Summary of my debate with Jack Aaron (with some Reflections)

This time I had a live debate with Jack Aaron which can be seen here:

My conclusions regarding the debate: "Some supporters of Model A believe that there is no need for an energy paradigm, but I want to argue that it is useful to have a variety of typologies and that Humanitarian Socionincs captures patterns in reality which are not captured by Information Socionics. The mindsets of the participants are very different, so this discussion is quite preliminary, since we have not yet reached many details, especially non-verbal signals. Thus, firm views will probably not be convinced by either side of this discussion, but this opens the way for new conversations in the future."

Below is my attempt to summarize the various arguments made so that people can look through it more quickly in writing without having to scour through a video to look for individual pieces of information.  I'll also make further comments in parentheses about additional comments I have after the fact, so anything you see in parentheses and italics was not in the actual debate (parentheses without italics is just a clarification).  At the end, I will post any new agreements that occurred, in addition to the remaining disagreements:



Jack:  We’re discussing Model A and Model G, with Model A being a more classically known model, and Model G a more recent creation of a well-known Socionics who was also influential in shaping Socionics (including Model A). These Models differently structure functions, one uses Information Metabolism and one uses Energy Metabolism.

Jack:  In my view, Model G is reinventing the wheel, not building on what is pre-existing in Model A. Varlawend believes there is something of value to Model G

Varlawend: Let's go over the communicative space and its four levels (Intellectual, Social, Psychological, Physical, which we went over with some examples)

Jack: Do the levels of the communicative space vary across the types?

Varlawend: All types, functions and dichotomies are described at each level, but since Externalities occur at far communicative distance (Intellectual and Social levels) and Internalities at close communicative distance (Psychological and Physical levels), Extroverts and Introverts will have different emphases here

Jack: Do the levels of the communicative space have anything in common with the clubs (clubs are called installations in Humanitarian Socionics)?

Varlawend: Yes, there is a fractal correspondence between the four levels of the communicative space and the clubs, similar to how DCNH has a fractal correspondence to the temperaments

Jack: What is the usefulness of the communicative space and its levels?

Varlawend: Multi-angle, multi-level characterization of the behavior the types, functions, dichotomies, etc.  Everything in Humanitarian Socionics is described at each of these four levels (Confucius: No subject do I broach, however, to those who have no eager desire to learn; no encouraging hint do I give to those who show no anxiety to speak out their ideas; nor have I anything more to say to those who, after I have made clear one corner of the subject, cannot from that give me the other three) 

Jack: I can see the usefulness of the communicative space.

-We shift gears to psychic energy
Varlawend: Information is the product of the reflection of the psyche on its environment or on itself, whereas Energy is the ability of the psyche to change or influence the environment or itself

Jack: Victor Gulenko seems to be strawmanning Information Metabolism, since we already describe in Model A how types behave or change their environment.  Information Metabolism in Jack's view acquires information, assess the information, forms a decision on that assessment, and puts the decision into action, a circular process. In splitting that circular process of Information Metabolism into Energy vs Information, Gulenko has broken a whole into two pieces.  That's Gulenko's rationale for having Model G, when Model A already has all of that in itself and calls the whole process Information Metabolism (which was a metaphor for Energy Metabolism in Kepinski).

Varlawend: You could coherently create something called Information Metabolism which involves action and energy in principle, but there are still all the differences between the Models (A and G) and interpretations to address and also the issue of whether it is being interpreted correctly (if the interpretations are different then we have to further unpack their logic because these ideas of energy and information might be being used in different ways in each theory).  You have to acknowledge that there is at least a potential utility in distinguishing between energy and information within a greater whole (they are distinguished in science and other disciplines for example) and in having an idea of how one function activates another through induction or directed excitation which provides a mechanism for the transference of energy in psyche and the distinction between Energy dimensions and Information dimensions of the functions.  For example, the Control function has a lot of information, but it is not able to act effectively (this relates to some esoteric and spiritual wisdom about the danger of having too much knowledge) since the Program function interferes with the Control function, as they are opposite actions in the same sphere.

Jack: But Model A already has function dichotomies which describe what the Ignoring function (which corresponds to the Control function in Model) does: Inert which makes it somewhat rigid, Unvalued so it is not intrinsically appreciated, Cautious so not as much energy is diverted into it and it isn't so overtly, and Situational, so it could be activated at a higher level under certain conditions.  Overall, you don't want to use it unless it is absolutely necessary, but you can use it effectively.  This is different from the Vulnerable function which is more like a black hole in the person, and they don't use it at all.  For example, SEIs and SLIs (due to Ignoring Se) are not often described as pushovers (this doesn't fit my experience, I see SEIs being described as pushovers a lot even though they are very calming and sweet, so that might be true only in Jack's paradigm).

Varlawend: There is a roughly 40% convergence rate between the typing diagnostics of Jack and Victor Gulenko (based on about 50 typings), so we probably don't even mean the same thing when we refer to the types.  This is a semantic and practical problem with typology in general.  Each paradigm breaks down the world in a different way, and that is where I see the value of studying multiple paradigms on their own terms.  The unit upon which we use these models to penetrate into our experience is not their parts but as a whole, in addition to the way those types are separated and relate to each other in that particular paradigm and the different empirical observations (and Kuhnian canonical demonstrations) associated with those wholes and separations.

Jack: This sounds like the allegory of the many blind people feeling different parts of an elephant, such as how each religion grasps a part of a greater truth.  That sounds nice, but if the types in Model A are so different from the types in Model G (I'd argue they are very different even in the different schools that use Model A), then should we even call them two different schools of Socionics? (I'd say Socionics is a loose collection of schools with noticeably more mutual similarity than the rest of the typology community)

-We shift gears to some functional dichotomies (which characterize different functional positions in the models), in particular we first examine Values vs Tools in Model G

Varlawend: Values vs Tools functionally corresponds to Stubborn vs Flexible (Inert vs Contact) in Model A.  It doesn't correspond to "Quadra values" which exist in Jack's paradigm and Gulenko's paradigm.

Jack: The definition of Values vs Tools in Model G doesn't sound like Stubborn vs Flexible, which would mean that when you decide on something you aren't going to have your mind changed by external factors (in the case of Stubborn).  Instead, Values vs Tools is more semantically similar to Accepting vs Producing, where one is setting a need/motivation (Accepting/Values) and the other is finding a way to fulfill it (Producing/Tools).  In Jack's Model, the Creative fulfills the needs set by the Leading function, the Vulnerable doesn't fulfill the needs set by the Role (if it doesn't, then why is it a Producing function?), the Mobilizing over-confidently tries to create the environment that the Suggestive is not sure of wanting or needing, and the Demonstrative is working in the background because the Ignoring is supposed to set needs but really doesn't (then why is the Ignoring accepting and how does the Demonstrative serving the Ignoring?).  Moreover, Values vs Tools leads to some odd conclusions in Model G, such as the Suggestive function fulfilling a need (I'd say it is fixing long-term habits for the type that energetically support the Program function), and the Brake function setting long-term motivations.  If you take out Accepting vs Producing functions, then how do you define what a Rational vs Irrational type is when they are normally set by Rationals having the Rationals oughts as Accepting and Irrationals having "is's" as Accepting (Ibrahim, another proliferater of his version of Model A in the West doesn't agree with Rational being ought and Irrational being is, and I don't know if other people using Model A interpret it this way)?

Varlawend: The Brake function is indeed more like an anti-motivator and also part of the long-term memory because the person has a hard time doing the draining work to change this function, so problems accumulate there.  Regarding Rational vs Irrational types in Humanitarian Socionics, you can understand this dichotomy deductively from the parts but also in an emergent holistic sense of complex systems.  The functional dichotomy which corresponds to the Rational/Irrational is Stable/Unstable.  In a previous discussion, Jack Aaron and Ben Vaserlan spoke about the roles that can be played by each type within their Benefit Ring, but in Model G and Humanitarian Socionics, the mimicry of types in different clubs/installations is not based on the Benefit Ring.  Rather, it is based the small group which shares Rational/Irrational, Asking/Declaring, Positivist/Negativist.  That is the Identity (of course), Semi-Dual, Mirage and Super-Ego.  This might sound odd and counterintuitive, but it is what has been observed and there have been some proposed explanations of this in terms of dichotomies (e.g. Rational/Irrational, because the dual functions support one another through their actions via energetic recharge, and the functions which share Rational/Irrational with type are Stable).

Jack: I do agree that duals support each other, and the way that you can see that is the perfect interlocking of stubborn and flexible function (in Model G, this is also true, with Value vs Tool functions).  But, I am not satisfied with your answer to difference between Rational and Irrational types.

Varlawend: That makes sense because I wasn't yet finished giving my definition of Rational vs Irrational types (moreover, I'm not sure that merely giving the definitions of something is persuasive, I think you have to show how to definition applies to reality which neither of us have, it's not enough that it seems like it makes sense).  Humanitarian Socionics focuses more on the holistic understanding of rationality and irrationality in the types and functions, and even the axioms that all of us use are ultimately answerable to the differences we are noticing in our experiences which those axioms are trying to best capture.  *I next gave the definition for Rational vs Irrational at the four levels of the communicative space, combined with a brief summary at the end that Rationality is characterized by linearity/regularity and Irrationality by situationality/contextuality*.

Jack: But that definition still doesn't give a coherent understanding except the brief summary at the end to some extent, and it doesn't show how the Stable/Unstable dichotomy brings about a clear/crisp understanding of a Rational type or an Irrational type (on the contrary, I would argue that the experiential descriptions which lay out the differences in people in real situations are more fundamental than the deductive underpinnings we ascribe to them because we can only make reliable axiomatic structure through observing patterns of experience).  And if we don't have a formulation of what a Rational/Irrational type is based on the function dichotomies, then what is the point of the function dichotomies?  I'm looking for something that is "systematically virtuous" (systematic virtuosity is only good if that system is rigorously accurate to reality, otherwise it just fixes you more firmly into a reality tunnel of dubious value.  Nassim Taleb: IYIs, Intellectuals Yet Idiots, favor things that work in theory but not in practice to things that work in practice but not in theory).

Varlawend: In many disciplines, such as complex systems (which humans may be reasonably considered), life science (Robert Rosen), and gestalt psychology, the parts are contextualized, defined, and even come out of, the whole.  The whole is not built up from the parts in these cases (as if manufactured).  Humanitarian Socionics trains more holistically (and there is no reason I could see this should be intrinsically worse a priori).

Jack: I can see the benefit to viewing things holistically, and my friend Peter Bartl views things more holistically, getting a sense of the overall behaviors of the type and its ways of interacting with the world.  However, you can use a holistic approach in any model (can you? at least effectively?  If so, then why don't you use a holistic approach?  Can you describe someone without a model?).  The purpose of this debate was to explain how Model G with its systematic way of structuring and explaining things is adding something to Model A (but Humanitarian Socionics has holistically different type images to Jack's model, not the same.  And that was only Jack's purpose in the debate, not mine.  For me this was more of a forthright but exploratory discussion to see where we stand, and I don't think Model G adds systematically to Model A which was never its purpose).

Varlawend: In my own approach to typology, I see each of these typologies as like a reality tunnel (Robert Anton Wilson, Alfred Korzybski, the map is not the terrain).  Only as a whole do they each decide how we judge which stimuli are relevant and which one's we can throw out since we can only process and make sense of a tiny part of the intake of our sense organs.  Thus, it is very difficult for an external observer to simply see from afar the richness of a certain typology without viewing the world from its perspective with some practice (we can describe the different types of trees and plants in a forest, but you will still have to go out there are learn to distinguish them to make use of the description and see its real multi-layered richness).

Jack: I don't entirely agree with that because I can still put together clear rationale separating Rational and Irrational types (but we can't see the empirical accuracy and usefulness of the dichotomies Jack is using to build up that rationale, and it would take some effort to go and verify whether the differences you say exist actually consistently exist in people in the way that you say, so your rationale is only useful as a verbal/formal story or if they simply accept your authority).  If you were a Model G person, I'd think that you'd try to synthesize that rationale from the longer descriptions and experiences and tell it to a Model A person, which they could then abstractly agree is a good point (I think instead what you'd do is that you'd show a Model A person, who realizes the value of multiple reality tunnels or values expanding their own, the actual patterns in Rational and Irrational types so that they can recognize them, and then they'd realize that we have to explain those patterns.  An abstract rationale from dichotomies is nice, but it's just a cherry on top without showing how it connects with consistent behavior of people in reality).  Some very capable physicists, for example, can sum up popular science in an interesting and compelling way to people (true, and Victor Gulenko does summarize the patterns he is observing in a way that is compelling to quite a few people, but a physicist can't give you even close to a level of appreciation of the mathematical and physical patterns that they see without rigorous elite work on your part.  Pop science alone never make someone a physicist, just a fan).

Varlawend:  But if Gulenko is pointing out patterns that exist in empirical reality with his model which don't exist in your model, even if they are complex and you have another model which seems simpler and more rationalized to you, then you still have to understand those patterns he's pointing out if you want to understand the world.  I don't disagree that I could explain the Humanitarian Socionics definitions more clearly and concisely (and in a way more adapted to the context), and being a compelling explainer like that also takes effort and practice which is one reason to have these discussions in the first place.  Nonetheless, I still stand by my other points (because I am doing my best to try to describe patterns that exist in reality which can recognized).

-Intermission period and Andrew Joynton conversation, which was interesting but I don't consider it part of the discussion between Jack and I so I won't record it here, or will enter it in the future if I have time

Jack: Instead of structural support, the key seems to be empirical support for Gulenko, seeing how the types behave in the world.  I find this surprising, because Gulenko is not someone with a reputation for doing empirical experiments (in my opinion, there isn't even such a thing as structural support on its own, the structure needs empirical/experiential support anyways).

Varlawend: Gulenko does do experiments (more than most Socionists that I've came across), and he wants to do more experiments all the time to demonstrate his ideas, but a lot of seems to be based on his experience over his decades of experience at the heart of Socionics.  You previously pointed out a supposed problem for one of Gulenko's experiment in the past, namely that Gulenko didn't get the whole Benefit Ring together.  While there is something valuable about getting the whole Benefit Ring together, in real life it is rarely the case that a whole Benefit Ring simultaneously interacts: most often you simply have two Benefit Ring members interacting which Gulenko has seen hundreds, maybe thousands, of times, in each case.  The nice thing about getting the whole Benefit Ring together is that it accentuates the qualities of that entire small group.  I understand that the experience argument for Gulenko isn't compelling on its own, which is another value in doing experiments: experiments condense the demonstration of some pattern that might take a lot of experience to see so that less experienced people can see it more easily (true about science in general).

Jack: The experiment that Ben Vaserlan pointed out didn't suggest that the Benefit Ring was more important, but rather the Quadra (actually, there were two experiments discussed by Jack and Ben Vaserlan, one done by Shekhter and Korbrinskaya which is the one Jack is referring to, but also Gulenko's own experiments which didn't have such a Quadra focused conclusion).

Varlawend: Quadra is indeed quite important in Humanitarian Socionics, and Quadras are considered an energetic ecosystem on their own.  They recharge you and create comfort, whereas Benefit cycles are like a progression through Quadras via tensions of opposites where the Benefactor operates on the Manipulative function of the Beneficiary, which leads to a kind of hypnosis (Aushra also described this), and the Beneficiary has more innovative actions on its Demonstrative function (Model G) than the Control function of the Benefactor.  However, this relationship eventually becomes like an energy orgasm which has an effect of overcharging of energy, and that's exactly what happens in the Benefit Rings as Jack correctly pointed out.  Benefit relationships are not stable, and aren't meant to be as comfortable or stable as Quadra relationships.  You can imitate your Benefactor to learn certain skills, and you can do intensive work together very effectively, but after that you have to separate or an energetic explosion will occur and these relationships become very conflictual.

Jack: I can see why the Benefit Rings would be unstable and have this sort of progressive movement, as there would be a cyclical dissatisfaction also resulting from the Benefactor wanting a suggestive function that they can't get from the weak vulnerable function of the Beneficiary, and so on.

Varlawend: In Jungian, it is important that there is always a tension of opposites in the psyche, and this moves people psychologically.  Quadra is the most comfortable, but if you just have Quadra for a while, there is a lack of tension (at least relatively).  People are moved by the tension of the adjacent Quadra and attracted/hypnotized by that which also energetically moves the psyche (through directed excitation).  Jung has another definition of psychic energy which relates to this.

Jack: I don't outright agree with this, but I can in principle see the value of tension.  However, I also think some Quadras are tenser than others, such as the Beta Quadra duality EIE/LSI (I very much agree with this and there is a reason that this particular duality is so rich psychologically and mythologically, but it's still not the same thing as the tension which directs the psyche through the Benefit cycle).

Varlawend: Indeed, Beta Quadra has a lot of tension which is why it is the highest energy Quadra in itself.  So, it's true that there isn't zero tension within Quadra, but it's increased further with adjacent Quadras.

Jack: It's interesting that these intertype relations do match up so well with what is predicted by Model A, but that leads to more questions, because things are so different at the basic level of functional dichotomies and even the types themselves are different, so how can the relation be similar?

Varlawend: We have only explored some intertype relations, so it's possible that others are different.  But also, even though the separate paradigms mean that this is a complex discussion, I'm not saying that no-one has anything wrong, or not corrections can be made, and it's just relativism or something silly like that.

-We suggest having hangouts in the future, where we bring on people like Andrew, Vlad, other new people to see what they can understand between Model A and Model G

Jack: The Benefit relation is especially complicated and difficult to define since it includes suggestive, mobilizing, vulnerable, creative and leading functions, so for that relation of all to have such close resemblance feels very strange to me.  What this might mean is that the theoretical material at the base of Model G has not been followed through towards the conclusions, and the conclusions were instead lifted out of Model A, and there were tweaks made under the hood of Model G which weren't actually brought up to the facade at the top.

Varlawend: Gulenko is not lifting the properties of the Benefit Ring, for example, or other parts of his theory, out of the theoretical material at the "base" (e.g. functional dichotomies).  He types people by a certain method, and then he has observed their behavior over a great many years and the relationship has these dynamics which you can also observe.  The parts are to be refined and understood in the context of the whole (and breaking down that whole into analytical parts).

Jack: Why even bother having the bottom then?

Varlawend: We can use it to examine more details about the theoretical properties of functions (which helps us have a more detailed, nuanced understanding and also could suggest places to look for certain behaviors empirically).  It is true though that they don't use function dichotomies often.

Jack: Why not simply remove Model G and keep all of the holistic musings of Humanitarian Socionics?

Varlawend: The holistic, epiphenomenal method also applies to how the parts in Model G work, such as the functional positions (e.g. Creative, Brake, Control, etc.)

Jack: It is possible to do other arrangements of Model A to emphasize other concepts that Model A usually doesn't, so why use Model G?  Is the value of Model G that you've put things together in another form to articulate a point, before going back to Model A?

Varlawend: Where are they ever going back to Model A though?

Jack: It is impossible for any Model to show each concept within it highlighted with equal importance.  Model A was chosen to convey the greatest number of points without showing each point with absolute clarity.  Why not just create a new diagram to convey certain points more clearly, without a whole new model?

Varlawend: Well, Gulenko conceives of Model G in such a way as to support his own observations.  Here is another way: receptors (Launcher/Control functions), decisive device (Program/Demonstrative functions), effectors/actuators (Creative/Manipulative functions), memory unit (Role/Brake function).  E.g. LIE's promote business initiatives (Program) but subordinate the speed and terms of partners (Demonstrative).  They will go to any business innovation without questions (Creative), but will only accept the ethics of approval and condemnation by the one he likes (Manipulative).

Jack: This is very difficult to follow (why is that?  Intrinsically, or because it doesn't support Model A?).  It's not conveying in general how the functions are being used in a way not already contained in Model A, although it might be in some areas.  What is a clear example of the following two masters of the Suggestive function?

Varlawend: An LSI/LII will use ethics of emotion as an encouragement to follow their structures, but won't keep up their ethics of emotion in the general case and will be colder.  Structures require encouragement, enthusiasm and inspiration to be valued in the world.

Jack: How does this involve serving two masters?

Varlawend: In one group, you might do a certain amount of emotions to make your structure entertaining and accepted, and a different amount or sort of emotions in a different place, and one of those might look like it will be a more successful support for your structure.  So, if you're going to place your long-term habits of behavior into one (prioritization), then you will choose the emotions based on what supports your structure.  (It's like this: your manipulative function is quite obstinate in support of whatever long-term habits it has developed which support your program function, but it is always on the lookout for how to optimally solve the problems set by the program function, so there is always the chance that it can defect to another support structure of long-term habits, whereas the Creative function is an unstable function that simply takes everything available to it, it doesn't need these defections from one stable state to another since it is already an unstable tool).

Jack: What are the two masters that the Suggestive function is serving?  The Program and the Creative function?

Varlawend: It's not necessarily two masters within the psyche.  You keep up this manipulative function in the world in various ways, and you try to manipulate things in such a way so that you can use this function more optimally for the program function (so, the intrinsic nature of the function, and the greater master of the program function that you are using it for).

Jack: This is a bit vague, which is a repeated problem that I have with Model G.  Also, you claimed in your blog post that the Suggestive appears to be stronger in certain situations, and the Launcher is stronger in other situations, so what situations would those be?

Varlawend: The Launcher function is related to Benefit and Activity relationships which are very energetic in nature, and the Launcher function is important in the sense that it collects feedback and gives the type stimulation that launches it into social activity.  The Launcher also has a long-range more formal nature as an externality (far communicative distance).  By contrast, the Manipulative function is used more on its own territory (close communicative distance) and serves as the more long-term habits of the type, not necessarily with the greatest informational understanding (though it can be high) but with endurance and in a way that supports the program.

-We discuss if there are people's types we agree on so that we can compare the models on them.  We might agree on Jack being an ILE.  I then attempt to give examples of how Manipulative Si works for ILE's, and why this would in some ways be stronger than the Launcher.  Jack doesn't really relate to this.

Ink: Also, don't forget that strength means different things in different versions of Socionics, and Gulenko doesn't always clarify this (true, but Gulenko clarifies it more often than people who don't even recognize different versions of Socionics).

Jack: What are these differences in strength?

Varlawend: Energy vs information dimensions, which we might have talked about before.  Information dimensions increase in complexity from Launcher to Role.  The energy dimensions are the vertical blocks of Model G (and to some extent Externalities vs Internalities).

Jack: But energo-optimum does not fit my supposed suggestive function of Si.  Clearly I am not using enough energy on this function, if it is a matter of energy.  It might also just be not knowing how.  I think the idea of Energo-Optimum makes sense for the Creative function in Model A because it is cautious/understated but strong, and the suggestive function is similar to the Creative but not strong, so it is subtle but not capable.

Varlawend: Don't forget that there is also the difference in the communicative distance between the Launcher and Manipulative.  It is also necessary to observe the extroverted manifestations of an introvert in a situation perceived as familiar rather than public.  The Internalities are also not focused on solving social problems (e.g. the ILE is not solving Si comfort socially), but they have endurance and capability in solving problems for themselves.

Jack: I am a total mess!  My environment is messy, my tools aren't easy to access for me.  I'm not relating to Energo-Optimum Si for the ILE.

Varlawend:  Also, the ILE is scattered, and only keeps up Si if they are doing a particular task that would require Si.  It is not kept up in general.

Ink:  Jack, would you perhaps have a thrifty cleaning habit that you could get into and not be bored of it really quickly or run out of energy really quickly, versus the launcher which by contrast would burn out really quickly?

Jack: When I was in university, I was very into musical theater.  I liked being onstage and performing and having an affect on other people.  It didn't feel burnout from this, but I do feel really drained by the idea of cooking, shopping, etc.

Varlawend:  Perhaps your type in Model G is unclear then, you might not be ILE.

Jack: Ben Vaserlan was insistent that my cognitive style is Causal-Determinist, and because of this, I'm not sure I'd fit in any type well from the various particles of theory that Victor Gulenko has put together.

-We switch gears to what Gulenko means by the strength of a function

Varlawend: What Gulenko means by the strength of the function is not the amplitude or amount of manifestation recorded by an external observer.  For example, extroverts are louder and more waving their hands than introverts.  Instead, what he means is the amount of endurance in work and the adequacy of the function for a particular task.  If you compare the emotions of the LII/LSI vs ILE/SLE, and Gulenko has done this by comparing emotional expressions in photographs, the LII/LSI have richer and more differentiated emotions and these emotions are more adequate (further, Gulenko claims that ethics of emotions is one of the easiest functions to observe in this way).  You can do something similar with Ne, comparing the resourcefulness and originality of solutions, in which SEI/SLI win against ESE/LSE.

Jack:  That is quite contrary to how I have typed people over the years, and what I have observed in people.

Varlawend:  That makes sense since you use Mobilizing vs Suggestive to compare Mirrors a lot, which is a major contradiction between the models.

Jack: So for Model G when I use that method, I'm making mirror typing errors (I think it could be different from just mirrors being mixed up since there are a lot of other differences but I agree that this method would take Jack and HS pretty far afield).

Varlawend: People also use their Launcher more visibly in the world than their Suggestive (in some cases at least), and this might be more obvious to your diagnostic methods since it is an externality, so you won't necessarily type mirrors differently.

FemaleENTP (commentator): Can we do a discussion like this again another time?

Jack: Yes, but maybe another weekend and there are other people who also want to have discussions.

Varlawend: It wasn't obvious to me going into this discussion what we were going to discuss so I didn't know what to expect, thus future discussions could be even more productive.

Jack:  I want to keep the discussion organic though, not limiting it with too much structure.

Ink: We can also spend less time reading descriptions (Varlawend is reading more descriptions but I am representing not only my own views and Varlawend has less experience explaining it live).

Jack: Aushra set out her model more formulaically than Gulenko.

Varlawend:  That is true, and Aushra has a Causal-Determinist cognitive style whereas Gulenko has a Holographic-Panoramic cognitive style.  It's harder to understand the intermediate links between the different clips in HP thinking, and we're going to do our best to make that easier for people.

Jack:  Maybe I only like Model A because of my Causal-Determinist cognitive style, but the audience will be the judge of that.

Ink: Gulenko observes that Process types are more commonly into Model A because it's more logically sound (maybe he means logically valid?).  Model A presents more intermediate connections, but they sometimes leave out the other way, and Gulenko zooms in on all these fragmented pieces where most Model A people aren't focusing, extends it, and then doesn't fully explain it in logical sequence and jumps to another part.

Jack: And I totally appreciate jumping around to highlight other important areas, but if that is purely the rationale for Model G, then why create a whole new model and set of definitions and new function dichotomies?

Varlawend:  It's because Gulenko is dealing with a different set of observations.  For example, Jack is very surprised about Gulenko's take on the Manipulative and Launcher functions whereas Gulenko's isn't because that's what he's seeing.

Jack:  But it could also be that Gulenko has just mistyped a bunch of people and put together his views on it.  I've seen a few examples where Gulenko types someone SLE that I type LSI, etc.

Varlawend: I recall you saying that Gulenko LSI for SLE and SLE for SEE in a way that might be systematic (upon clarification, JAck didn't think it was systematic but at least a loose pattern).

Jack: Perhaps there is a reasonably consistent mirror divergence (I don't think that is consistent but it is true that EIE vs IEI is the most commonly disagreed upon typing between Jack and Gulenko).

Ink: Maybe we can invite Gulenko for a future hangout, have him do walkthroughs of typings in his method, and explain and discuss the discrepancies

Jack: I have a pair of fluent translators that would be willing to help us in our discussion with Victor

Ink: We could also jump on a Vaserlan hangout with Gulenko.

Jack:  Vaserlan doesn't play well with others though and won't deviate easily from his structured plans.

Ink:  Or we could have Vaserlan as a guest, and additionally invite Gulenko.

Jack: I have already had hangouts with Vaserlan, Dario Nardi and Gulenko years ago.  I think I was being difficult.

Ink: Question from the audience: What is the type of Dave Super Powers?

Jack:  I'm pretty sure he's typing himself INTJ/ILI these days.

Varlawend: Indeed, in particular, he types himself MF-Ni/Fi-SB/P

Jack: But I think he's most likely an LIE

Varlawend: And I agree with that (in Socionics)

Jack:  Well, it's surprising that in this case we didn't diverge on mirror types, but then again, I did use Role Fe versus Vulnerable Fe to distinguish it in this case (and this is more similar between Model A and Model G than Suggestive vs Mobilizing).

Ink: What is Dave's DCNH subtype?

Varlawend: He's probably a distant extrovert due to his introverted self-conception.  Most likely he is a normalizing subtype: from Gulenko;s book, his theories have the classically complicated structure so described of this subtype, and he also has the inability to be persuaded without empirical evidence (I'd also add in retrospect that he has a slow, methodological focus on projects that he's worked on for a long time, with quite a bit of persistence and consistency, so Normalizing seems to be a very good fit).

Jack: It seems to me that Dave is splitting a lot of hairs, and the hair splitting seems arbitrary to me.

Varlawend:  There is a similarity between Dave and Victor Gulenko (in the sense that both are breaking off their theories from the main stream, both are involutionary types).

Jack:  Perhaps, but the shape of Dave's model is very different from Gulenko's.  There is much more subtyping.  I also type CSJoseph as EIE, what do you think about him?

Varlawend:  Seems likely to be EIE, I agree, but I haven't looked at him closely.

Jack:  That's odd because in his case, I type him due to his especially weak introverted logic, whereas he has a lot of extroverted sensation.  If the suggestive and mobilizing functions are swapped in our models (I don't think they are merely swapped, but they are quite different), shouldn't we type him differently?

Ink: I suggest that we go through the typings of Jack and Gulenko at some point and see what compliments and what doesn't.

Varlawend:  That sounds like a good idea and I've already done this to some degree with the famous people on their sites.

Ink: Anything else that we want to address?

Jack: In your blog entry, one thing that you mentioned was that my theory about how the ILE doesn't mimic the SEE is primitive and inflexible because of how the vulnerable function works.  But it's not primitive and inflexible to logically infer from the theory where the vulnerable lets down the role function because it is cautious, inert, weak, evaluatory, and unvalued.

Varlawend: I can see why that would follow from some axioms (though I don't see a reason to accept those axioms!).  What I probably thought was primitive and inflexible was that the Super-Ego was simply meant to fail.  To me that seemed like an overly deterministic expectation, and I don't see in practice that the Super-Ego always fails.  Sure, it is weaker and perhaps more meant to fail, but not always which is how I remember it being phrased.

Jack: Yeah, I can somewhat agree with you there, it reminds me of the argument of God as the watchmaker and seeing "design" where it might not exist.  However, the Vulnerable is the producing function for the accepting Role function (why does Jack think that each producing function only corresponds to one accepting function?), and the Vulnerable getting called by the Role causes it to fail since the Vulnerable isn't meant to budge.  For example, I am good at laying down the law with certain rules (Ti-Se in Jack's theory), but I am not as good at asserting myself based on interpersonal relationship bonds of trust and loyalty.  So, the Super-Ego never seems to work out well.

Varlawend: In Model G, the Super-Ego is Energo-Minimum, so you can use it at low levels, but if you try to overcharge it, then inflation results, which is a kind of energetic surge.

Jack: I have a lot of difficulty seeing these energetic surges in the types, who I may or may not have typed correctly.  If they are so energetic and behavioral, it would be good to pick out some real examples in their behavior and have a good bank, because every time I listen to it abstract it sounds very vague and hard to see examples of.  Moreover, it can't lean back on the deductive logical structure of Model A.  Overall, I don't think Model G has been sold in this debate, but that's not because of you.  It's because it hasn't had that infrastructure of Model A put on (I don't see the value of the Model A infrastructure just yet to be fair).

Varlawend:  I don't disagree that more effort could be made to make things apparent to people, seeing the whole picture and how it all fits together (and concrete examples).

Ink: What we should do is bring more examples of Model G/HS, seeing whether Jack can also see them based on his experience, or whether other newcomers can see them, since Model G is more observable. (Jack and Varlawend agree, and they also suggest adding Lao/Andrew back on, in addition to Vlad).

Agreements:

-We both see some usefulness of the communicative space
-I agree that you can in principle create a definition of Information Metabolism which includes how the types act and change the environment, but we have to get into the logic and empirical evidence of the interpretations to see whether they are interpreting correctly based on other accurate ideas in existence
-We interpret the types in different ways, and thus don't mean the same thing by them, though there is some overlap
-Values vs Tools in Model G is most semantically similar to Accepting vs Producing in Jack's model
-Be both agree that there are some benefits to viewing typology holistically (the overall behavior of the types and how they interact with the world)
-We agree that I and Gulenko could do a better job making Humanitarian Socionics explanations more concise, clear and especially with more concrete examples that show it in action for more people
-We agree that there is a progressive movement and cyclical dissatisfaction within the Benefit cycle
-Jack is correct in not relating to Energo-Optimum Si and Energo-Pessimum Fe. Upon closer examination, he is probably not a Seeker (ILE) in Humanitarian Socionics (that was an outdated speculation of mine): it has been decided that you are most likely a Mentor (EIE). From this point of view, it might be easier to see how the Manipulative function is strong, the Launcher is weak, why your Si is indeed weak, etc., but I won’t assume you will agree with it in your model.
-We agree that Dave Super Powers is LIE in Socionics, and possibly that CSJoseph is EIE
-We should go through the typings of our various schools at some point and see what is aligning and what is not, so are we not just theoretically guessing about this

Disagreements:

-Jack thinks Model G is reinventing the wheel, not building on what is pre-existing in Model A, whereas I think there is something of value to Model G and think we are in a similar state of using Models that aren’t widely accepted in Socionics since it is not clear that Jack agrees with other specialists of Model A or builds on their interpretations
-Jack is not satisfied with my answer to the meaning of Rational/Irrational dichotomy (and perhaps other aspects of Humanitarian Socionics) due to the lack of "systematic virtuosity", whereas in my view the holistic patterns need to be explored on their own terms and no amount of systematic virtuosity is useful in the absence of that system being shown to be accurate to reality which verbal rationalization doesn't achieve on its own
-Jack says that you can use a holistic approach in any model, but I think that using a holistic approach in a way that is effective is just as difficult as using a deductive approach and Jack doesn't seem to meaningfully use a holistic approach to describe the types without a model
-Jack views the purpose of this debate as explaining how Model G with its systematic way of structuring and explaining things is adding (or not adding) something to Model A, but I think the purpose of this debate is discussing how strong the basis of all models and points of view are (including Jack's model) and taking stock of what patterns each of us are really tracking in reality and thus are worth exploring (there could be patterns in more than one model)
-Jack is satisfied with the deductive verbal explanations he gives (which he calls structural support or Model A infrastructure), believing they sufficiently demonstrate, for example, the difference between rational and irrational types, whereas in my view they are at best a starting point and demonstrate nothing on their own unless you just accept Jack's authority or your only desire is post-hoc verbal explanation
-Jack thinks Energo-Optimum makes most sense for the Model A creative because it is strong and cautious, and not as much sense for the Model A demonstrative or suggestive
-Jack uses as a primary way of typing people the principle that the mobilizing function is stronger than the suggestive function, whereas for Humanitarian Socionics the analogous function don't work that way at all

Based on the discussion, the Humanitarian School has additional questions:

You claim to be a representative of Model A. But who did you study this model from? What interpretation of this model do you use from the many interpretations that it has? Moscow? Kiev? Your own? If your own, then have any of the experienced Socionists evaluated it? Where is the empirical evidence of your interpretation? Who can confirm its quality? Would you agree to provide your presentation of Model A and be examined, for example, by Prokofieva, to determine this?

Do you know that when approaching a person, their behavior changes a lot? How does your model reflect this dynamic?

What does a strong function mean to you? How can you prove, for example, that you have a weak ethic?

How do functions in a block interact? What is the difference in the interaction of functions opposite in extroversion/introversion, compared to the functions equal in extroversion/introversion? What is the difference between the interaction of adjacent functions (horizontal) from the interaction of higher and lower functions (vertical)?

How does extrovert intuition manifest itself in behavior? How does a person move and how does he gesticulate if this is his first function? Do you connect a strong intuition of opportunity with creativity? If so, then what other socionic models did you study besides Model A? Did you study the Kalinauskas model? It is used by Reinin. Why didn’t you voluntarily compare your model with alternative models?

Why, without conducting a single experiment, are you sure that your model is useful? What do you see as the benefits of your model, besides verbal explanations?

Do you have a holistic approach? Do you know what a type image is? Can you describe the type of person without a model? If not, then you do not have a holistic approach.

---

Some comments Jack made after the debate about his conclusions on it:

"I think Model G proved to be lacking in theoretical clarity or a consistent approach to the different parts making it up."

It didn't prove to be anything of the sort, as you can see from the discussion above.  At best, Jack felt personally confused or dissatisfied with some aspects of it.  Jack also has a tendency to confuse Model G with anything by SHS.  There were no particular inconsistencies pointed out in Model G.  Model G may indeed lack clarity in his understanding, but that is contentious and also is possibly based on the fact that few concrete examples of its operation were ever given to Jack so the observations that motivated the theory might not be evident.

"The basis for it being created was also on the false dichotomy of Information and Energy metabolism. Mitchell wasn't able to convincingly convey its merits in my opinion."

No, I addressed the supposed false dichotomy right at the start of the debate.  SHS just further distinguishes information and energy, whereas information metabolism fails to make this distinction which Jack just treats like a good thing.  This lack of distinction in Information Metabolism is not a positive as far as making Socionics consistent with science, since we can already see that Aushra failed in communicating with scientists when she attempted to identify information and energy together as not needing to be distinguished.  Of course information and energy can exist together in a greater whole, and it is ironically a strawman of Gulenko to suggest he is saying otherwise.  He actually has a theory for how information and energy come together in the same process, but there is no guarantee that it is perfect and this is being investigated by me and others to see if any adjustments might ever be needed.

"Normally we use Information Metabolism as a cyclical process of Looking, Assessing, Deciding and Acting. Gulenko basically says that IM is only the Looking, Assessing and Deciding, and that you need a theory of Energy Metabolism to look at the Acting. This is a straw man of IM for the purposes of shoehorning in this new 'EM' theory."

In all of my years working with Jack, I have never once seen Jack use Information Metabolism explicitly as a process of Looking, Assessing, Deciding and Acting when diagnosing someone.  In fact, his theories are detailed on his WSS blog, and in fact don't require information metabolism at all so IM seems to be a purely ornamental and decorative aspect of his theory.  It's just another dichotomous or functional typology basically, and the underlying theoretical infrastructure is mostly not explained (which is fine, since we might not know the mechanism behind it, but there is no reason to obsess over information metabolism's ability to explain it since that is just one scientifically dubious theory).  What Gulenko is actually saying is that energy metabolism is involved with all of looking, assessing, deciding and acting, but he has never been saying that information isn't involved also.  He just believes we have less direct assess the information processing.  Obsessing over calling the theory information metabolism instead of energy metabolism or energy-information metabolism amounts to debating over a name, which is pointless and lacking in any significance or substance.

"One thing which is useful is Gulenko's idea to use different lenses for looking at how types interact and communicate, i.e. Intellectual, Psychological, Social and Physical. However, this is nothing we can't easily use alongside Model A. It's not intrinsic to Model G."

I agree that the communicative space is usable with more than Model G, and no one ever argued that it was intrinsic to only Model G.  However, it is a fact that Model G takes the communicative space into account more than any interpretation of Model A.  Of course, there has been no argument from Jack that the communicative space is the only useful aspect of Gulenko's theory.  At best, it has been the only thing he personally has found potential use for so far.