Varlawend: Mysteries Among the Stars

(Credit for names goes entirely to Attitudinal Psyche) Ena - The Seekers Duo - The Engagers Tria - The Creators Tessera - The Enrichers Pente - The Transmuters Exi - The Resolvers Ena - The Seekers --- FVLE - The Survivalist FLVE - The Merchant EVLF - The Catalyst ELVF - The Poet --- --- --- Duo - The Engagers --- LVFE - The Conductor LFVE - The Consultant EVFL - The Inspirer EFVL - The Adorner --- --- --- Tria - The Creators --- VLFE - The Enterpriser VFLE - The Firestarter ELFV - The Chronicler EFLV - The Satirist --- --- --- Tessera - The Enrichers --- VFEL - The Arbiter VEFL - The Harmonizer LFEV - The Connoisseur LEFV - The Philanthropist --- --- --- Pente - The Transmuters --- VLEF - The Contender VELF - The Campaigner FLEV - The Alchemist FELV - The Aesthete --- --- --- Exi - The Resolvers --- LVEF - The Theorist LEVF - The Visionary FVEL - The Flourisher FEVL - The S

(0:40) Te being a tribe function is claimed by OP, Dave and Shannon are both using Te, Jack isn’t using it in a valued spot, they could be a better authority on Te, Te is not necessarily tribe focused but objective focused from what I’ve seen, so other Te users will see the same thing because of the fact that it’s objective and because it’s all seeing the same kind of extroverted logic, one thing I’ve seen Te users do that they are getting everyone on board with a plan before executing it, for them it’s not the best thing unless everyone is on board, there is a tribe element but not necessarily as strong as OP says and since they are using Te we should learn it from them rather than from Jack or from some theory someone cooked up in their basement from looking at their spouse ---(Jack’s Response) But I do know people who use Te in a valued spot like Peter and Rita, and I’ve learned a lot from talking to them.   Te is my demonstrative function and strongest non-valued elm

(2:50) A good number of similarities between the systems: I’m typed the same in the two systems, different things they’ve found but assigned to different areas (4:00) points of contention: the “objectivity”, it always seemed contentious, not a problem with the attempt at an objective methodology (cross-checks, typing in different rooms, attempt to put together a system of coins), but this isn’t intrinsic to OP over other typologies, is the theoretical infrastructure of OP really objective? It needs to be questioned in terms of objectivity and seems less objective than claimed (theoretical background using Jungian terminology and volunteering terms to describe concepts like self vs tribe and organizing vs taking in).   If you are being truly objective, you have to do the big five route and do factor analysis, see how concepts actually line up in reality through the lexical method.   That’s not flawless since language use can be flawed, but it’s close to objective as poss

-(around 5 minutes) Objective Personality Masculine and Feminine is similar to Static/Dynamic (immovable and movable) but not the same (Jack thinks it relates to Inert/Contact, and also feminine with agreeableness)… IEI more stereotypically feminine, SLE more stereotypically masculine… Binyamin brings up Aesop’s Fable the Willow and the Reed (feminine bends in the wind and doesn’t break) -OP allows every function to be static/dynamic, Socionics chooses decisively in each case.   Binyamin has a masculine and feminine graph with Se and Ni, all the functions fall on this spectrum, reminds me of Ibrahim’s spectrum and Gulenko’s hormones.   Socionics Se corresponds only to masculine Se in OP (feminine Se is more like Ne) -(12 minutes ish) Binyamin considers Si/Ne to use facts (Se doesn’t use facts in Binyamin’s opinion, but Jack points out that Binyamin’s Se definition is about collecting facts), Binyamin: Si idea of a fact is always true, Se idea is that a fact ca