy dynamics, and macro energy dynamics, just as in physics. You could try to describe energy in terms of the interaction of many atoms, but usually you will just use the macro features of the system in mechanical engineering, for example. Whenever your body is in some overall functional state (E/R/P/L/F/S/I/T), it is processing information and doing work which processes energy. The behavior, the work done, that is what is visible, whereas the information is something which has to be inferred."
"It is true that information can be important to carrying things out; you often need to know how to do something, but it is also possible to do things instinctually and subconsciously. But knowing how to carry something out (or being able to figure it out) is not the same as spending the energy to actually do that. You can know how to build a computer, but if you don’t have the energy to get the parts and put them together, then you’re not getting a computer. You can know how to treat people properly, but if you are angry or tired or a hypocrite, you might treat them like crap. This is very important, and is especially relevant to the Control function in Model G (Ignoring in Model A). This is a function where we know a lot, but we cannot act on it easily at all. We often use it to coach others. Well, I haven’t really explained the energy paradigm very much yet; I’ve only given a few tidbits of it because my time is limited. I wouldn’t say ShGS is a whole new theory; it obviously has plenty of overlap and agreement with the previous, but I would say a stronger epistemological basis and a better understanding of patterns of behavior through many dichotomies and functions. But to put it very simply, when you observe someone’s behavior, you are observing energy metabolism, not information metabolism. So, it is actually more direct to focus on energy than information. It is also more scientific."
"I would say energy is involved at every step of the process of looking, assessing, deciding and acting; while you are confused how there is room for energy, I am confused how any of it would be possible without energy. Looking requires energy (looking requires attentional mechanisms, getting you into a certain functional state to be able to process the world from the perspective of a certain function), assessing requires energy especially if it is a difficult assessment (just like it requires energy for your computer to do a calculation, some calculations can be done more efficiently on a CPU and some more efficiently on a GPU, etc.), deciding merely sounds like the end point of assessing, and acting is mostly energy because you have to actually perform work and affect something. Information doesn’t affect anything directly; it perhaps affects things indirectly by it being understood, but is inherently relative and relational (introverted). Energy is absolute (extroverted)."
Comments from Ben Vaserlan: "Dr G is referring to the energy of the psyche. Dr G is a Jungian."
The main contradiction of modern socionics: "In addition to the external difficulties that modern socionics have encountered, there are still more serious difficulties, splitting and weakening the socionic movement from within. The internal tension in socionics is slowly but steadily increasing. What is the source of this voltage? - The contradiction between the humanitarian and technical poles in socionic knowledge comes to the forefront more than ever. It slightly resembles the confrontation between the technocratic pressure of the West, atomizing and alienating people, and the ancient wisdom of the East, uniting and supporting people through their inclusion in a harmonious system of social relations, where everyone has a worthy place. (Watching a video interview with C.G. Jung).
Unfortunately, our contemporaries took the worst from the west - greed and combined it with the worst from the east - clanism. We are representing the humanitarian wing of modern socionics - a trend of dissenters, even dissidents. We are not verbally, but by deed, bringing socionics closer to the needs of specific people, practitioners. We carry out intensive explanatory work. We are not satisfied with the one-sidedness and absolutism of socionics - orthodoxes, for whom the best relationship is duality, the best group is quadra, the best type is ILE, the best scheme is Model A."
Reading Without Lessons: Answers To The Fellow Traveler:
Socionics is a humanitarian science - "This means: 1) when trying to measure the characteristics of an object endowed with a psyche, we thereby act on it and substantially change its state, therefore the reproducibility of the experiment on which classical science is built is limited; 2) socionics has a pronounced humanitarian mission in society."
The psyche is a multi-level education - "Subordination levels of the psyche, convenient for practical work, is as follows: type - subtype - behavior strategy - functional state. In other words, a type always manifests itself through one or another subtype, a subtype has a certain set of behavioral strategies, a behavior strategy is always implemented through current functional states. The more specific level we consider, the greater the degree of variability and dependence on the environment. The type depends on the environment to a minimum degree, and the functional state - to the maximum."
Focus on behavior - "Defining a socionic type, we focus on what a person does, and not on what he says. When we examine the semantic component of verbal communication, we are aware of its arbitrary and manipulative nature. We are interested in it from the point of view of how it affects behavior."
Principle of interactivity - "The behavior of a person or a group of people is formed in the interaction of internal factors with factors coming from external agents. The behavior of a person is also significantly influenced by factors of non-share origin - gender, age, profession, etc."
Information or energy: "The concept of "information", widely used in socionics, is extremely multivalued. A person starting to read books on its fundamentals, suddenly discovers that the psyche is based on "information metabolism". But is it legitimate to reduce the mental life of the individual and the collective to the exchange of information? And in general, what is the specificity of the information about which socionics write and speak? In everyday speech, information means knowledge about something, information. For example, they say it is an informed person. So called the person who possesses information on some issue. Information as awareness probably will not cause any objection. But if we take the semantics of the word “information” itself, then we get the second understanding of this term. Information is that which is contained within (in-) some form. Simply content, content (or, as they say in English manner, content). In the socionic paradigm, familiar to most amateurs, information is interpreted rather in the second sense. It is not for nothing that when traditional socionics conduct type-diagnosis, they resort to simple procedures of content analysis. So it turns out linguistic determinism: you respond to words with a sensual meaning, which means you are ethics, etc."
"Humanitarian socionics is closer to the first understanding of the term "information". However, it narrows its meaning to orderly, organized knowledge. And also takes into account that there are two different types of knowledge. Firstly, these are laws and instructions, information “I know” (L-interpretation). Secondly, it is the accumulated experience, the information "I can" (P-interpretation). The information "I know" does not coincide with the information "I am able". And the difference is not only in theory and practice. Practically applicable instruction still remains of L . This is about energy. Business logic is less informational, but more energetic. It exists only when it acts.
Thus, information and energy form a dialectical unity of opposites and somewhat resemble two poles of a magnet connected by closed lines of a communicative field. Each of the four Jung mental functions (sensation, feeling, intuition and thinking) is divided into energy and information poles. And this division coincides with the polarity of extraversion - introversion, which Jung considered to be the main one. And in the extrovert function of the energy is much more than in the introverted. For example, the same P will do, even when there is no information, and L to think, even when there is energy. However, under the information can be brought and implicit knowledge. But this is the intuitive aspect of information. About this another time."
But the main difficulty is that the contribution of each factor (the coefficient in front of it) can vary greatly from case to case. It turns out that in one situation, factor A is more significant, and in the other, factor B. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that if a similar situation arises in another place and at another time, this ratio will be the same. There is a fundamental uncertainty here, which in the world of complex systems is always greater than determinism. Remember also the problem of the observer. Observing an object, we thereby change it. Moreover, the way I change it when interacting through observation is not the same as how you change it. These changes are often small, subtle, microscopic. But even small fluctuations in a complex, self-aware system can be decisive. Of course, you can formulate the rules of diagnosis, for example, see my long-standing article on this topic - “Socionic Diagnostics: Interview Method” (1.02.1999). But with them, a long list of exceptions should be placed, leveling and largely devaluing these rules themselves.
Let me remind you that diagnostic procedures are divided into nomothetic , based on analysis, and ideographic that are built on synthesis. Despite compatibility, one of these principles will inevitably prevail in practice. Diagnostic professionals such as A. Kempinski and K. Leonhard (their work was used by Aushra to create socionics) preferred not an analytical, but a holistic (holistic, synthetic) method. Here is what Karl Leonhard writes in his book in the chapter “Methods for diagnosing personality” regarding non-verbal diagnostics: “Of course, there will be doctors who consider this technique unreliable. I, on the contrary, would like to emphasize that the observation of facial expressions is the most reliable of all methods that can be used to diagnose a human person ... ” "
If we should not manufacture our environment, then what role can we play as builders of it? The answer is that we must become stewards of the wholes we are able to perceive. The Gestalt psychologists’ profound insight was that our perception is grounded in wholes, and that the parts of perception are often results of “filling in” by virtue of the form of the whole. We must embark on such a filling-in process when we build. But our perception cannot be artificially isolated to vision, audition, olfaction, and so on—we must perceive with our whole self, and we must perceive by interacting. For these wholes themselves are high-dimensional, complex, and living. Beauty is the interface through which we can detect, refine, enhance, and extend living wholes. Aesthetic perception is simply our most integrated form of perception—necessarily transmodal and intuitive.
We must steward wholes, because we cannot conceive of them. Not in full, or anywhere close. And certainly we cannot conceive of the wholes that might become, that might evolve. Stuart Kauffman has argued powerfully that the patterns that evolution produces are unforeseeable in principle, that it might be impossible to predict the future—and he may be right. So we must steward the wholes in which we embed ourselves, rather than manufacture them. We should serve as agents in their refinement, their further elaboration, their evolution—but we cannot construct complex wholes ex nihilo. Nothing good comes from the belief that we can. We must be humble in our abilities. We must make sure we are perceiving wholes, and not imagining them. The range of scales over which our perception can operate—aesthetic or otherwise—is finite. The stewarding process is a local one, grounded in practice, and relatively uncorrupted by false abstractions."
Lastly, here is a very important paper on how the Humanitarian School sees Type Images and Gestalt Psychology relating to their work: Type image: its perception and recognition. Difficulties in diagnosing type in socionics
Gulenko's Ideas on Experimental Verification of Order Rings: "Most often I conduct experiments with energy rings during socionic seminars and training courses. The difficulty lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to assemble people of the right types to compose 4 rings of an order with the time and material and organizational resources we have. In addition, for successful and clearly convincing experiments, the types of participants must have a bright and contrasting profile, otherwise all patterns will be blurred. We almost never have such a picture. Therefore, it is necessary to make a compromise and conduct an experiment either with groups that are incomplete in composition or number, or with volunteers with appropriate accentuated functions. There is also a certain middle variant, when partially there are representatives of the necessary types, and partially not, and then their functional substituents are used instead of the missing types.
The simplest way to start is to split the general group into extroverts and introverts (for this I use the FAP test and organize paired dialogs to visually verify the reliability of the splitting), and then check separately the extroverts and separately the introverts for questivity - declability. The last polarity, if you remember, I interpret as the concentration or dissipation of energy. Therefore, we take, for example, two extrovert rings of different pulsations - one radical (concentrating energy to the extent of the explosion), and the other moderate (dissipating energy and not allowing critical energy release) and work with them.
We introduce a trial participant into each of them. After the probe remains for some time in the ring that received it, we collide it with the second probe, which spent the same time in the opposite ring (exercise “collider”). The behavior of each ring (we will pay special attention to communication with an alien!) Is filmed on video. After that, we compare the results: the samplers will share their opinions, and independent experts will watch the video. A significant difference will be evident. It will manifest itself in distances, movements, emotional arousal, etc.
Another version of test exercises for energy rings with different pulsations is the modeling of their actions in a situation of a systemic crisis, an inevitably growing threat. Or at least in a fairly tense situation of lack of time. The theory of energy groups predicts a significant difference in the behavior of questives and declatims under these conditions. Quests try to the very last “reanimate” a crashing system (and they often succeed), and declatims prefer to leave such a system (for a new start). So far, I have not conducted such exercises. The next step of experimental work with order rings will be associated with them.
Further experiments on the energy of the socion is its division by rotation. The task is to enable the right and left sociotypes to freely share on 2 subgroups. I wonder what they’ll do. Separated by verticity or acceleration (statics / dynamics)? If the former will occur more often, then the energy model (development of SHS) has priority in reflecting group dynamics, while the latter is the information model (it is model A). The situation of uncertainty is not excluded. Then it will be necessary to begin verification of intermediate, energy-information models."
The above sounds to me like Gulenko has already done many innovative experiments with the Order Rings (and more besides from what I have read elsewhere, such as with the DCNH system), but he is eagerly looking forward to more rigorous, better provisioned, higher quality experiments. He doesn't sound remotely satisfied to me. This is corroborated by several other statements Gulenko has made:
Unpublished Interview: "Socionics faced a problem of survival. Scientific books are not buying well right now. Everything can be read on the Internet. Our school of development did not stop. I constantly write articles, blog, facebook, conduct distance learning, advise, our scientific seminar and the regular club "Eureka" work, which discusses complex topics of modern socionics, as well as conduct open diagnostic interviews. SHS is quite creative, those who follow it know that our ideas do not run low. I believe that it is time to prove the material accumulated by socionics through experiments. That is what I have been paying the most attention lately."
Furthermore, Gulenko takes into account scientific psychology, something rarely done in the rest of Socionics, which opposes and creates tensions between Socionics and scientific discovery instead of incorporating and adapting to it. This includes theories of Daniel Kahneman, NLP, Kretschmer, Leonhard, Ekman, Eysenck, Lefebvre, etc. This is an important approach that I wish I could see more of Socionics take.
18) Jack asks whether this experiment (or probably any set of reasons) can justify the sacrifices Model G is making: blocking, mobilizing as consistently more important than the suggestive, and theoretical confusion
"Theoretical confusion" in this conversation could only be applied to Jack on most of the points discussed so far, not to anything he has supposedly demonstrated about a model and paradigm that he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of. In any case, Model G isn't sacrificing any of the things he mentions, and he couldn't possibly have received the impression that it lacks those things if he had done thorough research on the topic. As I demonstrated in depth above, these are just a bunch of pseudo-problems, false dichotomies or outright misconceptions.
19) Jack says that this discussions is about the MODELS more than the people, getting to the truth of the matter. He asks which model will unify our understanding, and open our understanding of people and world. To determine this, he says each model must be steel-manned, not straw-manned. That is, we need to see the strongest showing these ideas have to offer
The principle of steel-manning is indeed an important one, and if that is the approach Jack wants to take, then more power to him. There are a few assumptions that I want to unpack here:
-Maybe ONE model will never unify our understanding. It's just an assumption to suggest that this will occur. Maybe a multitude of models can be more successful in opening understanding of people and the world than one model, as long as each model is used in its appropriate context. It seems at least worth pondering whether these assumptions are true or not. What if the "one right way" approach won't work, or at least isn't the best way?
-Even more importantly, I don't think this discussion is really about models. It includes discussion of models, and that is important, but it is about more fundamental issues: critical thinking, epistemology, facts and interpretations, questioning assumptions, curiosity about other ways of viewing the world, testing ideas, tried and tested experience, having new experiences, developing new ways of thinking, empathizing with and understanding one another rather than resigning ourselves to fatalism or inert axiomatic approaches that put our thinking in an unnecessary bind. If the discussion is just about models, then it is not going to get much further than it already is.
Meaningful and Meaningless Statements: "Different socionic schools argue among themselves, mercilessly criticizing each other's statements. It is understood, of course, that the statements of the opponent are false, and their own are true. But besides the “truth - lie” dichotomy customary for debaters, there is also a polarity of meaningfulness . First of all, the statements must be divided into meaningful and meaningless, and only at the second step of the division - true or false. Such is the tetratome of knowledge.
Unfortunately, now competing socionic schools approach the subject of the dispute purely one-dimensional, operating only with the “true-false” polarity. However, if we act consistently, we must begin with the first step, that is, the dichotomy of meaning. If you do this, then it will turn out that most of the statements of one school in the system of concepts of another school are neither true nor false. They are meaningless.
For example, a long-standing dispute between me and A. Bukalov about the sociotypes of Boris Yeltsin or Yulia Tymoshenko. It is very difficult to find a common solution here, since the image of the type of MIS and ShGS is completely different. In particular, in the IIA "Entrepreneur" (LIE) can be a leader of the crowd and a fanatical revolutionary, and in the GE such is unlikely. According to our type images, social upheavals inspire and lead the quadra beta, not gamma.
Thus, socionic paradigms (initial sets of positions that form the picture of the researcher’s world) are simply incommensurable with the current state of socionic knowledge. Each paradigm has its own truth. Moreover, the gap between them only deepens over time. It is unlikely that truth is born in such disputes, but positions are becoming clearer. At least, this is how it looks for the casual observer.
But what then is true? - you ask. To this question we can not answer today. Judge time."
Aftermath Of Model G Debate: What Went Down
As usual, I will address the video point by point:
Table of Contents:
1) Jack frames Ben Vaserlan as claiming that Victor Gulenko believes that Model G has already assimilated information metabolism into an energy-information metabolism, and that it is meant to function as a replacement of Model A
2) Jack says Model A and Model G haven't done a very good job of complementing one another so far
3) In Model G, Jack says there are no metaphysical blockings, such as Ne-Ti and Se-Fi, molecules of information as it were
4) Jack says Model G doesn't allow vertical blocking
5) Jack says that the functions at the left are responsible for the more visible and best behavior of the type
6) Ben says that the Suggestive function is better in certain conditions, presumably than the functions further to the right than it
7) Jack says that the suggestive function can't be better than the mobilizing function, because otherwise we can't distinguish between types that have the mirror relationship
8) Jack says that the mobilizing function's placement at the right of the Model G chart indicates its relative lack of importance
9) Jack says that even if the suggestive function is conditionally better, that doesn't mean it deserves to be on the left of the chart
10) Jack says that in Model A, someone changing in different situations is explained by evaluatory/situational
11) Jack suggests that ILE behaves most like EIE, LSE, and SEE because these are the other types in its benefit cycle as shown by Model G (but what Ben really said in their discussion was that ILE enacts a complementary role with the other members of its Benefit Ring)
12) Jack says that it would be more plausible for an ILE to mimic an ESE rather than an SEE, as the extroverted ethics is more their motivation
13) Jack says that the transition to SEE isn't believable because it engages the vulnerable function, and because the Super-Ego is meant to fail
14) Jack says that the ILE behaves like an SEE in the sense of Se-Fe rather than Se-Fi
15) Jacks worries that an ILE behaving like an SEE would be indistinguishable from behaving like an ESE given that what is being emphasized is Se and Fe
16) Jack says that an experiment from the Socionists Shekhter and Kobrinskaya is what lead to the creation of Model G. Summarily in this experiment, groups of people in the same benefit cycle were brought together, and they became more energized and accomplished tasks with greater enthusiasm and psychic energy
17) Jack points out a number of lackings or defects about this experiment by Shekhter and Kobrinskaya, such as its unavailability for us to examine, its possible lack of peer review, its unknown sample size, and its methodology which could contain flaws
18) Jack asks whether this experiment (or probably any set of reasons) can justify the sacrifices Model G is making: blocking, mobilizing as consistently more important than the suggestive, and theoretical confusion
19) Jack says that this discussions is about the MODELS more than the people, getting to the truth of the matter. He asks which model will unify our understanding, and open our understanding of people and world. To determine this, he says each model must be steel-manned, not straw-manned. That is, we need to see the strongest showing these ideas have to offer
1) Jack frames Ben Vaserlan as claiming that Victor Gulenko believes that Model G has already assimilated information metabolism into an energy-information metabolism, and that it is meant to function as a replacement of Model A
After talking with Ben myself, it sounds like what he really meant is that Model G has replaced Model A in practice as the main model used by the School of Humanitarian Socionics. This is true. What Jack may have taken this to mean is that Model G has replaced Model A as some kind of singularly authoritative model in all uses of Socionics in any school, which is not the case. It is merely that it is not accepted anymore as an authority or dogma by the School of Humanitarian Socionics (rather it is just another potential tool), and that it has proven to be a less effective tool for capturing the Sociotypes in Humanitarian Socionics as compared to Model G. Of course, Victor Gulenko supports the approach of Humanitarian Socionics above other approaches, but that doesn't mean Model A is banned forever and that it will not find some contextual use in the future. In any case, both Information Metabolism and Energy Metabolism are not subsystems of Model G, but rather subsystems of the Sociotype which is the real object of study of Humanitarian Socionics. Should information metabolism come to the fore of studying the Sociotypes again, it is possible that Model A or some retooling of Model A could be used, but the Humanitarian School currently prioritizes studying energy metabolism.
From Psychological Types by Victor Gulenko, pg. 383: "The energy model of a socionic object does not abolish Model A, but complements it to a unified model of energy-information metabolism (EIM)."
That seems straightforward in principle. It says the exact same thing on the article detailing the basics of the Energy Model: Energy Model. What is it?
Gulenko also refers to Model A as "the revision socionic model..." (pg. 382). Gulenko defines Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) as "the nature of interaction of the sociotype with information; the way in which the sociotype perceives, interprets, processes, and issues information in the solution of the vital task that has arisen. TIM is described by the revision socion model (Model A)" (pg. 381).
None of this suggests a singular replacement of Model A or information metabolism to me, in the broadest sense.
In Clock of the Socion, Gulenko says: "There is also a view of socion from much greater distance. This is the secondary level of organization of the socion: the quadra and the rings of supervision and benefit. It's another question what kind of rings we should consider. Here there are many hidden contradictions since there are two types of rings: rings of supervision and rings of benefit. When we take Model A, which was discovered by A. Augusta, we're looking at functions from point of view of rings of supervision. We can also use a different model, one that is based on considering the rings on benefits instead, and this model is different from Model A. The word "rings" in this articles will denote benefit rings. We must give credit to A. Augusta here because she has discovered both types of rings, however, she gave priority to the informational revision chains i.e. supervision rings. However, rings of benefits are more dynamic and better reflect the development of the socion as a single unit."
To me, the above doesn't sound like a wholesale rejection of the revision model of Socionics (Model A). However, Gulenko does seem to think there are reasons to prioritize the rings of benefit (reflected in Model G), over the rings of supervision, at least in situations that are more dynamic and better reflect the development of the socion as a single unit.
In Sociotype, TIM, TEM - connection and differences of concepts in socionics, Gulenko says: "The type of informational metabolism is especially important if we seek to study the interaction of people or other social systems, since the interaction itself occurs precisely through information exchange. However, studying the type of energy metabolism is preferable in the sense that we cannot directly study the laws of informational metabolism (TIM) directly, but we can observe the processes and laws of energy metabolism directly, and in many ways even without special tools (with our own eyes)."
This further supports my point, because while it is saying that there are good reasons to focus on the energy model, there are still especially important reasons to keep information metabolism around, and as I cited above, information metabolism is described by Model A.
In Types of models in socionics and their properties, Victor Gulenko says: "On the other hand, the dominant position of Model A in socionic research, its “eternity” and “non-alternativeness” leads to the fact that it becomes a dogma. However, the scientific model is just a tool that is suitable for working in some conditions, and completely unsuitable for others, in which other models work much better. Therefore, in humanitarian socionics, where the combinatorial method is recognized as a full-fledged modeling method, the creation and use of new models is welcomed, the only requirements for which are the correctness of their construction and the possibility of verification."
Thus, it sounds like Victor Gulenko is unhappy with the state of total dominance to which Model A aspires up to the point of dogmatism, especially given that it is only an ideal theoretical structure which has never been "proven" or anything like that. However, he is not offering Model G as a singular replacement for the non-alternative predominance Model A has; he is unhappy with how Model A is being used and would not be interested in doing the same thing. He even accepts the creation of new models, as long as there are reasonable methods to verify it. His problem isn't with Model A being used as a model of TIM, but with the fact that it is treated as somehow more than a model. It is treated as something like a singular fact or the one true way of thinking, which is more the tact of ideology than science. Since none of these models are deeply verified scientific models, it doesn't make reasonable sense to have your heart so set on one way of thinking unless it serves your own exalted sense of identity, you are hypnotized or brainwashed by a story or ideology (this is way easier than you might think because experiments have proven the vulnerability of humans to suggestion and social pressure), or you are naive about the limits of our knowledge and epistemology.
In fact, in Gulenko's opinion, contrary to Jack's, this debate is really not about models at all. We build models to break down the integral insights that our perception arrives at in leaps, rather than by formal deduction. This is not just an empty assertion, but a fact that is well-established by several results in gestalt psychology in addition to some common sense, and those results might be important to get into in the future. The whole is not equal to the sum of its parts (a notion which also connects to systems theory), and no amount of derivation from parts is going to reveal the whole of the Sociotype any more than adding up ants is going to tell us what an anthill is.
In fact, in Gulenko's opinion, contrary to Jack's, this debate is really not about models at all. We build models to break down the integral insights that our perception arrives at in leaps, rather than by formal deduction. This is not just an empty assertion, but a fact that is well-established by several results in gestalt psychology in addition to some common sense, and those results might be important to get into in the future. The whole is not equal to the sum of its parts (a notion which also connects to systems theory), and no amount of derivation from parts is going to reveal the whole of the Sociotype any more than adding up ants is going to tell us what an anthill is.
Hence, both TIM and TEM (and thus both Model A AND Model G) are analytical models that help us understand and break down the stable structure of the Sociotype, but they are both subordinate to the greater Sociotype. From the connections and differences article cited above: "A sociotype is one of the basic structures of the psyche. TIM and TEM are mental properties associated with the exchange of information and energy, respectively. Thus, we can say that TIM and TEM are manifestations of a sociotype. In addition, when we talk about sociotype, we mean a (relatively) stable structure, and when we talk about TIM and TEM, we are talking about certain dynamic processes and patterns in them."
Fundamental Point: The Problem With Model-Centric Thinking:
Socionics in the Procrustean bed. Timur's answer from Kaliningrad
Key Quotes:
"When asking questions about socionic practice, people do not think about the general principles of research, they require detail, forgetting that it is the fundamental beliefs that set the rules for their work and in many respects predetermine the nature of their conclusions. What particulars in the methodology can be discussed if you confess the opposite research program? First, find out if we are on the same road, and then we will discuss the bumps and convolutions on the way to the goal.
Every now and then people turn to me who took something from my work and came to the wrong conclusions. The same data set can be interpreted differently in different paradigms without understanding the coordinate system. I am convinced that such a "blind" science does not bring us closer to the knowledge of the truth."
"However, I'm not going to persuade you. My experience suggests that most people don’t give up their established image gallery. Most likely, this also applies to you. People sit deeply and habitually in their paradigm, not aware of the alternative."
Key Quotes:
"When asking questions about socionic practice, people do not think about the general principles of research, they require detail, forgetting that it is the fundamental beliefs that set the rules for their work and in many respects predetermine the nature of their conclusions. What particulars in the methodology can be discussed if you confess the opposite research program? First, find out if we are on the same road, and then we will discuss the bumps and convolutions on the way to the goal.
Every now and then people turn to me who took something from my work and came to the wrong conclusions. The same data set can be interpreted differently in different paradigms without understanding the coordinate system. I am convinced that such a "blind" science does not bring us closer to the knowledge of the truth."
"However, I'm not going to persuade you. My experience suggests that most people don’t give up their established image gallery. Most likely, this also applies to you. People sit deeply and habitually in their paradigm, not aware of the alternative."
My own experience is similar to Victor Gulenko's, and isn't it sad? But out there, there are those brave, open-minded souls I come across every now and then, and you all give me hope for typology and humanity. The question is, how do we get people thinking again?
"And now a few words about the ancestor of the diagnostic method in appearance. I mean Alexander Didenko, who developed this method, starting from Aushra and constantly checking with her. She was the best diagnostician for external data, the first began to write on these topics and speak at conferences. She helped many determine the types of a set of photos. Her conclusions were based on rich life experience, and not on theoretical schemes. How did she work? She evaluated a person comprehensively - by face, figure, posture, even skin, gait, voice timbre and many other criteria. And she always emphasized that in the appearance of a person, in most cases, features of several types, as a rule, of two, intertwine. She began to call these intersections and overlays as subtypes, since I had already introduced this term by that time."
"I have repeatedly convinced that newly-minted lovers of socionics often do not know how to orient themselves in the world of people, because this requires a lot of life experience. It is much easier to operate with coarse patterns. Many perceive the world of socionics so narrowly that they do not even admit the thought that there are some other models besides Model “A”. Nobody explained to them that the model “A” is a working hypothesis, which is yet to be tested experimentally. The myth of duality as a guarantee of happiness is still still in the minds of some socionics. Due to the uncritical assimilation of the ideas of Aushra, which reached them through the third-fourth hands, and also because of the chaos and inconsistency in the socionic movement, so much quasi-socionics, which is primitive and far from life practice, spread, it seriously threatens the original socionics."
"And now a few words about the ancestor of the diagnostic method in appearance. I mean Alexander Didenko, who developed this method, starting from Aushra and constantly checking with her. She was the best diagnostician for external data, the first began to write on these topics and speak at conferences. She helped many determine the types of a set of photos. Her conclusions were based on rich life experience, and not on theoretical schemes. How did she work? She evaluated a person comprehensively - by face, figure, posture, even skin, gait, voice timbre and many other criteria. And she always emphasized that in the appearance of a person, in most cases, features of several types, as a rule, of two, intertwine. She began to call these intersections and overlays as subtypes, since I had already introduced this term by that time."
"I have repeatedly convinced that newly-minted lovers of socionics often do not know how to orient themselves in the world of people, because this requires a lot of life experience. It is much easier to operate with coarse patterns. Many perceive the world of socionics so narrowly that they do not even admit the thought that there are some other models besides Model “A”. Nobody explained to them that the model “A” is a working hypothesis, which is yet to be tested experimentally. The myth of duality as a guarantee of happiness is still still in the minds of some socionics. Due to the uncritical assimilation of the ideas of Aushra, which reached them through the third-fourth hands, and also because of the chaos and inconsistency in the socionic movement, so much quasi-socionics, which is primitive and far from life practice, spread, it seriously threatens the original socionics."
2) Jack says Model A and Model G haven't done a very good job of complementing one another so far
Put simply, it is not the models that don't complement one another. The models are structures with still tentative precise semantics, and these structures can certainly complement one another. In fact, they are isomorphic in a sense. Someone might come back at me and say that Model A has virtually perfect semantics (and this is the literal attitude of some people), but if so, then why do experts and different schools that rigorously use Model A disagree on so many typings? What is clashing isn't the models, at least fundamentally. What is clashing is different gestalt images, imprinted by slightly different insights and encoded into the same models in slightly (or sometimes majorly) different ways. The real question is, what do we do about this? This problem is not limited to Socionics, but defines the fundamental problem of typology as a whole.
3) In Model G, Jack says there are no metaphysical blockings, such as Ne-Ti and Se-Fi, molecules of information as it were
Model G, like Model A, has a wealth of blocks, which I have tentatively explored here (do not take all of my names as established facts since this is just a brainstorm): Model G Blocks
It contains vertical blocks that operate similarly to Model A, based on the relationship of revision, and these are information oriented relationships where the types share similar cognitive styles. I'm not sure what Jack means by "metaphysical blockings" because that just seems like his own personal interpretation of Model A. Whether you want to attribute metaphysics to these blocks is up to you, but you would be advised to beware Occam's Razor and not multiply hypotheses beyond necessity. But this again highlights an important point: the problem isn't the difference between Model A and Model G, but the difference between Jack's interpretation and the interpretation of the models in a more gestalt sense by Victor Gulenko and others. This is a real and addressable issue, but trickier and more delicate than just comparing models.
4) Jack says Model G doesn't allow vertical blocking
This is completely false. What is "Energo-Optimum" if not a vertical block? However, again Jack is probably more concerned with the interpretation than the model. I do agree that more emphasis is habitually placed on the horizontal blockings than the vertical in Model G, at least when the functions are treated as units of behavior, since you require a static and dynamic function of a similar energy level (extroversion vs introversion) to make this work.
5) Jack says that the functions at the left are responsible for the more visible and best behavior of the type
All of the functions are visible if you know what you are looking for. I actually disagree that the functions on the left are necessarily more visible; this is contextual. The one's on the left are "better" in a sense, but this sense is one of energy allocation to the function and the degree of freedom of behavior afforded by this. That doesn't mean they are always better though. Each type has a unique manifestation of all 8 functions, and each of these 8x16=128 functions are the best at something. Sure, the LSI has a higher Ti than the ILI in terms of energy allocation. Does that mean it is better? In some senses yes, and in some senses no. A single scale of better/worse for the functions within a type is a simplistic, primitive way of understanding them at best, if not outright misleading.
6) Ben says that the Suggestive function is better in certain conditions, presumably than the functions further to the right than it
Yes, this is absolutely true. But I'd say that it applies to all of the functions. All of the functions can be conditionally better than another, because each has its own purpose in the Sociotype. In terms of Model G, the suggestive is an energo-optimum function. That means that it takes as much energy as it needs to solve the current problem.
7) Jack says that the suggestive function can't be better than the mobilizing function, because otherwise we can't distinguish between types that have the mirror relationship
This seems to actually be an axiom that Jack is operating under, since it isn't clearly derived from more fundamental principles. He often uses the method of comparing between mirror types by trying to see which one is more lacking between the prospective mobilizing and suggestive functions in Model A. This method is a paradigmatic decision. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it; it simply chooses to organize the types by this method of who lacks this or that. However, it bears mentioning that this axiomatic way of thinking is not the only way to distinguish between mirrors or to organize the types by diagnostic methods!
Mirrors are opposite in many dichotomies, including extroversion/introversion, rationality/irrationality, positivism/negativism, and process/result. They also have every function at a different position in the model. So, I don't see a reason to cling so hard to the axiom that the mobilizing must always be better than the suggestive. Why? Because we said so and decided to organize things this way? I don't see any experiments demonstrating this supposed fact. I'd say that the suggestive and mobilizing function, and their equivalents in Model G, are better and worse than one another in different ways. And as long as we can sort these ways out, we can distinguish them. In Humanitarian Socionics, they are easily distinguishable.
Therefore, I declare this to be a pseudo-problem that is the result of dead end axiomatic thinking.
8) Jack says that the mobilizing function's placement at the right of the Model G chart indicates its relative lack of importance
This is an erroneous interpretation. All of the functions in the chart exist in mutual sublime tension and are equally important in an abstract sense. In some situations, the launcher is more important and relevant, with its merits and weaknesses. In some, the suggestive/manipulative function is, with its merits and weaknesses.
9) Jack says that even if the suggestive function is conditionally better, that doesn't mean it deserves to be on the left of the chart
True, but that's not the reason that it's on the left of the chart since every function can be conditionally better than another. It's there for a number of other organizational reasons: it is supervised by the Creative function, it is in a diagonal position of dual energetic support towards the Program function, it is part of the self-affirmation block with the Demonstrative, etc. It has relationships with every other function in the chart, just like in Model A. These are paradigm differences. We have to choose some axioms to start with, because they seem to most reasonably model the world from our perspective, follow them rigorously and fairly, and drop them when we can find better axioms. The only way we can do that is by exploring other paradigms and perspectives that are different from our own. In its better moments, that's what this discussion seems to be about, so let's not forget this. We shouldn't bash each other with: accept my axioms or you're wrong. That is primitive and silly. We should be working to see the point of view of others as they do, steel-manning it and empathizing with it, and using it to broaden and deepen our own perspective.
10) Jack says that in Model A, someone changing in different situations is explained by evaluatory/situational
Okay, but are these the only functions that change based on the situation in Model A? Because if so, that is rather odd and hard to believe. I look forward to an attempted elucidation of this point because maybe something can be made of it, but at this point it sounds rough to me.
11) Jack suggests that ILE behaves most like EIE, LSE, and SEE because these are the other types in its benefit cycle as shown by Model G (but what Ben really said in their discussion was that ILE enacts a complementary role with the other members of its Benefit Ring)
Technically, every type can behave like every other type, at least briefly, since every type can use all 16 signed functions. Page 424 of Gulenko's book Psychological Types details the Periodic Change of the Sign of the Function. This ultimately gives us access to all 16 signed functions. However, most of these functions are quite unstable. This includes -Te (LSE) and -Fe (EIE) for the ILE; these are unstable functions in which the ILE lacks energetic recharge, and therefore their use is transitional. The 4 functions which can be most stably used by the ILE belong to a different small group than the benefit ring:
Offset: Benefical or Dangerous?: "This question is not just interesting, but also practically important. In life, it happens that a person is forced to work not in his typical setting, but in the opposite of his type or adjacent. What kind of behavior model should he focus on then? The answer here is this. In the opposite setting, it is advantageous for a type carrier to act on an adaptive equivalent block (equivalent bias towards the “superego”). And in an adjacent installation - by dual temperament, that is, prefer a semi-dual or mirage displacement."
The types that the ILE behaves more like depends on the club in which he is working: in his own researcher club he behaves as an ILE of course, but in the managerial club (ST), he most stably mimics an SLI. In the humanitarian (NF) club, he most stably mimics an IEI. Finally, in the social (SF) club, he most stably mimics the SEE.
Why is this?: "But why does the “biased” Analyst not act on an identical temperament, that is, as an Inspector or a Humanist? After all, it would seem that this is justified by the fact that it is not necessary to change the balanced energy. Apparently, in some way the sign of “Asking - Declaring” affects, the nature of which is also largely energetic. The fact is that when choosing the strategy of the Inspector (or the Humanist), the Analyst needs to change the questivity for decativism (as well as negativity for positivism), which is very energetically expensive. Of course, one cannot recklessly discard the alternative hypothesis - displacement along the order ring. “Asking - Declaring” does not change. In this case, the Analyst in management will be likened to the Master, and to the humanitarian sphere - to the Lyric. However, what to do with rationality? Earlier it was known that this feature is largely associated with compatibility at close distances and therefore a change in its polarity is equivalent to a loss of recharge from the outside. My opinion is that such an offset, that is, along the ring of the order or revision, is possible, but unstable and hardly lends itself (if at all) to consolidation. And, therefore, for confident adaptation is not justified."
Of course, these reasons may not be immediately apparent. To grasp them, you would have to grasp the paradigm of Humanitarian Socionics and have some practical experience in using it to observe these things. You aren't of course expected to take this on faith, but you have to realize that it might realistically take some patience to assess.
Ben's point about complementary roles has to do with the associations he uses with the typology system of David Keirsey, and he thinks that Jack poorly represented his point. I myself think Ben focused too much on Keirsey in the debate, since Victor Gulenko doesn't agree with Keirsey on many things.
12) Jack says that it would be more plausible for an ILE to mimic an ESE rather than an SEE, as the extroverted ethics is more their motivation
My first concern here is that motivations are complex, and are not just the result of the structural position of certain functions working in the TIM. Motivations are born between the internal processing of the sociotype and its adaptation to the surrounding communicative environment, with layers, supertasks and subtasks, and therefore saying that ILE's are simply motivated more by Fe than Se is simplistic at best. There might be a very general sense in which it has some truth, since Fe is a more important function in the ecosystem of Quadra Alpha, but you should be careful with such statements because life is always meaningfully, not just trivially, more complex.
However, even in Model G, I would say that the Launcher is generally more of a motivation for the type than the Role function in the idealized sense that Jack is referring to. The Launcher is chronologically the first function for the ILE (and for all types). It imprints deeply into their psyche, and launches them into social activity, activating their Program function. The Role function is meant not as much for intrinsic motivation, but rather for result presentation. It adapts to social norms, playing the role it has to in order to achieve the results of the social mission of the ILE, and it releases steam on a step by step basis, but it is a function which is draining. Therefore, it will decrease in activity rapidly once it is no longer needed, not being trained as some kind of tool, or blowing off steam. On the other hand, the ILE can hardly help but be launched by Fe. Keep in mind that the launch and the result presentation are two different stages.
The fundamental problem of why the ILE cannot stably mimic the ESE (and doesn't play an ESEish role in the Social sphere) is because they would have to switch away from Irrationality and Questivity, and this is not sustainable. Rationality plays a massive role in governing compatibility at close psychological distance, so switching from an Irrational role to a Rational role necessitates a loss of energy recharge from the outside (this is also a part of how the dual functions work). The situational ILE cannot maintain the role of a linear Rational type that requires the adoption of an agreed upon system. Switching from Questivity to Declativism also has too high of an energetic cost in conjunction with the loss of Irrationality. To play an ESE role, the ILE would have to focus on response and gradual changes (Declativism), rather than challenges and radical changes that characterize the Questims. The ILE also has to switch to a completely different Order Ring, going from the Generators to the Transformers. This also changes Process/Result, which is achievable but increases the load even further.
The ILE has most access to +Fe in the Humanitarian Sphere through its mimicry of the Lyricist (IEI). This is still quite different from ESE.
13) Jack says that the transition to SEE isn't believable because it engages the vulnerable function, and because the Super-Ego is meant to fail
Ben's point about complementary roles has to do with the associations he uses with the typology system of David Keirsey, and he thinks that Jack poorly represented his point. I myself think Ben focused too much on Keirsey in the debate, since Victor Gulenko doesn't agree with Keirsey on many things.
12) Jack says that it would be more plausible for an ILE to mimic an ESE rather than an SEE, as the extroverted ethics is more their motivation
My first concern here is that motivations are complex, and are not just the result of the structural position of certain functions working in the TIM. Motivations are born between the internal processing of the sociotype and its adaptation to the surrounding communicative environment, with layers, supertasks and subtasks, and therefore saying that ILE's are simply motivated more by Fe than Se is simplistic at best. There might be a very general sense in which it has some truth, since Fe is a more important function in the ecosystem of Quadra Alpha, but you should be careful with such statements because life is always meaningfully, not just trivially, more complex.
However, even in Model G, I would say that the Launcher is generally more of a motivation for the type than the Role function in the idealized sense that Jack is referring to. The Launcher is chronologically the first function for the ILE (and for all types). It imprints deeply into their psyche, and launches them into social activity, activating their Program function. The Role function is meant not as much for intrinsic motivation, but rather for result presentation. It adapts to social norms, playing the role it has to in order to achieve the results of the social mission of the ILE, and it releases steam on a step by step basis, but it is a function which is draining. Therefore, it will decrease in activity rapidly once it is no longer needed, not being trained as some kind of tool, or blowing off steam. On the other hand, the ILE can hardly help but be launched by Fe. Keep in mind that the launch and the result presentation are two different stages.
The fundamental problem of why the ILE cannot stably mimic the ESE (and doesn't play an ESEish role in the Social sphere) is because they would have to switch away from Irrationality and Questivity, and this is not sustainable. Rationality plays a massive role in governing compatibility at close psychological distance, so switching from an Irrational role to a Rational role necessitates a loss of energy recharge from the outside (this is also a part of how the dual functions work). The situational ILE cannot maintain the role of a linear Rational type that requires the adoption of an agreed upon system. Switching from Questivity to Declativism also has too high of an energetic cost in conjunction with the loss of Irrationality. To play an ESE role, the ILE would have to focus on response and gradual changes (Declativism), rather than challenges and radical changes that characterize the Questims. The ILE also has to switch to a completely different Order Ring, going from the Generators to the Transformers. This also changes Process/Result, which is achievable but increases the load even further.
The ILE has most access to +Fe in the Humanitarian Sphere through its mimicry of the Lyricist (IEI). This is still quite different from ESE.
13) Jack says that the transition to SEE isn't believable because it engages the vulnerable function, and because the Super-Ego is meant to fail
The idea that the Super-Ego is destined to fail seems like a radical one to me, and an unrealistic deterministic expectation. Of course there will be situations in our lives in which we will engage our Super-Ego functions successfully, as we can with any function. To say otherwise is a fatalism without foundation. Furthermore, this is another difference between the models. In Model A, the vulnerable function is considered the most problematic function, and in Jack's particular version of this model, the type is basically incapable of using it effectively. This differs in Model G, because the correlated Brake function is quite usable; it is just part of the problematic inflation block and has a very on-off quality to its usage, totally or not at all, which makes its handling quite poor compared to most other functions.
Is the Critic capable of strong negative emotions: "Indeed, in situations of gross pressure, the Critic is capable of strong negative emotions, as in the Mentor (-E). According to model G , this is a natural behavior, not an exception. The braking function (seventh in the G model) is capable of protecting itself. By this function, a person avoids stress, but if this fails, an impulsive reaction of a protective nature is activated. So the critic is not so much afraid of emotions. He is much more concerned about the eighth function - the intuition of opportunities (I), which manifests itself as regrets about missed opportunities or fear of unjustified risk."
Is the Critic capable of strong negative emotions: "Indeed, in situations of gross pressure, the Critic is capable of strong negative emotions, as in the Mentor (-E). According to model G , this is a natural behavior, not an exception. The braking function (seventh in the G model) is capable of protecting itself. By this function, a person avoids stress, but if this fails, an impulsive reaction of a protective nature is activated. So the critic is not so much afraid of emotions. He is much more concerned about the eighth function - the intuition of opportunities (I), which manifests itself as regrets about missed opportunities or fear of unjustified risk."
The most problematic function in Model G is a different function called the Control function, which corresponds to the Ignoring function in Model A. There have even been Model A advocates who agree with Gulenko that the Control/Ignoring is the most problematic, such as Roan LaPlante, though Roan disagrees with much of the rest of Gulenko's theories.
These are axiomatic and phenomenological differences between the schools of Socionics which factor into how typings happen to begin with. These axioms were derived from experience in order to make typings maximally meaningful, penetrating, clear and realistic. Surely both starting points are deserving of exploration on their own internally consistent terms. However, Jack's assumption that the Super-Ego and Vulnerable are essentially meant to fail seems so primitive and inflexible that it can use at least a tweak or two.
14) Jack says that the ILE behaves like an SEE in the sense of Se-Fe rather than Se-Fi
This is a false dichotomy, because +Se (SEE) is in the same position with respect to +Fi and -Fe in an SEE as it is in an ILE (as it is for all types). So this is just an irrelevant pseudo-problem. It's both Se-Fe and Se-Fi, not a choice between options.
15) Jacks worries that an ILE behaving like an SEE would be indistinguishable from behaving like an ESE given that what is being emphasized is Se and Fe
SEE and ESE behavior are readily distinguishable in Humanitarian Socionics:
-SEE habitually uses the functions +Se and -Fe, and is a Flexible-Maneuvering Irrational Static type
-ESE habitually uses the functions +Fe and -Se, and is a Linear-Assertive Rational Dynamic type
This is also an odd point because by the same logic, the mirror types in Jack's own use of Model A would not be distinguishable. For example, an SEE and ESI both use Se and Fi, but surely we can distinguish them? Maybe Jack's response would be that we distinguish mirrors only (or primarily) by the mobilizing and suggestive functions. If we are really limited to that method in distinguishing mirrors, then that is a serious weakness which renders our diagnostic methods primitive and tenuous, depending on one thing that can easily be blurred by circumstances. Therefore, I am hoping there is more to distinguishing mirrors then that, and if so, then why can't we distinguish quasi-identicals?
16) Jack says that an experiment from the Socionists Shekhter and Kobrinskaya is what lead to the creation of Model G. Summarily in this experiment, groups of people in the same benefit cycle were brought together, and they became more energized and accomplished tasks with greater enthusiasm and psychic energy
I for one had never heard of this experiment before it was mentioned by Ben. In fact, the conductors of the experiment that Jack mentions don't even sound like people associated with Humanitarian Socionics, which is where Model G stems. The experiment sounds interesting but vague to me, as Jack tells it, though maybe there is more to it in reality. Here is a report on the experiment: Small Groups in Socionics. Here is what it says about Order Rings: "A homogeneous group of 4 people. The relationships of superego and social order are presented. There is some tension in the group. Interpersonal contacts are obscured. Feeling of emotional and intellectual balance. There is an excess of energy compared to other groups. Communication is not exhausting. Comfortable enough, but there is no sense of security, as in quadra. The topic of conversation is almost unchanged. All participants noted a specific tension in this group. Communication in pairs almost fails, only all together. Going into such a group after quadra gives a sense of stability. If the communication does not last more than 20-30 minutes, then certainly it is a plus due to the mobilizing effect on the participants. If longer, then begins to exhaust. Joint rest in such a group is difficult, as participants find it difficult to relax."
It is interesting that such experiments have been done which support these observations, but it is nothing decisive on its own. Nonetheless, there are a wealth of other reasons for Model G and the Energy Paradigm:
Sociotype, TIM, TEM - connection and differences of concepts in socionics: "The concepts of sociotype, type of informational metabolism (TIM) and type of energy metabolism (TEM) are some of the key in socionics, however, their degree of study is uneven. If the properties of a sociotype are studied most well, the properties of TIM are well enough, then the properties of TEM have not been studied well enough to date, although this concept in socionics arose simultaneously with the concept of TIM before the concept of sociotype."
"However, each of these actions (not to mention the implementation of the solution) requires certain energy costs. In addition, each form of mental activity (i.e., function) requires a certain level of activity, which means energy costs. It is the laws and dynamics of these processes that describe the type of energy metabolism."
"The type of informational metabolism is especially important if we seek to study the interaction of people or other social systems, since the interaction itself occurs precisely through information exchange. However, studying the type of energy metabolism is preferable in the sense that we cannot directly study the laws of informational metabolism (TIM) directly, but we can observe the processes and laws of energy metabolism directly, and in many ways even without special tools (with our own eyes)."
Psychological Types by Victor Gulenko, pg. 2: "What is the difference between HSS and other schools of socionics? Socionics started as a cross between cybernetics and psychology. First of all, it was a mathematical approach to the human psyche where the theory of informational metabolism by Anthony Kempinksi was crossed with Jungian types and developed into a system with clear interfunctional relations by Ausra Augustinaviciute. All of these early researchers believed the nature of socionical interaction also included an exchange of energy. Due to the materialistic fashion of post-Soviet education, many researchers chose to study the information exchange alone and rejected the idea that humans exchange energy with their external environment. Nevertheless, Dr. Gulenko has continued this research along with the energy component - the energy-information metabolism where types of behavior are characterized by the intensity and nature (quality) of energy exchange with the environment. The energy in socionics is quite tangible: some people are more energetic and active, while others can be rather laid back, economizing on energy in their everyday lives. It seems the function of energy also has a quality aspect (not only quantity). Therefore, other schools continue to research how humans perceive and proceed with information (informational metabolism) while HSS highlights attention on human behavior and performance (energy metabolism)."
Psychological Types by Victor Gulenko, pg. 383: "Why was the energy model developed? The focus of modern socionics should be modeling energy-information processes: how energy generates information - a new order, valuable experience, or proven knowledge in practice. After all, knowledge (information armament), even the most reliable, without the application, is worthless. In order to start using it, you need energy. The impact of a word as a carrier of information on a person or a group of people is ineffective unless energy is produced. That is, there is also need to excite or interest a person (to transfer to a higher energy level). Practicing psychologists, PR specialists, and political technologists have known this for a long time: the energy of the psyche begins to come to the fore. Proceeding from such considerations, an energy model of the psyche has been developed as more closely matching the criterion of optimal vital activity in the material world."
A Debate With Jack Oliver Aaron (reasons to treat Energy metabolism as more than the micro-transactions in the cells that feature in the Information Metabolism of Antoni Kepinski): "Energy exists in the microtransactions within the cell, but also the overall behavior of the system and its efficiency of movement and information processing. There is micro energy dynamics, and macro energy dynamics, just as in physics. You could try to describe energy in terms of the interaction of many atoms, but usually you will just use the macro features of the system in mechanical engineering, for example. Whenever your body is in some overall functional state (E/R/P/L/F/S/I/T), it is processing information and doing work which processes energy. The behavior, the work done, that is what is visible, whereas the information is something which has to be inferred."
"It is true that information can be important to carrying things out; you often need to know how to do something, but it is also possible to do things instinctually and subconsciously. But knowing how to carry something out (or being able to figure it out) is not the same as spending the energy to actually do that. You can know how to build a computer, but if you don’t have the energy to get the parts and put them together, then you’re not getting a computer. You can know how to treat people properly, but if you are angry or tired or a hypocrite, you might treat them like crap. This is very important, and is especially relevant to the Control function in Model G (Ignoring in Model A). This is a function where we know a lot, but we cannot act on it easily at all. We often use it to coach others. Well, I haven’t really explained the energy paradigm very much yet; I’ve only given a few tidbits of it because my time is limited. I wouldn’t say ShGS is a whole new theory; it obviously has plenty of overlap and agreement with the previous, but I would say a stronger epistemological basis and a better understanding of patterns of behavior through many dichotomies and functions. But to put it very simply, when you observe someone’s behavior, you are observing energy metabolism, not information metabolism. So, it is actually more direct to focus on energy than information. It is also more scientific."
"I would say energy is involved at every step of the process of looking, assessing, deciding and acting; while you are confused how there is room for energy, I am confused how any of it would be possible without energy. Looking requires energy (looking requires attentional mechanisms, getting you into a certain functional state to be able to process the world from the perspective of a certain function), assessing requires energy especially if it is a difficult assessment (just like it requires energy for your computer to do a calculation, some calculations can be done more efficiently on a CPU and some more efficiently on a GPU, etc.), deciding merely sounds like the end point of assessing, and acting is mostly energy because you have to actually perform work and affect something. Information doesn’t affect anything directly; it perhaps affects things indirectly by it being understood, but is inherently relative and relational (introverted). Energy is absolute (extroverted)."
Comments from Ben Vaserlan: "Dr G is referring to the energy of the psyche. Dr G is a Jungian."
The main contradiction of modern socionics: "In addition to the external difficulties that modern socionics have encountered, there are still more serious difficulties, splitting and weakening the socionic movement from within. The internal tension in socionics is slowly but steadily increasing. What is the source of this voltage? - The contradiction between the humanitarian and technical poles in socionic knowledge comes to the forefront more than ever. It slightly resembles the confrontation between the technocratic pressure of the West, atomizing and alienating people, and the ancient wisdom of the East, uniting and supporting people through their inclusion in a harmonious system of social relations, where everyone has a worthy place. (Watching a video interview with C.G. Jung).
Unfortunately, our contemporaries took the worst from the west - greed and combined it with the worst from the east - clanism. We are representing the humanitarian wing of modern socionics - a trend of dissenters, even dissidents. We are not verbally, but by deed, bringing socionics closer to the needs of specific people, practitioners. We carry out intensive explanatory work. We are not satisfied with the one-sidedness and absolutism of socionics - orthodoxes, for whom the best relationship is duality, the best group is quadra, the best type is ILE, the best scheme is Model A."
Reading Without Lessons: Answers To The Fellow Traveler:
Socionics is a humanitarian science - "This means: 1) when trying to measure the characteristics of an object endowed with a psyche, we thereby act on it and substantially change its state, therefore the reproducibility of the experiment on which classical science is built is limited; 2) socionics has a pronounced humanitarian mission in society."
The psyche is a multi-level education - "Subordination levels of the psyche, convenient for practical work, is as follows: type - subtype - behavior strategy - functional state. In other words, a type always manifests itself through one or another subtype, a subtype has a certain set of behavioral strategies, a behavior strategy is always implemented through current functional states. The more specific level we consider, the greater the degree of variability and dependence on the environment. The type depends on the environment to a minimum degree, and the functional state - to the maximum."
Focus on behavior - "Defining a socionic type, we focus on what a person does, and not on what he says. When we examine the semantic component of verbal communication, we are aware of its arbitrary and manipulative nature. We are interested in it from the point of view of how it affects behavior."
The principle of diversity of models - "Different models can be used in socionic research with the aim of achieving complete description. In each case, the researcher chooses the model that is more suitable for solving the task before him. Two large classes of models should be distinguished: position-ranking, on the one hand, and combinatorial-dichotomous, on the other. The elements that fill the positions of the model can be both functions (aspects) and polar features."
The principle of multi-factoriality - "One or another property or feature of the socionic object's behavior is controlled by at least two functions (aspects) or polar features. For example, the trait of "masculinity" behavior is controlled, at a minimum, by signs of logic and extraversion."Principle of interactivity - "The behavior of a person or a group of people is formed in the interaction of internal factors with factors coming from external agents. The behavior of a person is also significantly influenced by factors of non-share origin - gender, age, profession, etc."
Principle of communicative space - "Socionic object is always placed in one or another area of the communicative space (field), the main lines of force of which are the communicative levels - physical, psychological, social, intellectual. Therefore, its manifestations in the transition from one communicative level to another will naturally change."
Principle of equal interdisciplinary openness - "This principle is quite transparent. Openness to psychology, for example. You can make comparisons, analogies, etc. with transactional analysis, neuro-linguistic programming, any other concepts and methods of psychology. However, it would be wrong to say that the patterns discovered by them are particular manifestations of socionics. It would be equally wrong to assume that socionics is a simple consequence of some psychological developments."
Information or energy: "The concept of "information", widely used in socionics, is extremely multivalued. A person starting to read books on its fundamentals, suddenly discovers that the psyche is based on "information metabolism". But is it legitimate to reduce the mental life of the individual and the collective to the exchange of information? And in general, what is the specificity of the information about which socionics write and speak? In everyday speech, information means knowledge about something, information. For example, they say it is an informed person. So called the person who possesses information on some issue. Information as awareness probably will not cause any objection. But if we take the semantics of the word “information” itself, then we get the second understanding of this term. Information is that which is contained within (in-) some form. Simply content, content (or, as they say in English manner, content). In the socionic paradigm, familiar to most amateurs, information is interpreted rather in the second sense. It is not for nothing that when traditional socionics conduct type-diagnosis, they resort to simple procedures of content analysis. So it turns out linguistic determinism: you respond to words with a sensual meaning, which means you are ethics, etc."
"Humanitarian socionics is closer to the first understanding of the term "information". However, it narrows its meaning to orderly, organized knowledge. And also takes into account that there are two different types of knowledge. Firstly, these are laws and instructions, information “I know” (L-interpretation). Secondly, it is the accumulated experience, the information "I can" (P-interpretation). The information "I know" does not coincide with the information "I am able". And the difference is not only in theory and practice. Practically applicable instruction still remains of L . This is about energy. Business logic is less informational, but more energetic. It exists only when it acts.
Thus, information and energy form a dialectical unity of opposites and somewhat resemble two poles of a magnet connected by closed lines of a communicative field. Each of the four Jung mental functions (sensation, feeling, intuition and thinking) is divided into energy and information poles. And this division coincides with the polarity of extraversion - introversion, which Jung considered to be the main one. And in the extrovert function of the energy is much more than in the introverted. For example, the same P will do, even when there is no information, and L to think, even when there is energy. However, under the information can be brought and implicit knowledge. But this is the intuitive aspect of information. About this another time."
Information vs Energy Dimensions: "Marat, the fact is that dimensionality can be understood in different ways. This is either the freedom of action of the function (degree of freedom of behavior), or the complexity of the internal structure of the function, which occupies one or another position in the model. And if in a simple way, then we are talking about energy or informational dimension. So: the information dimension will increase from input to output, similar to how individual streams of information are collected and concentrated in one multidimensional stream.
The sequence of operation of functions in the circuit according to model G is as follows: start-up function (4th position) - program/management function (1st position) - implementation function (2nd position) - role function (3rd position). It turns out that the functions occupying positions 4 and 1 are small, that is, simple in structure. Multidimensional, or complex functions - those that take positions 2 and 3.
As an analogy to the informational dimension, you can use the example of printed information. Line (one-dimensionality) - page (two-dimensionality) - book (three-dimensionality) - library (four-dimensionality). In other words, the third function for normal manifestation should take into account information from the previous three functions."
The sequence of operation of functions in the circuit according to model G is as follows: start-up function (4th position) - program/management function (1st position) - implementation function (2nd position) - role function (3rd position). It turns out that the functions occupying positions 4 and 1 are small, that is, simple in structure. Multidimensional, or complex functions - those that take positions 2 and 3.
As an analogy to the informational dimension, you can use the example of printed information. Line (one-dimensionality) - page (two-dimensionality) - book (three-dimensionality) - library (four-dimensionality). In other words, the third function for normal manifestation should take into account information from the previous three functions."
Changeability: "Someday in the future, we will be able to accelerate information and communication processes in society, which will allow us to create arbitrary groups of sociotypes without any problems. Then the difficult transitions from sensory to intuitive settings will be debugged and vice versa, and what we do not have now will be recreated - the controllability and predictability of civilization, which will face challenges of an unimaginable level of complexity."
Post-Information society: "The post-information society will come when energy is transmitted and used as easily as information today. Including wireless - wirelessly and directionally, targeting about. Therefore, it can be called a new energy society (as opposed to the old, industrial). Humanitarian socionics was conceived just for such a society, for the future life in the conditions of a shortage of energy resources, and not only fuel and raw materials, but also psychological ones - disappointment, apathy, low motivation. It develops and promotes effective (with high energy efficiency) actions of people both alone and in groups. Moreover, small and medium groups are preferred."
Logic of Changes: "The basic axis of the power of socion according to our analysis is formed by the right energy groups? Power generators, as well as dual energy absorbers. Since right-sided quests are energetically dominant in socion, socion as a whole has right (i.e., clockwise) rotation.
And now let us sum up the togs. As you can see, the main driving force of the socion is order relations. Duality, from this point of view, plays a supporting role. It harmonizes extrovert and introverted energies (front and rear) within the framework of a double ring. Thanks to it, synchronization occurs (in angular rather than linear velocity) of two unidirectional in rotation, although of different power groups. It is the right energy alternation according to the “explosion / stability” scheme that leads to the type of development of society that we observe in real history. Moreover, the alternating epochs of people of different cultures evaluate differently. In the East of the era of stability, when little is happening, people regard as good, and the epoch of change as bad. In the West, marks are often set in the opposite way. Revolutionary change is associated with progress, and long-term stability is associated with decay or backwardness."
Clock of the Socion: "There is also a view of socion from much greater distance. This is the secondary level of organization of the socion: the quadra and the rings of supervision and benefit. It's another question what kind of rings we should consider. Here there are many hidden contradictions since there are two types of rings: rings of supervision and rings of benefit. When we take Model A, which was discovered by A. Augusta, we're looking at functions from point of view of rings of supervision. We can also use a different model, one that is based on considering the rings on benefits instead, and this model is different from Model A. The word "rings" in this articles will denote benefit rings. We must give credit to A. Augusta here because she has discovered both types of rings, however, she gave priority to the informational revision chains i.e. supervision rings. However, rings of benefits are more dynamic and better reflect the development of the socion as a single unit."
The order of types in social progress, or why do quadras change?: "Induction and reduction: It makes sense to first consider why and how functions are replaced within the type itself. Firstly, it is simpler, and secondly, both mechanisms work on the same principle. If we deal with the first, then the second will not remain a mystery to us. I suppose that there must be some kind of primary switching on effects (and, accordingly, at the second stage - switching off). Which of the existing interfunctional relationships can have the desired effect? There can only be one answer - the most relevant order relationships are the launch role. They are of a vector and at the same time inclusive nature. Thus, order communication quite naturally acts as the basis for constructing a functional model of a communicative object. This is a significant difference from the familiar “A” model, which is built on the revision principle. Aushra alone knows why, giving priority over the development of socion transfer orders, she built a type model on the opposite principle - revision. Both models are structurally similar - this is a combination of two functional rings, one of which is above the other. Only in model “A” are these revision rings, and in the energy model are order rings. In addition, these rings are placed in different ways relative to each other, which is also very significant.
However, I will not consider this point in the framework of this report. Using the word “order” for our purposes is not very convenient, since this concept reflects only one aspect of the system-forming connection - social. In most cases, when we use the word “order” not in everyday life, but in a scientific context, we mean precisely “social” order. Therefore, I prefer to use the general scientific name of this relationship, namely, I resort to the term “induction”. What is it? Briefly, induction is directed excitation. She has the opposite - reduction, that is, directional braking. It is psychological induction that is the trigger that transmits the energy impulse further and further along the chain consisting of individual psychological functions. The fundamental point is that the choice of an order instead of a revision as the main system connection has not only a structurally functional, actually model side, but also a paradigm-worldview.
The energy paradigm, as you know, has been opposed to the information one for years. My supporters and I believe that energy is primary. Modern science claims that at the beginning of time there was a big explosion - a flurry of energy that gave rise to the universe, including carriers of the psyche, that is, you and I. Over time, energy condenses, turning into matter, which is increasingly organized, thereby generating information. Someone might think that this debate is on a par with the notorious dilemma: what happened before - a chicken or an egg. But we have no time for jokes. The struggle of the idealistic and materialistic worldviews in the humanities never stops. Thus, we clearly fixed the direction of social and psychological evolution - from energy to information. On this conclusion, if you remember, my report at the previous conference ended. Now let's go one step further.
A similar cycle of converting energy into information is well known in various life sciences. In particular, it resembles the phenomenon of succession in biology. Succession (from lat. Succesio - succession, inheritance) is a successive change of one biocenosis to another in a certain area of the environment. For our purposes, it is important to note that the most important property of the succession series is that each previous stage forms the conditions for the development of the next. As an example of succession, take the overgrowth of the lake and its transformation into a swamp. Note! In exactly the same way, each quadra reduces the previous one (drives it into the “swamp”) and induces the next one (blows up or pulls out a funnel for the future “lake”). And in the same way, according to the principle of relaying, one type includes the other in the order ring, being filled with information and depleted energetically, more and more braking at the same time, and finally, it is losing the distance. Now let's see how it works. I distinguish two types of transmission of the energy impulse - inspiration and irritation.
In the first case, the receiver moves towards the transmitter in order to adopt some important skill from it. In other words, he seeks to imitate his customer/benefactor. The imitative reflex is preserved in the species “homo sapiens” even from its ancient ancestor. And since this ancestor became the ancestor of not only man, but also anthropoid apes, the effect of imitation is observed on modern monkeys without any disguise. Researchers know that monkeys start yawning as soon as at least one of the members of their pack shows a yawn. In people, the growth of an imitative avalanche is, for example, a reaction to the cry "our people are being beaten!"
In the second case, the opposite of the first, the inevitable disappointment turns into irritation and the received dose of excitement seeks a way out in another place. The receiver should go away from the inductor and correctly do it, otherwise a short circuit will occur in the energy circuit."
The energy paradigm, as you know, has been opposed to the information one for years. My supporters and I believe that energy is primary. Modern science claims that at the beginning of time there was a big explosion - a flurry of energy that gave rise to the universe, including carriers of the psyche, that is, you and I. Over time, energy condenses, turning into matter, which is increasingly organized, thereby generating information. Someone might think that this debate is on a par with the notorious dilemma: what happened before - a chicken or an egg. But we have no time for jokes. The struggle of the idealistic and materialistic worldviews in the humanities never stops. Thus, we clearly fixed the direction of social and psychological evolution - from energy to information. On this conclusion, if you remember, my report at the previous conference ended. Now let's go one step further.
A similar cycle of converting energy into information is well known in various life sciences. In particular, it resembles the phenomenon of succession in biology. Succession (from lat. Succesio - succession, inheritance) is a successive change of one biocenosis to another in a certain area of the environment. For our purposes, it is important to note that the most important property of the succession series is that each previous stage forms the conditions for the development of the next. As an example of succession, take the overgrowth of the lake and its transformation into a swamp. Note! In exactly the same way, each quadra reduces the previous one (drives it into the “swamp”) and induces the next one (blows up or pulls out a funnel for the future “lake”). And in the same way, according to the principle of relaying, one type includes the other in the order ring, being filled with information and depleted energetically, more and more braking at the same time, and finally, it is losing the distance. Now let's see how it works. I distinguish two types of transmission of the energy impulse - inspiration and irritation.
In the first case, the receiver moves towards the transmitter in order to adopt some important skill from it. In other words, he seeks to imitate his customer/benefactor. The imitative reflex is preserved in the species “homo sapiens” even from its ancient ancestor. And since this ancestor became the ancestor of not only man, but also anthropoid apes, the effect of imitation is observed on modern monkeys without any disguise. Researchers know that monkeys start yawning as soon as at least one of the members of their pack shows a yawn. In people, the growth of an imitative avalanche is, for example, a reaction to the cry "our people are being beaten!"
In the second case, the opposite of the first, the inevitable disappointment turns into irritation and the received dose of excitement seeks a way out in another place. The receiver should go away from the inductor and correctly do it, otherwise a short circuit will occur in the energy circuit."
Holistic Diagnostics: "A holistic object or phenomenon is one that, by definition, cannot be completely formalized. Because formalization is, first of all, analysis, or anti-synthesis, as I call it in the quaternary dialectic series. Here is the series: thesis - antithesis - synthesis - antisynthesis. Any formalization dissects, and therefore destroys integrity.The criteria you are asking for can be tracked, but there are a lot of them. In addition, they are intertwined. After all, we are talking not only about a multidimensional diagnostic object, but also about the multidimensional situation in which this object is located. The minimal format of socionic analysis is four criteria of the object itself and four criteria of the situation around it. But this is only in statics and these are just socionic criteria. But non-socionic criteria, such as gender, age, profession, education, influence, and sometimes very strongly, moreover, those that we don’t even know about can be added to them.
But the main difficulty is that the contribution of each factor (the coefficient in front of it) can vary greatly from case to case. It turns out that in one situation, factor A is more significant, and in the other, factor B. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that if a similar situation arises in another place and at another time, this ratio will be the same. There is a fundamental uncertainty here, which in the world of complex systems is always greater than determinism. Remember also the problem of the observer. Observing an object, we thereby change it. Moreover, the way I change it when interacting through observation is not the same as how you change it. These changes are often small, subtle, microscopic. But even small fluctuations in a complex, self-aware system can be decisive. Of course, you can formulate the rules of diagnosis, for example, see my long-standing article on this topic - “Socionic Diagnostics: Interview Method” (1.02.1999). But with them, a long list of exceptions should be placed, leveling and largely devaluing these rules themselves.
Let me remind you that diagnostic procedures are divided into nomothetic , based on analysis, and ideographic that are built on synthesis. Despite compatibility, one of these principles will inevitably prevail in practice. Diagnostic professionals such as A. Kempinski and K. Leonhard (their work was used by Aushra to create socionics) preferred not an analytical, but a holistic (holistic, synthetic) method. Here is what Karl Leonhard writes in his book in the chapter “Methods for diagnosing personality” regarding non-verbal diagnostics: “Of course, there will be doctors who consider this technique unreliable. I, on the contrary, would like to emphasize that the observation of facial expressions is the most reliable of all methods that can be used to diagnose a human person ... ” "
Gestalt Psychology: "Max Wertheimer (1880–1943), Kurt Koffka (1886–1941), and Wolfgang Köhler (1887–1967) founded Gestalt psychology in the early 20th century.[6] The dominant view in psychology at the time was structuralism, exemplified by the work of Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894), Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), and Edward B. Titchener (1867-1927).[7] Structuralism was rooted firmly in British empiricism.[7] It took the "atomistic" view that the mind constructs higher-level perceptions from lower-level sensations that are related solely by being associated closely in space and time.[7] The Gestaltists took issue with this widespread "atomistic" view that the aim of psychology should be to break consciousness down into putative basic elements.[4] In contrast, the Gestalt psychologists believed that breaking psychological phenomena down into smaller parts would not lead to understanding psychology.[5] The Gestalt psychologists believed, instead, that the most fruitful way to view psychological phenomena is as organized, structured wholes.[5] They argued that the psychological "whole" has priority and that the "parts" are defined by the structure of the whole, rather than vice versa. One could say that the approach was based on a macroscopic view of psychology rather than a microscopic approach.[8] Gestalt theories of perception are based on human nature being inclined to understand objects as an entire structure rather than the sum of its parts.[9]
Wertheimer had been a student of Austrian philosopher, Christian von Ehrenfels (1859–1932), a member of the School of Brentano. Von Ehrenfels introduced the concept of Gestalt to philosophy and psychology in 1890, before the advent of Gestalt psychology as such.[10][7] Von Ehrenfels observed that a perceptual experience, such as perceiving a melody or a shape, is more than the sum of its sensory components.[7] He claimed that, in addition to the sensory elements of the perception, there is something extra. Although in some sense derived from the organization of the component sensory elements, this further quality is an element in its own right. He called it Gestalt-qualität or "form-quality." For instance, when one hears a melody, one hears the notes plus something in addition to them that binds them together into a tune – the Gestalt-qualität. It is this Gestalt-qualität that, according to von Ehrenfels, allows a tune to be transposed to a new key, using completely different notes, while still retaining its identity. The idea of a Gestalt-qualität has roots in theories by David Hume, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Immanuel Kant, David Hartley, and Ernst Mach. Both von Ehrenfels and Edmund Husserl seem to have been inspired by Mach's work Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen (Contributions to the Analysis of Sensations, 1886), in formulating their very similar concepts of gestalt and figural moment, respectively.[10]
Through a series of experiments, Wertheimer discovered that a person observing a pair of flashing lights can, under the right conditions, experience the illusion that the light is moving from one location to the other. He noted that this was an perception of motion absent any moving object. That is, it was pure phenomenal motion. He dubbed it phi ("phenomenal") motion.[10][11] Wertheimer's publication of these results in 1912[12] marks the beginning of Gestalt psychology.[11] In comparison to von Ehrenfels and others who had used the term "gestalt" earlier in various ways, Wertheimer's unique contribution was to insist that the "gestalt" is perceptually primary. The gestalt defines the parts from which it is composed, rather than being a secondary quality that emerges from those parts.[11] Wertheimer took the more radical positition that "what is given me by the melody does not arise ... as a secondary process from the sum of the pieces as such. Instead, what takes place in each single part already depends upon what the whole is", (1925/1938). In other words, one hears the melody first and only then may perceptually divide it up into notes. Similarly, in vision, one sees the form of the circle first—it is given "im-mediately" (i.e., its apprehension is not mediated by a process of part-summation). Only after this primary apprehension might one notice that it is made up of lines or dots or stars.
The two men who served as Wertheimer's subjects in the phi experiments were Köhler and Koffka. Köhler was an expert in physical acoustics, having studied under physicist Max Planck (1858–1947), but had taken his degree in psychology under Carl Stumpf (1848–1936). Koffka was also a student of Stumpf's, having studied movement phenomena and psychological aspects of rhythm. In 1917, Köhler (1917/1925) published the results of four years of research on learning in chimpanzees. Köhler showed, contrary to the claims of most other learning theorists, that animals can learn by "sudden insight" into the "structure" of a problem, over and above the associative and incremental manner of learning that Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) and Edward Lee Thorndike (1874–1949) had demonstrated with dogs and cats, respectively.
The terms "structure" and "organization" were focal for the Gestalt psychologists. Stimuli were said to have a certain structure, to be organized in a certain way, and that it is to this structural organization, rather than to individual sensory elements, that the organism responds. When an animal is conditioned, it does not simply respond to the absolute properties of a stimulus, but to its properties relative to its surroundings. To use a favorite example of Köhler's, if conditioned to respond in a certain way to the lighter of two gray cards, the animal generalizes the relation between the two stimuli rather than the absolute properties of the conditioned stimulus: it will respond to the lighter of two cards in subsequent trials even if the darker card in the test trial is of the same intensity as the lighter one in the original training trials."
Wertheimer had been a student of Austrian philosopher, Christian von Ehrenfels (1859–1932), a member of the School of Brentano. Von Ehrenfels introduced the concept of Gestalt to philosophy and psychology in 1890, before the advent of Gestalt psychology as such.[10][7] Von Ehrenfels observed that a perceptual experience, such as perceiving a melody or a shape, is more than the sum of its sensory components.[7] He claimed that, in addition to the sensory elements of the perception, there is something extra. Although in some sense derived from the organization of the component sensory elements, this further quality is an element in its own right. He called it Gestalt-qualität or "form-quality." For instance, when one hears a melody, one hears the notes plus something in addition to them that binds them together into a tune – the Gestalt-qualität. It is this Gestalt-qualität that, according to von Ehrenfels, allows a tune to be transposed to a new key, using completely different notes, while still retaining its identity. The idea of a Gestalt-qualität has roots in theories by David Hume, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Immanuel Kant, David Hartley, and Ernst Mach. Both von Ehrenfels and Edmund Husserl seem to have been inspired by Mach's work Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen (Contributions to the Analysis of Sensations, 1886), in formulating their very similar concepts of gestalt and figural moment, respectively.[10]
Through a series of experiments, Wertheimer discovered that a person observing a pair of flashing lights can, under the right conditions, experience the illusion that the light is moving from one location to the other. He noted that this was an perception of motion absent any moving object. That is, it was pure phenomenal motion. He dubbed it phi ("phenomenal") motion.[10][11] Wertheimer's publication of these results in 1912[12] marks the beginning of Gestalt psychology.[11] In comparison to von Ehrenfels and others who had used the term "gestalt" earlier in various ways, Wertheimer's unique contribution was to insist that the "gestalt" is perceptually primary. The gestalt defines the parts from which it is composed, rather than being a secondary quality that emerges from those parts.[11] Wertheimer took the more radical positition that "what is given me by the melody does not arise ... as a secondary process from the sum of the pieces as such. Instead, what takes place in each single part already depends upon what the whole is", (1925/1938). In other words, one hears the melody first and only then may perceptually divide it up into notes. Similarly, in vision, one sees the form of the circle first—it is given "im-mediately" (i.e., its apprehension is not mediated by a process of part-summation). Only after this primary apprehension might one notice that it is made up of lines or dots or stars.
The two men who served as Wertheimer's subjects in the phi experiments were Köhler and Koffka. Köhler was an expert in physical acoustics, having studied under physicist Max Planck (1858–1947), but had taken his degree in psychology under Carl Stumpf (1848–1936). Koffka was also a student of Stumpf's, having studied movement phenomena and psychological aspects of rhythm. In 1917, Köhler (1917/1925) published the results of four years of research on learning in chimpanzees. Köhler showed, contrary to the claims of most other learning theorists, that animals can learn by "sudden insight" into the "structure" of a problem, over and above the associative and incremental manner of learning that Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) and Edward Lee Thorndike (1874–1949) had demonstrated with dogs and cats, respectively.
The terms "structure" and "organization" were focal for the Gestalt psychologists. Stimuli were said to have a certain structure, to be organized in a certain way, and that it is to this structural organization, rather than to individual sensory elements, that the organism responds. When an animal is conditioned, it does not simply respond to the absolute properties of a stimulus, but to its properties relative to its surroundings. To use a favorite example of Köhler's, if conditioned to respond in a certain way to the lighter of two gray cards, the animal generalizes the relation between the two stimuli rather than the absolute properties of the conditioned stimulus: it will respond to the lighter of two cards in subsequent trials even if the darker card in the test trial is of the same intensity as the lighter one in the original training trials."
Law of Closure: Law of Closure - "Gestalt psychologists believed that humans tend to perceive objects as complete rather than focusing on the gaps that the object might contain.[36] For example, a circle has good Gestalt in terms of completeness. However, we will also perceive an incomplete circle as a complete circle.[28] That tendency to complete shapes and figures is called closure.[28] The law of closure states that individuals perceive objects such as shapes, letters, pictures, etc., as being whole when they are not complete. Specifically, when parts of a whole picture are missing, our perception fills in the visual gap. Research shows that the reason the mind completes a regular figure that is not perceived through sensation is to increase the regularity of surrounding stimuli. For example, the figure that depicts the law of closure portrays what we perceive as a circle on the left side of the image and a rectangle on the right side of the image. However, gaps are present in the shapes. If the law of closure did not exist, the image would depict an assortment of different lines with different lengths, rotations, and curvatures—but with the law of closure, we perceptually combine the lines into whole shapes.[31][35][37]"
Generating Wholes: "We are very used to thinking of wholes as composed by parts. That is, a whole is generated by gathering the necessary parts (which, crucially, already exist) and putting them together in some way such that a thing is made from the parts. This is the essence of manufacturing. In this view, wholes are “built up” from parts. The logic is recursive: the parts are themselves manufactured in an analogous way. But the modern mind misses that in the organic and living unfolding of the world, wholes are generated by and out of other wholes, and the parts we observe are very often descended from the elaboration and internal differentiation of a whole whose existence precedes them.
Consider the embryonic development of a multicellular organism. It proceeds first by an existing whole (a “parent”) generating another whole (a “child”), then by the growth of that whole and concomitant internal differentiation into parts—sub-wholes that descend from and are synthesized by the whole. The importance of this sequence can not be overstated: In living systems the whole generates the parts. The parts do not exist a priori. In each step of this process we can see that both wholes and parts come from existing wholes. They are not constructed in the usual sense—they are not manufactured. They are synthesized via an unbroken chain of wholes, extending back to the beginning.
Generating Wholes: "We are very used to thinking of wholes as composed by parts. That is, a whole is generated by gathering the necessary parts (which, crucially, already exist) and putting them together in some way such that a thing is made from the parts. This is the essence of manufacturing. In this view, wholes are “built up” from parts. The logic is recursive: the parts are themselves manufactured in an analogous way. But the modern mind misses that in the organic and living unfolding of the world, wholes are generated by and out of other wholes, and the parts we observe are very often descended from the elaboration and internal differentiation of a whole whose existence precedes them.
Consider the embryonic development of a multicellular organism. It proceeds first by an existing whole (a “parent”) generating another whole (a “child”), then by the growth of that whole and concomitant internal differentiation into parts—sub-wholes that descend from and are synthesized by the whole. The importance of this sequence can not be overstated: In living systems the whole generates the parts. The parts do not exist a priori. In each step of this process we can see that both wholes and parts come from existing wholes. They are not constructed in the usual sense—they are not manufactured. They are synthesized via an unbroken chain of wholes, extending back to the beginning.
Robert Rosen recognized this as an essential feature of complex living systems, and further recognized the vast insufficiency of the Newtownian state-recursion paradigm in accounting for it. This insufficiency has not been widely recognized nor appreciated, never mind adequately addressed in the sciences. Stuart Kauffman has voiced similar insights, pointing out that, for example, the function of an organ, like the heart, is not something that can be found in the heart by itself, but is a property that is inherited from its context: the whole organism in which it is embedded, and which has produced it. We have projected our impoverished manufacturing model of the world onto the world and attempted to stuff ourselves inside of it. This is more than a theoretical problem. Our literal, built environment is full of parts, but is lacking wholes.
We must steward wholes, because we cannot conceive of them. Not in full, or anywhere close. And certainly we cannot conceive of the wholes that might become, that might evolve. Stuart Kauffman has argued powerfully that the patterns that evolution produces are unforeseeable in principle, that it might be impossible to predict the future—and he may be right. So we must steward the wholes in which we embed ourselves, rather than manufacture them. We should serve as agents in their refinement, their further elaboration, their evolution—but we cannot construct complex wholes ex nihilo. Nothing good comes from the belief that we can. We must be humble in our abilities. We must make sure we are perceiving wholes, and not imagining them. The range of scales over which our perception can operate—aesthetic or otherwise—is finite. The stewarding process is a local one, grounded in practice, and relatively uncorrupted by false abstractions."
Lastly, here is a very important paper on how the Humanitarian School sees Type Images and Gestalt Psychology relating to their work: Type image: its perception and recognition. Difficulties in diagnosing type in socionics
Besides this wealth of reasons for the energy paradigm, there are way more reasons than I have the time or energy to represent here, but which I will get into in the future. This includes:
-The implicit knowledge of the Humanitarian/energy paradigm that is difficult to communicate without experience, representing the practical observations of one of the most experienced Socionists and Socionics Schools of all time (maybe the most experience alive)
-connections to science, philosophy, psychology, high poetry, esoterics, spirituality, etc.
17) Jack points out a number of lackings or defects about this experiment by Shekhter and Kobrinskaya, such as its unavailability for us to examine, its possible lack of peer review, its unknown sample size, and its methodology which could contain flaws
Indeed, these are all valid points to consider. I myself am not persuaded of the energy paradigm due to this experiment, but due to the wealth of reasons that I have laid out above, in addition to even more things that I don't have time to get into right now. That should be plenty to start with. If we can get our hands on some of these Socionics experiments in the East though, that would be great. It is great to put our ideas to the test, and we could see to what precise extent this has been done already, and acquire more ideas for ourselves.
I must confess that one frustration I have with the Humanitarian School and Socionists in the East in general is that they mention experiments sometimes, but they rarely make these experiments openly available. I feel this is annoying, because it promotes mistrust and misunderstanding. What I want to see is more efforts to expose all this, in addition to all of the best information that they have access to, so that people will have more of a chance to understand one another and where we are each coming from at a much greater depth.
That said, I am impressed with the fact that some Socionists, like Gulenko, Talanov, Shekhter and Kobrinskaya, have some amount of success in their experiments given their lack of resources. It is enterprising and inventive, whereas so much of Socionics consists of armchair philosophizing and talking to people on the internet about the silly expectation of deterministic abstract beliefs that Sociotypes are supposed to have. So, while I agree that there is more to be desired in terms of quality of experiments and publishing of information, Gulenko does seem to be well ahead of the rest of his competition here. Moreover, there is no indication that these Socionists are satisfied with the current experiments available to them. They are the first people to want to do more:
Shekhter and Kobrinskays say in their report that: "The observations give every reason to consider this hypothesis true, but more research is needed." Therefore, they seem to regard this experiment as promising and encouraging rather than final and conversation ending.
Gulenko's Ideas on Experimental Verification of Order Rings: "Most often I conduct experiments with energy rings during socionic seminars and training courses. The difficulty lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to assemble people of the right types to compose 4 rings of an order with the time and material and organizational resources we have. In addition, for successful and clearly convincing experiments, the types of participants must have a bright and contrasting profile, otherwise all patterns will be blurred. We almost never have such a picture. Therefore, it is necessary to make a compromise and conduct an experiment either with groups that are incomplete in composition or number, or with volunteers with appropriate accentuated functions. There is also a certain middle variant, when partially there are representatives of the necessary types, and partially not, and then their functional substituents are used instead of the missing types.
The simplest way to start is to split the general group into extroverts and introverts (for this I use the FAP test and organize paired dialogs to visually verify the reliability of the splitting), and then check separately the extroverts and separately the introverts for questivity - declability. The last polarity, if you remember, I interpret as the concentration or dissipation of energy. Therefore, we take, for example, two extrovert rings of different pulsations - one radical (concentrating energy to the extent of the explosion), and the other moderate (dissipating energy and not allowing critical energy release) and work with them.
We introduce a trial participant into each of them. After the probe remains for some time in the ring that received it, we collide it with the second probe, which spent the same time in the opposite ring (exercise “collider”). The behavior of each ring (we will pay special attention to communication with an alien!) Is filmed on video. After that, we compare the results: the samplers will share their opinions, and independent experts will watch the video. A significant difference will be evident. It will manifest itself in distances, movements, emotional arousal, etc.
Another version of test exercises for energy rings with different pulsations is the modeling of their actions in a situation of a systemic crisis, an inevitably growing threat. Or at least in a fairly tense situation of lack of time. The theory of energy groups predicts a significant difference in the behavior of questives and declatims under these conditions. Quests try to the very last “reanimate” a crashing system (and they often succeed), and declatims prefer to leave such a system (for a new start). So far, I have not conducted such exercises. The next step of experimental work with order rings will be associated with them.
Further experiments on the energy of the socion is its division by rotation. The task is to enable the right and left sociotypes to freely share on 2 subgroups. I wonder what they’ll do. Separated by verticity or acceleration (statics / dynamics)? If the former will occur more often, then the energy model (development of SHS) has priority in reflecting group dynamics, while the latter is the information model (it is model A). The situation of uncertainty is not excluded. Then it will be necessary to begin verification of intermediate, energy-information models."
The above sounds to me like Gulenko has already done many innovative experiments with the Order Rings (and more besides from what I have read elsewhere, such as with the DCNH system), but he is eagerly looking forward to more rigorous, better provisioned, higher quality experiments. He doesn't sound remotely satisfied to me. This is corroborated by several other statements Gulenko has made:
Unpublished Interview: "Socionics faced a problem of survival. Scientific books are not buying well right now. Everything can be read on the Internet. Our school of development did not stop. I constantly write articles, blog, facebook, conduct distance learning, advise, our scientific seminar and the regular club "Eureka" work, which discusses complex topics of modern socionics, as well as conduct open diagnostic interviews. SHS is quite creative, those who follow it know that our ideas do not run low. I believe that it is time to prove the material accumulated by socionics through experiments. That is what I have been paying the most attention lately."
Furthermore, Gulenko takes into account scientific psychology, something rarely done in the rest of Socionics, which opposes and creates tensions between Socionics and scientific discovery instead of incorporating and adapting to it. This includes theories of Daniel Kahneman, NLP, Kretschmer, Leonhard, Ekman, Eysenck, Lefebvre, etc. This is an important approach that I wish I could see more of Socionics take.
18) Jack asks whether this experiment (or probably any set of reasons) can justify the sacrifices Model G is making: blocking, mobilizing as consistently more important than the suggestive, and theoretical confusion
"Theoretical confusion" in this conversation could only be applied to Jack on most of the points discussed so far, not to anything he has supposedly demonstrated about a model and paradigm that he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of. In any case, Model G isn't sacrificing any of the things he mentions, and he couldn't possibly have received the impression that it lacks those things if he had done thorough research on the topic. As I demonstrated in depth above, these are just a bunch of pseudo-problems, false dichotomies or outright misconceptions.
19) Jack says that this discussions is about the MODELS more than the people, getting to the truth of the matter. He asks which model will unify our understanding, and open our understanding of people and world. To determine this, he says each model must be steel-manned, not straw-manned. That is, we need to see the strongest showing these ideas have to offer
The principle of steel-manning is indeed an important one, and if that is the approach Jack wants to take, then more power to him. There are a few assumptions that I want to unpack here:
-Maybe ONE model will never unify our understanding. It's just an assumption to suggest that this will occur. Maybe a multitude of models can be more successful in opening understanding of people and the world than one model, as long as each model is used in its appropriate context. It seems at least worth pondering whether these assumptions are true or not. What if the "one right way" approach won't work, or at least isn't the best way?
-Even more importantly, I don't think this discussion is really about models. It includes discussion of models, and that is important, but it is about more fundamental issues: critical thinking, epistemology, facts and interpretations, questioning assumptions, curiosity about other ways of viewing the world, testing ideas, tried and tested experience, having new experiences, developing new ways of thinking, empathizing with and understanding one another rather than resigning ourselves to fatalism or inert axiomatic approaches that put our thinking in an unnecessary bind. If the discussion is just about models, then it is not going to get much further than it already is.
Meaningful and Meaningless Statements: "Different socionic schools argue among themselves, mercilessly criticizing each other's statements. It is understood, of course, that the statements of the opponent are false, and their own are true. But besides the “truth - lie” dichotomy customary for debaters, there is also a polarity of meaningfulness . First of all, the statements must be divided into meaningful and meaningless, and only at the second step of the division - true or false. Such is the tetratome of knowledge.
Unfortunately, now competing socionic schools approach the subject of the dispute purely one-dimensional, operating only with the “true-false” polarity. However, if we act consistently, we must begin with the first step, that is, the dichotomy of meaning. If you do this, then it will turn out that most of the statements of one school in the system of concepts of another school are neither true nor false. They are meaningless.
For example, a long-standing dispute between me and A. Bukalov about the sociotypes of Boris Yeltsin or Yulia Tymoshenko. It is very difficult to find a common solution here, since the image of the type of MIS and ShGS is completely different. In particular, in the IIA "Entrepreneur" (LIE) can be a leader of the crowd and a fanatical revolutionary, and in the GE such is unlikely. According to our type images, social upheavals inspire and lead the quadra beta, not gamma.
Thus, socionic paradigms (initial sets of positions that form the picture of the researcher’s world) are simply incommensurable with the current state of socionic knowledge. Each paradigm has its own truth. Moreover, the gap between them only deepens over time. It is unlikely that truth is born in such disputes, but positions are becoming clearer. At least, this is how it looks for the casual observer.
But what then is true? - you ask. To this question we can not answer today. Judge time."
Speaking for myself as an unqualified observer it seems on the outside to this field, the typology science, that for all the merits of the theorising and latterly intuitive leaps which hold the imagination, proofs and predication on the ground do not exist to substantiate the command position of scientific fact.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, without exotic sub theory, people, the subjects of the theory, they themselves, need to engage and understand the theory which is evident, that which provides examinable phenomena and that which has predictive powers and can be used as a tool.
Public examination of creative theorising is all fine, but one must know the limits.
Hello Alexander,
DeleteI myself am not so fond of using the word "scientific fact" to end discussions or prop up my ideas, not because there aren't obvious scientific facts, but because that word gets bandied about too much in simplistic ways. So, I think you'll find I'm right with you here. Let's discuss the actual heart of the issue (e.g. why something is or isn't a scientific fact, for instance) rather than bandying about ideological "hammer words" like "scientific fact" in this area. At least, that's assuming that we want to have productive discussions.
In fact, you'll find a paragraph in my work that largely makes the point you are: "Since none of these models are deeply verified scientific models, it doesn't make reasonable sense to have your heart so set on one way of thinking unless it serves your own exalted sense of identity, you are hypnotized or brainwashed by a story or ideology (this is way easier than you might think because experiments have proven the vulnerability of humans to suggestion and social pressure), or you are naive about the limits of our knowledge and epistemology."
Therefore, while I agree with much of what you say, I'm not sure what your point is.
Best, Varlawend