Facebook Conversation about Humanitarian Socionics typing
- Get link
- Other Apps
Ibrahim Tencer I have to wonder, is it partly the language barrier? Or are they just totally lost? Then again Gulenko seems to type everyone as EIE.
Ibrahim Tencer EII is by far not the worst typing on the list either. The Se valuing ones are nonsense.
Laura Miller Ibrahim Tencer The one thing I'm sure about is that I don't value Se. Everything else is up for debate.- Laura Miller I think it could be the language barrier potentially. Gulenko has some interesting ideas but many of his typings have been way off.
Mitchell Newman Here is some guess as to why Gulenko typed Laura as EIE, not as much for Laura since she already saw this, but to clear up Ibrahim's comment. The point is, Se valuing is a concept from YOUR system. You can't just apply that to Gulenko's without translation because it doesn't fit that way. It's like taking the syntax from one computer programming language and trying to use that in another one; of course it won't work. They also use an idea of quadras, indeed Victor had a huge hand in developing those idea for all of Socionics, but it is a different idea from yours in many ways (albeit with some similarities). Yes, I can agree that Laura would not be Se valuing in your system as she is friendly, sensitive, doesn't enjoy conflict, etc. That's a reasonable albeit somewhat coarse-grained assessment (it doesn't dig much into the "why", the psychology, etc.). But, it seems to me that Gulenko's typing of EIE is also reasonable enough, in his system. How many people he types something is irrelevant as it is equally biased to presume a balanced typing distribution (roughly equal amount of all types) as it would be to assume that one type is more common. Ultimately, you have the follow your typing process, and it simply gives the answer it gives, which is the only way to be objective about it. Having done some diagnostics with Victor personally, I don't see him typing everyone or most people as EIE, although it is true that a large amount of high-profile people are typed this way and there is a reason for this.
Reasons for Laura's typing that I could glean from my own observations, and Laura confirmed the fact that Gulenko typed her with an Fi accentuation which I didn't know and was only guessing at so that is a double-blind success:
"In SHS, they focus on more behavior in real life situations, including non-verbal signals, dichotomies at different levels of the communicative space and functional positions in Model G. What we consciously identify with is more our subtype and especially our accentuated functions, but we do the type without even having to think about or realize it and it can be discovered by observing the patterns in your behavior. Some differences between LII’s and EIE’s:
-The EIE has an unbalanced nervous system, whereas the LII has a balanced nervous system. The mood of the EIE can changed much more rapidly by thoughts alone than the LII and is much less stable, for better or worse. The LII is a much more balanced type that is much harder to affect or perturb, and it has a much more autonomous psycho-emotional state. The EIE is type more immersed in the past the remembers unpleasant episodes (and is affected by them) much more easily.
-Very different cognitive styles: the EIE has complex dialectical thinking, which has a branching effect, parallelizing thought into competing directions, and this is more detailed and dynamic than the thinking of LII, but also more suggestible and susceptible to hesitations and instability (though it can make decisions sometimes that it will not go back on once it escapes from its hesitancy). LII has a more general holographic thinking: simpler thinking which captures the whole situation which is more suitable to reorganizing systems to make them more efficient, and finding order in more chaotic systems, even where it seems less hopeful to find order. Relating to both of these is also more likely for the EIE due to its semi-dual displacement with the LII: when working in a research sphere, the EIE mimics some of the abilities of the LII including its more general-scope analytical thinking.
-The Linear assertive temperament comes with a strong verbal channel and systematic eye movements up and to the right (you will see this a lot with Jack, I have watched fewer of your videos). With ethics of emotion as the first function, you have a symmetric and very full expression of joy when it comes out that is not similar to other types. Adequate expression of emotions, just like Jack. You seem to be a normalizing subtype, correct? My guess is that you might also have accentuations on functions like Si or Fi. Si because that’s your OP type and you seem to relate to the function a lot, and Fi because you have an undertone of anxiety and sensitivity in your videos (comes with the Fi accentuation) which also relates to the assessment of self-preservation enneagram 6. This sort of EIE, especially female, will be more agreeable and dislike any violence or coercion. EIE actually generally doesn’t like violence and coercion and prefers everyone to be treated correctly and politely. However, their strength increases a lot in an extreme situation (doesn’t mean they enjoy this, especially distant subtypes prefer to distance themselves from stressful situations). LII, as a balanced stable temperament, has a doubting, cold-blooded emotional expression that can almost be disconcerting in its implacability, and it is very balanced and stable in its moods and usually quite still and controlled in its physical movements. Rarely responds unless it has to, whereas the Linear assertive temperament has a harder time holding back its opinions if it has something to say (Ibrahim claims you were less tactful growing up but learned to be moreso). ESE and EIE are most insecure about relationships of all types since they have Fi as the Control functions (the function they watch carefully but have a hard time doing anything about), and LSI and LII are more insecure about profitable actions, the benefit they are getting out of things, and how things are done (Control Te).
-Also, you have the abilities of a Contactor, a role associated with ethics of emotion. You are known as a fairly social presence in the typology community, able to come into contact and explore different human resources, but develop deeper relationships does not come as easily (Fi/introversion). The LII and LSI can develop these abilities, but this mainly happens in the Creative subtype or with an Fe accentuation. Otherwise, the behavior of LSI and LII is much more closed off and less sociable."
Clayton Crider @Mitchell Newman where did you find this info? I haven't heard I'd this control function anywhere.- Mitchell Newman Brief explanation of the Control function here: https://socioniks.net/article/?id=113
(it's function 8 in his model, corresponds with the so-called Ignoring function in Model A). However, a lot of my info is from advanced courses I've taken with Gulenko in Russian (with the help of translators though I am slowly learning the language).
SOCIONIKS.NETЭнергетическая модель G в Гуманитарной соционике. Что…Энергетическая модель G в Гуманитарной соционике. Что это?
- · Reply
- · Remove Preview
- · 23h
Jack Oliver Aaron
Mitchell - the problem with this explanation is that it 1) further demonstrates why EIE in general doesn't make much sense for Laura compared to other types, in terms of energy and mood stability, and 2) makes the subtypes within EIE so wide-ranging that they can account for almost any other behaviour commonly attributed to any other type.
The more and more Model G is explained, the more convoluted and less satisfying it becomes as a system. I don't mind Model G reaching a different conclusion if it can turn around and say, well, you meet criteria, A, B and C in our system, so that means you are type X rather than type Y in our system. Instead, we get this fudgy, vague mixture of information that doesn't seem to apply definitively to Laura while also smoothing out the edges so that the only parts that are now clearly explained about this EIE-N type and seem relatable to Laura are the parts that confound what we are used to expecting from this type. I don't think from this that Model G has a process for typing, but just takes different musings, throws them at a wall and hope that they stick.- Mitchell Newman Your post is pretty ironic as you complain about what Model G (do you know the difference between SHS and Model G?) doesn’t do but don’t offer any arguments, just vague opinions, as to why that is. Do you think people who have studied Model G take your thoughts on this subject seriously? Would you like them to? Maybe you don’t really care. I’d like to, because you’re a smart guy in general who is fun to listen to, but this is so simplistic and lacking in effort.
No, it further demonstrated why EIE might make sense for Laura in SHS, and I don’t even have the interview that was used for the subject! It pointed out how traits that she has are accounted for by the typing. If you’re going to say that my argument failed somehow, you should at least have a single example, if the aim is to persuade someone of a different opinion rather than grandstand. In terms of energy, Laura is a BP type in OP. Sounds like a fit to me, unless they got that wrong. On mood stability you do not make a specific point. Overall, I don’t know Laura very well at a personal level, but I’ve taken info from my few interactions with her and from interviews she did with others to show why the typing might be reasonable. I can’t 100% guarantee it as all of us are flawed typers, but I haven’t heard a better argument for a different type in Gulenko’s system.
Type and subtype are determined by different means, so how does the subtyping mean that it could account for the behavior of any other type? They aren’t the same thing. It could lead to a resemblance of behavior in some ways with some types, but not a precise match overall. Have you even studied Gulenko’s system to know the distinctions between these things?
Saying model G is convoluted and unsatisfying is just a personal opinion, and I’m sure plenty others share it with you. I find your system unsatisfying, and so do quite a few other people I have talked to. Hell, after years it hasn’t even given me a clear type! How am I supposed to be satisfied with the level of argumentation you provide, given this? If I hear better arguments that take into account patterns in existence relevant to type, then I am persuadable, and all the more so since I am a pluralist and don’t need everything to reduce to one model or system. Did I not explain exactly some criteria that Laura may meet as to why she is probably that type in only this system? I looked at functions, temperament, cognitive style, social roles, dichotomies, etc. These have to align in certain ways, and if they don’t then we have a contradiction. It’s similar to your model in that sense, but it does include a lot more patterns and information.
“while also smoothing out the edges so that the only parts that are now clearly explained about this EIE-N type and seem relatable to Laura are the parts that confound what we are used to expecting from this type”
I don’t know what you are referring to here. This is a highly specific claim, without any specific examples. Don’t criticize others for things you aren’t willing to do yourself.
“I don't think from this that Model G has a process for typing, but just takes different musings, throws them at a wall and hope that they stick.”
This just sounds like a rushed and mostly unreasoned conclusion based on expectations you have which you are not willing to argue for, but just want me and others to treat as singularly definitive. I was just casually sharing information, not going through a whole rigorous process of typing. In fact, I have learned about a whole process of typing from Gulenko, but I don’t recall learning such a thing from you, which is also ironic. How much thought have you even put into the process of typing? I haven’t seen this from you but I am certainly interested. Moreover, the process of noticing information is inherently chaotic, as we don’t control when we will notice something or what will be revealed about a person who we are typing. Lastly, you have a difficulty distinguishing between “Model G” and SHS that really makes it look like you don’t know what you are talking about. Model G is just a model used in the SHS school, but it isn’t everything. Most of what I am referring to here did not come from Model G, maybe just a comment or two. - Jack Oliver Aaron Mitchell - you don't need to make excuses. It's not that you are poorly equipped, it's that the system is poorly equipped. You're just in a position where you feel the need to defend it by explaining more about it, which is the right thing to do, in that it helps create clarity, but it makes clear how the system is letting you down and others down who try to use it.
I don't need to provide further examples on why Laura is LII. The evidence is in my interview, the case in my analysis from years ago and numerous other sources. The onus isn't on me here. It's on Gulenko to explain how he isn't just pulling rabbits out of hats.
Also, Dave seeing Blast in Laura isn't a convincing observation either. I "blast", I.e. learn quickly and deliver information to others, more than she does. - Jack Oliver Aaron Mitchell Newman Also there is little reason to make a distinction between Model G and SHS. SHS is the only Model G school around. Model G is the product of SHS. This is a trivial barb.
- Mitchell Newman Oh my gosh, Jack! You’re right! I have been let down, and I really should just agree with you... (mind power ZAP)... ah, much better now. I am fully convinced of your version of Model A. What can I do for you master? Does anyone else hear that hum?
I know you are satisfied with your explanations, but that doesn’t mean everyone is. If you want to persuade more people, or people of a certain quality, then you will have to try harder to make your system more satisfying to them. Gulenko has the same requirements. I have the same requirements. That’s on all of us, to the extent that we want to do it. And it’s on us to investigate patterns in experience, if we want to, and not just lazily accept our current assumptions. We can imagine we are or are not, but it will all be clear eventually with enough investigation.
You don’t understand Dave’s system if you think that blast is learning quickly and delivering information to others. Some of that is included, but that doesn’t capture it. And I didn’t say Blast, I said BP. - Mitchell Newman “Also there is little reason to make a distinction between Model G and SHS. SHS is the only Model G school around. Model G is the product of SHS. This is a trivial barb.”
It’s not a barb. I honestly can’t tell if you are joking. I agree that SHS is the only school to use Model G. But that doesn’t mean it bases everything on model G. Model G is a tool used by SHS, not the only tool. Do you truly not see that distinction? Everything is not about models. Maybe in your school it is (disputable even if you thought so), but not all. 
Osamah Al-Ghamdi Mitchell I'm not a pluralist so bear with me a little 🥺
Even if SHS is focusing more on real life behaviors, you can't correlate behaviors with types unless you start with one as the initial typing methodology then you observe the other. For example you type a group of people as type x based on model or dichotomies then you start to observe common behaviors
Taking this into account as well as the fact that Gulenko saying that model G is complementary to model A, we should be able to conclude that Gulenko's understanding of types doesn't contradict that of model A which both Jack and Ibrahim are using
So if that's the case shouldn't Fe-base types be way different than Ti-base types even if you use different typing methodologies as long as you're describing the same types?
Would you say SHS and Jack's definitions are that far apart? Or is there something else going on here?- Jack Oliver Aaron Mitchell - I don't want you to agree with me. If anything I want you to successfully persuade me that Model G is worth adopting. So far, it's shown itself to be little more than Gulenko's failed attempt to reinvent the wheel, and only demonstrates how deviation from Model A leads to folly at varying levels of convolution. Make me think I'm wrong.
Why are you suggesting I need to work on my explanations to convince more people? Where is the evidence of me having that problem? :P
No of course not, nothing in OP is simply defined as something like that. It's all based on patterns that you either see, or you haven't been looking long enough. There's nothing to any part of OP where you can say "I don't do X, therefore I am not Y". OP has its own problems, a big one being the lack of objectivity. - Mitchell Newman Thank you for your sincere questions Osamah, I think you at least are trying to have a genuine conversation.
“Even if SHS is focusing more on real life behaviors, you can't correlate behaviors with types unless you start with one as the initial typing methodology then you observe the other. For example you type a group of people as type x based on model or dichotomies then you start to observe common behaviors”
I’m not sure what you mean here but maybe you can clarify. We inevitably have to observe the behavior of reality in a certain way in order to be motivated to build a model around it. Then these behaviors are captured in definitions, which relates to how words form, etc. Is there something else to this that I am missing which is important?
“Taking this into account as well as the fact that Gulenko saying that model G is complementary to model A, we should be able to conclude that Gulenko's understanding of types doesn't contradict that of model A which both Jack and Ibrahim are using”
Model G is complimentary to Model A in an abstract sense, not necessarily in the way of concrete instantiation. The problem is that you are assuming an unlimited competence to the views of Jack and Ibrahim here, but they also sometimes disagree and there isn’t much evidence that either of them agree with other users of Model A in a way that is reliable enough that we don’t have to distinguish between their instantiation of the model and others. There are models, and then semantic content associated to those models, and the latter of most often where disagreement between the model is. And one of the only ways to resolve that is life experience, testing claims against reality, etc.
“So if that's the case shouldn't Fe-base types be way different than Ti-base types even if you use different typing methodologies as long as you're describing the same types?
Would you say SHS and Jack's definitions are that far apart? Or is there something else going on here?”
The systems are pretty far apart and cannot be assumed to coincide. They are basically different systems with largely different criteria for distinguishing the types, though they occasionally coincide, which may mean something subtle. In any case, Laura doesn’t seem to by identifying with Ti base. She said she is most leaning towards Delta lately. - Mitchell Newman “I don't want you to agree with me. If anything I want you to successfully persuade me that Model G is worth adopting. So far, it's shown itself to be little more than Gulenko's failed attempt to reinvent the wheel, and only demonstrates how deviation from Model A leads to folly at varying levels of convolution. Make me think I'm wrong.”
Then you have a confused idea about how volition works. I cannot make you think you are wrong. At the level of coercion each of us is capable of, you will always be capable of holding onto the idea that you are right. The room for rationalization in typology is massive and it is not very close it is to having real skin in the game as most people can conceive of it. At the end of the day, you either have to want to figure out where you are wrong (or just to learn things you don’t know) which would require a thorough study of SHS (or other typologies) and if/when you see that they point out reliable patterns not accounted for in your model, then you’d have reason to alter your views to some degree. Either that, or the evidence for the other model being right in some way would have to be something undeniable and overwhelming (e.g. not a verbal metaphysical argument or some statistics, but something like a suitably set up neuroscience experiment). The most important thing is never accepting your assumptions and always trying to prove them wrong, and taking what survives that process. Nothing can revolve around convincing a particular person of something because humans are too biased and too limited in their experiences; that’s too small. And didn’t you reinvent the wheel too? Why not use Kiev and Moscow Model A? Are you sure your understandings are consistent with their’s?
You say what Model G has “shown itself” but in this conversation all you’ve done is bloviate about YOUR opinions about these things. You haven’t even tried to make an argument for your position. Have you run out of gas? Some of your Ti is so poor it would fail TwFP’s Ti PoLR tests, like not being able to distinguish between SHS and Model G. Do you actually think you are sounding persuasive and looking good right now? I think you are coming across as someone who is little more than tedious and arrogant, and mildly embarrassing in your incompetence in the various models and stuck making massive leaps of logic. I think you are more than that, but not when you just sit there and bathe in your own imagined correctness or lack of need to improve.
“Why are you suggesting I need to work on my explanations to convince more people? Where is the evidence of me having that problem? 😝”
I notice that you reference what other people think a lot lately. I am concerned that you are getting more and more insecure, so you have to rely more on others agreeing with you than what is clear to you and you alone. If we’re going by the number of people that agree with something as a metric of depth or correctness, then we should stop with Socionics and pick up Vanilla MBTI or something, or hell, Christianity or Islam instead. Dave and Erik Thor have more YT fans than you by a long shot. I guess they are more correct in your eyes? Even you know that you’re full of crap on this, and your behavior proves it because you would never cite that argument when it doesn’t favor you, only when you imagine it does. This is yet more hypocrisy.
We all need to work on explanations to have any chance of enticing people to agree with us who currently don’t. Socionics isn’t super popular in typology, so you will have to improve its arguments to get people to agree with it who currently don’t. And my arguments are stronger and more thorough than any arguments you or anyone who agrees with you has ever cited. So why do I need to convince you? I don’t need to convince anyone at this very moment based on patterns they currently are familiar with in reality, except more intelligent people in the long run which takes more evidence than any of us currently have. And before then, it is always possible that I will come across a better typology system and change my views. I hope you are willing to do the same.
“No of course not, nothing in OP is simply defined as something like that. It's all based on patterns that you either see, or you haven't been looking long enough. There's nothing to any part of OP where you can say "I don't do X, therefore I am not Y". OP has its own problems, a big one being the lack of objectivity.”
To understand the OP terms more deeply it is important to be familiar with their referents, yes. But, the definition you gave was blatantly wrong and biased in favor of your point, and it strawmanned my pointed which was about Blast with Play. Blast is more defined this way: “(De+Oi) Teaching, controlling, get started, bragging”. The one point I will have to give you here is that you brag WAY more than Laura, and sometimes that is all you do. So there might be a kink to work out in OP on that particular word. You could be argued to be more responsible about bragging than making real arguments. But then again, you haven’t done very good teaching here either, so, eh, not sure…
OP has significantly more objectivity than your system, at least assuming Dave and Shannon aren’t outright lying about their achievements. But, of course it has problems in terms of objectivity, which even they acknowledge, and you would know that you if you bothered doing your research into their actual claims. But your self-satisfaction sometimes makes you lazy, so you skimp on research, and it shows. Of course, no system is literally objective in some perfect sense and I agree with you on that. You, on the other hand, can be convinced by a mere “cool story bro” with lots of flashy deductive logic and axioms that lots of people disagree with. Is that supposed to be more objective than what Dave and Shannon have done? - Jack Oliver Aaron Mitchell - you can confront me with reasoning, or you can continue to do what you doing now, which is suggesting that if I change my mind to agree with Model G, it's because I've put in the effort to understand it better, and that if I don't, it's because I'm not being 'genuine' and not actually trying to understand it. This is the tactic of someone who not only pushes people away from Model G the more they try to explain how it actually works, but is also aware of this fact.
Also, 'who' is Kiev and Moscow Model A? Unlike Model G, Model A is not unique to a school. Is it someone who actually uses Model A, or someone who claims to while using Reinin-dichotomies or some other dodgy methodology? On the contrary, I didn't reinvent the wheel, I understood it well enough to put it on a cart. At the moment, I think the west has learned socionics more thoroughly than the east, because many don't seem to understand the basic foundations of Model A.
Again, arguments already made. No need to waste my energy repeating myself: https://youtu.be/_lsqQ1ojlF4?t=2649
Ok, can you provide for me one practical benefit in distinguishing between SHS and Model G that can help me in this conversation? Does SHS use Model H, I and J sometimes? such that we cannot assume they are always using Model G? Or are you just resorting to diversion by focusing on a technicality?
I reference what other people think for good reason: I already know what I think but I might be completely deluded about myself, but here's a well-substantiated brag: The fact that whenever I show up and start spouting my views, people start coming over to my point of view tells you something much more than me merely stating that I think I know what I'm talking about.
Evidently, from your response, you also claim to know what you are talking about, but can you claim this other thing I have claimed? How many people following our debate on YouTube came up to you and said "you know, I was into Model A, but after hearing your arguments, I think Model G explains type better than Model A?" I get plenty of this the other way. What support have you gained from your exposure on my channel? From what I know, you've got the support of 1 guy after he did a poor job defending OP to me, embarrassed himself and wants to claim he's found better socionists to discuss socionics with, so he doesn't have to handle me anymore :P
As explored at length over the past few weeks, the source of 'objectivity' for OP is inter-rater reliability, which can amount to little more than sustained group-think, and the inability to type yourself but trust in Dave and Shannon to agree with each other on your type, even if you don't relate to it and actually hate it. That's it. Asserting that I'm lazy and don't research isn't going to get you far when I've put many hours into watching videos on this, talking about this and reading about this. I've had multiple debates and discussions on the topic. I've had the benefit of charts and explanations from some very helpful people in the OP community.
Here are the important questions you don't seem to want to answer:
1. Is Model G better at explaining type than Model A?
2. Why?
3. Why are my responses to your reason 'why' unsatisfactory?
Do a really good job at 1, 2 and 3 and you'll have got yourself a convert in me. I will prostrate myself before your superior reasoning. I'll go out and tell everyone how great Model G is. Until you have the confidence to do 1, 2 and 3, I'll just think you're an evasive apologist who doesn't actually believe in what he's spending his time with. - Laura Miller Jack Oliver Aaron Mitchell Newman Blast in OP isn't about learning quickly. Actually, that would be closer to consume. Blast actually has a harder time learning new information if it isn't already in their known box of information or at least similar enough to it so they can make it fit. The consume animal has a far easier time taking in new information, even if it's not already in their known box. The people with high consume can more easily take in something completely new, totally unrelated to anything in their box.
When I first learned about OP, I mistakenly thought I was high consume because I liked to learn and read and watch, but really what the majority of what I was reading and consuming was stuff I was already mostly familiar with, either confirming or disproving what was already in my known box, or something familiar but just slightly different so I could stretch it to fit into my box. Honestly, I have a hard time taking in new information, that's totally unfamiliar, that doesn't already fit in with my known box of information.
In my career as a librarian, when I examine myself more closely, I realized that I didn't really like the research aspect so much. I get anxiety when I have to go research information on some topic I know absolutely nothing about, where I don't even know where to even start looking, or if I start looking I have to just go from resource to resource without any clear answer. What I enjoy about my profession more is the instructional aspect-- the conveying of information to others, helping people use the technology and resources. Feeling like I already have the knowledge there and I can give it to people.
I agree with Jack that blast is in part about sharing and teaching information with others but I also agree with Mitchell that it's not the only thing. Now in the WSS group, Jack is doing alot more teaching and sharing of information compared to me. Fair enough In other situations though, I could see myself doing more blast than him. Like in the Objective Personality group for example, or in some other area where I have more expertise. Honestly, sometimes the environment on WSS is a bit contentious, and I'm not always as comfortable sharing my thoughts. I'm not blaming you Jack, I'm just talking about the group in general.
At its most fundamental level, blast is really just the interaction between an organizing function (Si or Ni) with a tribe connection function (Te or Fe). So yes, teaching others information can be blasting if it's a matter of presenting organized information to others. Blast can manifest in other ways too. Caregiving for others (especially Si+Fe blast), creating an organized document or system that other people can easily use and follow, taking on a leadership role- gathering people together to meet some objective.
There are some misconceptions out there about blast. Just because someone is talkative and shares alot of information does not make them high blast. The information could be completely lacking in any sort of organization and structure.
Getting started and bragging isn't a good way to define blast either. What are you getting started on? People in general will find it easier to get started on tasks related to their savior functions and procrastinate more on tasks related to their demon functions. Someone with high blast, will likely procrastinate on tasks requiring high consume. For myself it's easy to get started on more routine tasks that are already in my known box of information but it's harder for me to take on tasks that require more extensive research or tasks where organization is poor or there are too many unknowns and I have to resort to guessing. (demon Ne).
Why is bragging blast? People could be bragging about any function or animal in OP? I will say that based on that alone, I would be low blast because I rarely brag about things. I just work hard and let the results speak for themselves.
Another aspect commonly misunderstood about blast is 'controlling the tribe.' Yes, this can certainly be a manifestation of blast, but many people with high blast will not relate to this as 'controlling the tribe' has a negative connotation of rigidly dominating others. Someone with low or unvalued Se in socionics will likely not relate to it. Also it matters to some degree if the Te or Fe in blast is feminine or masculine. Masculine Te/Fe will be more obviously "controlling". People with Te/Fe as feminine like myself will do it in a more gentle way. - Mitchell Newman “you can confront me with reasoning, or you can continue to do what you doing now, which is suggesting that if I change my mind to agree with Model G, it's because I've put in the effort to understand it better, and that if I don't, it's because I'm not being 'genuine' and not actually trying to understand it. This is the tactic of someone who not only pushes people away from Model G the more they try to explain how it actually works, but is also aware of this fact.”
In this conversation, I have confronted you with much more reasoning than you have confronted me with. Judging by your brushing that off without addressing most of it, it’s debateable whether it would be worth the time to provide more reasoning for you. You might just say: I’m wrong/vague/whatever and yet yourself fail to give a single example. How about you confront ME with some reasoning for once? If not then why should I even care what you think?
You are also strawmanning me, a dishonest tactic for people who either have dishonest approaches or too much cognitive dissonance to call a spade a spade. I never said that agreeing or disagreeing about Model G with me makes you genuine or not. Osamah didn’t agree with me about Model G, but his approach in asking me specific questions about to learn the answers was more exploratory and trying to get to the bottom of the matter. I doubt Laura agrees with me on it either, but she seemed genuine in asking about it in the conversations we’ve had, not just grandstanding about how I am wrong. You, on the other hand, just say I’m being vague, while yourself being vague about what I’m being vague about. It’s hypocrisy. You can’t do the very thing you’re complaining about and claim to have a genuine approach in this.
Lastly, you are way too fixated on reasoning, in spite of how little you provide in this conversation, and I’m not sure you understand the role of reasoning in truth-seeking. Confronting someone with reasoning on its own isn’t persuasive. In order for reasoning to be convincing, we need to come to accord on some basic assumptions we are going to entertain in a given context that this reasoning can be based on, sharing some perceptions (this can take work!), and we need to be sure that our methods of reasoning are reliable. This is a much more complex and meta-level discussion that I am not sure you are prepared for, but if you are prepared for it, I’d be happy. I’d like to be proven wrong on that since I’m all for greater harmony and some part of you probably means well.
“Also, 'who' is Kiev and Moscow Model A? Unlike Model G, Model A is not unique to a school. Is it someone who actually uses Model A, or someone who claims to while using Reinin-dichotomies or some other dodgy methodology? On the contrary, I didn't reinvent the wheel, I understood it well enough to put it on a cart. At the moment, I think the west has learned socionics more thoroughly than the east, because many don't seem to understand the basic foundations of Model A.”
You ask this like it’s a question that I would be hard-pressed to answer. Some Model A using Socionists from the East are: Bukalov, Straitevskaya, Yermak, Mitrokhina, Prokofieva, Lytov, etc. Even Aushra herself, although she is no longer with us of course. You think you understand Model A better than all these people, even though they brought it you and you never knew it existed before some of them showed it to you? I’m not saying it’s impossible for you have discovered something new with it, but that is a VERY contentious and controversial claim that can hardly just be taken for granted. The fact that you take this for granted and don’t discuss with these more established and experienced Socionists is another example of startling arrogance from you. I don’t understand these arrogant leaps you make sometimes. I’m not saying you should just abandon your understanding of the model and join them or other Socionists like them, but the way you just assume your superiority over others is truly bizarre to me.
Yes, Model A is not unique to one school, and this is both and advantage and a disadvantage. It’s an advantage since more people know about it and use it. It’s a disadvantage because it is quite divided, fractured, and for all the unambiguity individual users of the model think they have in their understanding, agreement really has not been established on this model. Also, the way you just dismiss Reinin dichotomies is just more mindless arrogance, and for all the people you imagine you convince, you put off a lot of people too and these are the sorts of things they complain about with you. I agree that we need to think critically about Reinin-dichotomies and I share your opinion that this is often not done sufficiently. You’re right to be wary of it. But to outright dismiss it without even looking at the particular methodology is literally pure arrogance. No reasoning, no critical thinking, no nothing. MAYBE someone understands (some) Reinin dichotomies better than you. You have to at least be willing to entertain that, or you’re not a serious truth-seeker.
“Again, arguments already made. No need to waste my energy repeating myself: https://youtu.be/_lsqQ1ojlF4?t=2649
”
I’m sorry, but this is irrelevant and shows you are not even listening to much of the conversation. I have not disputed Laura’s type in your model. I’m not saying it’s right, but really it doesn’t interest me that much as your model hasn’t even been able to type me successfully, and I am not convinced of its reliability or consistency. In this conversation, what has actually happened is that you have disputed Laura’s EIE typing in SHS, and you’ve criticized their very concept of typing, but you don’t have a single argument to show for it other than “you’re being vague”, or “convince me!”. That’s where your reasoning is lacking, but I am not making the case that your typing of Laura in your own model is wrong.- · Reply
- · Remove Preview
- · 4m
- Mitchell Newman “Ok, can you provide for me one practical benefit in distinguishing between SHS and Model G that can help me in this conversation? Does SHS use Model H, I and J sometimes? such that we cannot assume they are always using Model G? Or are you just resorting to diversion by focusing on a technicality?”
It’s not even about practical benefit, as there can be practical benefits to all kinds of things. It is about accuracy. First of all, there are two types of models recognized by SHS: functional-positional models (of which Model G is an example), and combinatorial-dichotomous models (which Model G is NOT). And lots of times, in SHS they don’t rely on a model but simply point out certain groups like functions, temperaments, settings, and quadra, and attempt to holistically describe the type. Much of what I said about Laura involves a lot combinatorial-dichotomous thinking and grouping-based thinking, and only a little Model G thinking (for example, I cited the Control function, which a Model G phenomenon). One could use the combinatorial-dichotomous thinking with a different model in principle, and moreover that was mostly what you were criticizing, not Model G. You might actually like Model G better than combinatorial-dichotomous and group-based thinking since you seem to prefer the functional-positional approach overall.
Even more importantly, your school is reductionist in nature, whereas SHS is not. This itself is part of your problem with them. In SHS, models like A and G are seen as tools which model complex dynamical systems. They are useful tools in that they often sweep away unnecessary considerations and usefully simplify our understanding of reality to a point of being easy to use and basically correct, but they are not literally believed in. In SHS it is recognized that we truly only have access to probabilities and trends with regard to a complex system like the psyche, not strict determinism. It is recognized that complex systems are noisy, that you can’t have complete data about it, that there is nonlinearity. Hence the more holistic approach that we have previously discussed. To fully understand, pure logic of causes and effects and strict deductive determinist cannot be sufficient alone. These functional-positional models can be useful and are used in SHS, but they are not equivalent with the full diagnostic methods used by the school (Model G is not essentially what you are criticizing, at least in the typing of Laura). - Mitchell Newman “I reference what other people think for good reason: I already know what I think but I might be completely deluded about myself, but here's a well-substantiated brag: The fact that whenever I show up and start spouting my views, people start coming over to my point of view tells you something much more than me merely stating that I think I know what I'm talking about. Evidently, from your response, you also claim to know what you are talking about, but can you claim this other thing I have claimed?”
I’m not seeing the good reason here. Yes, people often think highly of my thoughts on things too and regularly are impressed with my intelligence. Convincing people is not something unimportant in a general sense and I agree that you have some skill in that regard, but it is not a sensible metric for correctness, depth, or value. I already pointed out a performative contradiction in you when it comes to this fixation with convincing people: if this is all just a popularity contest, then you are not that big of a deal in the typology community. Erik Thor, Dave Powers, and CSJoseph are way better than you in this regard. But you would never cite that as a reason that your way of thinking isn’t more correct or useful than theirs. You will only cite this when you think you will “win” on the metric. So, I don’t think you’re being genuine on this point since I don’t think you apply it consistently to your life, and of course you don’t, because you know that correctness, depth and value aren’t popularity contests. Yet, you are still willing to make this point, which is kind of manipulative. Vanilla Christianity and Islam have always been more popular than their more challenging esoteric variants like Gnosticism and Sufism; does that mean they are more correct, deep or valuable? I don’t think so, and I doubt you do either. Good salespeople and charismatic preachers are going to convince way more people than scientists and philosophers whose work is only understood by a handful of people. Doesn’t mean that the salesmans or the preachers are more correct or useful in reality though.
I’m not saying that convincing people doesn’t matter, but it is just one stage, not the equivalent of reaching some final deep truth. Do you think most respected philosophers were people who supported the mass mindset? Many of them didn’t think most people could even handle the truth, because it takes too much character, it’s too complex, etc., for tyrants and mass men. It would always be reserved for the few. It’s debatable how full these views are, but the point is that there is complexity to this matter which you are not acknowledging.
Another problem is that you may have tailored your views precisely to be “convincing” to a certain demographic of people, especially since you seem to look to them to see how you are doing and how correct you are, even though people’s opinions are not really a decisive factor when it comes to the truth of Socionics theories. These theories need to be true by more objective metrics, and taking your eyes off of that to instead evaluate your success by how many people you imagine agree with you is the wrong mindset. It’s a field-dependent, I don’t want to be seen as wrong mindset, rather than a field-independent, fundamental truth-seeking mindset (which MIGHT have difficult interpersonal implications). Field-dependent mindsets like the one you are using are fundamentally vulnerable to social manipulation, including your own. Using a fundamentally flawed mindset like trying to get people to agree with you as a metric of how well you’re doing in your views is guaranteed to eventually produce lesser but convenient answers to difficult questions, and that happens the world over in religion, politics, etc.
Moreover, you have not only convinced people, but you have also pitted an increasing number of people against you. For the reasons I stated above, that alone doesn’t mean that you are wrong, but you are only telling the rosy aspects of your story. More and more people complain to me about you and your work all the time, think you have typed them poorly, think your views are prejudiced and self-satisfied, and even don’t think such good things about your character as a person. But at the end of the day, we can’t be so focused on what people think if we want to actually understand what is true, whether it is positive or negative.
Lastly, your analysis of the concept of “convincing” is superficial. For example, you once “convinced” me of your views to some extent. And now I am not convinced of them. There is no concept of depth to your notion of convincing, and seems more like a manipulative measure of how many people you’ve managed to contact and interest in your ideas at varying levels. Lots of people make a fun post about your work in social media every now and then, but I doubt you would accept the typings of most of them, and their degree of commitment to your views differs. Of the people deeply convinced of your views who are competent at typing by your estimation, there really aren’t that many, so you haven’t impressed me in this regard.
“How many people following our debate on YouTube came up to you and said "you know, I was into Model A, but after hearing your arguments, I think Model G explains type better than Model A?" I get plenty of this the other way. What support have you gained from your exposure on my channel? From what I know, you've got the support of 1 guy after he did a poor job defending OP to me, embarrassed himself and wants to claim he's found better socionists to discuss socionics with, so he doesn't have to handle me anymore 😝”
I’ve interested quite a few people to learn more about Model G and given them insights about SHS that they have appreciated, and I think you or the people you are talking about who claimed they were into Model G are pretty full of crap. I know for a fact that I am one of 3 people in the West to have taken Gulenko’s advanced course in Model G, which is pretty new. Who did these people that were into Model G study it from? I don’t think these people have ever studied model G, I am very skeptical that the conversation we had would be sufficient to remove someone’s interest in Model G (it doesn’t even seem to have done so for you). As for Binyamin, we are friendly and mutually supportive to some extent, but I have not talked about Model G much with him. I think he is friends with some other Socionists as well, so I am not sure he was referring to me but we may collaborate in the future and I think he seems like a really well-intentioned and intelligent guy. And as for his debate with you, it seems like he got the last word and you haven’t addressed his arguments (because he was angry!). I agree that he was probably unnecessarily angry in his long video to you, but he is a decider who does not have an easy time with interpersonal conflict, and I think he did not want to spread drama about it in spite of wanting to respond to you, and you were pretty confrontational with him in your controversial assessment of your debate/discussion in a way he likely would not have done with you. Again, you personally think he did a poor job defending OP, but there seems to be a lot of different opinions on that, and you are too prone to simply assert things about how your opponent is wrong without any argument out of sheer confidence in your views. - Mitchell Newman “As explored at length over the past few weeks, the source of 'objectivity' for OP is inter-rater reliability, which can amount to little more than sustained group-think, and the inability to type yourself but trust in Dave and Shannon to agree with each other on your type, even if you don't relate to it and actually hate it. That's it. Asserting that I'm lazy and don't research isn't going to get you far when I've put many hours into watching videos on this, talking about this and reading about this. I've had multiple debates and discussions on the topic. I've had the benefit of charts and explanations from some very helpful people in the OP community.”
Inter-reliability is a great way to get more objectivity of a certain sort, but I certainly agree with you that it isn’t a comprehensive definition of objectivity. Dave and Shannon don’t believe they have reached some point of total objectivity, rather they realize it will take decades to move things towards this and they are ready to admit the potential value of other theories and perspectives like Socionics. I get the sense that you don’t understand that about them, and have jumped to some unjustified conclusions on the subject due to impatience (by that I mean, some of your conclusions might be justified, but others not as much). Simply putting a few hours into studying something or getting help from other people does not actually mean that you’ve done enough research to make the specific assertions that you have. It just means that you are more informed than you previously were, which is good, but not some license to not be criticized for lack of research in any respect.
Inter-reliability is not about group think per se since it has nothing to do with the belief attitudes you must take about what you are doing, but rather it is about building a common perception among a group which can be relied upon, which is very valuable. We need to distinguish between learning to coordinate the actions of partners, and forcing those partners to believe certain things about that which would be more group-think and is not necessary like the first part. It’s also a way of escaping the influence of group think. I think OP isn’t just about trust in Dave and Shannon but rather trust in a greater process that will take many years to reach more and more refined conclusions. However, many people have found Dave and Shannon’s perspective very valuable just in what they have already been able to achieve with their methods. The fact that some people don’t relate to their type is important to note and a sign of possible things to improve, but is hardly a definitive conclusion. Hating your type seems irrelevant, since type should ideally be about truth, not personal like or dislike. It is more important to explore the reasons why they hate their type, then assuming it is a problem either with them or the type. - Mitchell Newman “Here are the important questions you don't seem to want to answer:
1. Is Model G better at explaining type than Model A?
2. Why?
3. Why are my responses to your reason 'why' unsatisfactory?”
Why do you believe I don’t want to answer these questions? There are many examples of type even in a single human, and I do not agree that we have one true type, so your first question is somewhat loaded because it already assumes aspects of the answer. With that said, I personally find Model G to be a more useful model and I think the approach of SHS in general has much more potential to solve epistemological problems in typology and to describe our psyche and sociotype in a more consistent and comprehensive way.
The real answer to the second question would have to be very long and would involve mutual work, and should refer more to SHS than Model G, but in short:
-less reliance on and more awareness of questionable reductionistic model centric thinking, and a more guild like approach rather than mechanistic manufacturing approach to typology, focus on the sociotype as something realized in an emergent way in reality rather than something normalized to a model, realizing and using the difference between a system as a structure and emergent properties which arise from complex systems that are not reducible to their parts
-acknowledging and describing the multi-level nature of the psyche so reality isn’t coarsened, realizing the different behavior of people at different communicative distances, acknowledging that real systems have subsystems and that subsystems can be structurally similar to the system and thus coming up with real solution to separate the static (sociotype) from the dynamic (functional states)
-hypothesis generation going more in the direction of reality to theory rather than the procrustean bed of axiomatic theory to reality, understanding of energy flow within the type and behavior in real-life situations of the types and non-verbal signals, rather than semantics, quotes, and supposedly deterministic beliefs and values, recognition of temperament, focus on functional state itself (what it is like to be in and what it looks like to be using a certain function), rather than focus on the presented result of information processing which is influenced by many subjective factors like upbringing, profession, environment, etc. and which involves greater leaps of inference
-being able to describe the types holistically via relatively visual, tangible thought forms without having to rely on a model or artificial technicality, recognition of the laws of gestalt psychology and how they relate to the diagnostic process, and different modes of thinking (Daniel Kanheman) and how they relate to the diagnostic process, ideographic methods being included to at least as great an extent as nomothetic methods
-improving career choice and relationships (in romance, family and teams), including removal of orthodoxies like duality as panacea and avoiding a radical approach to relationships if possible, focusing on how it is at least possible for people of any types to have a good relationship if you understand the conditions and nature of that relationship (though of course a radical approach sometimes may become necessary)
Of course, there is a LOT to unpack there. So if you’re curious about any part, a discussion and greater exploration of any issue can readily be done. Over time, I’ll unpack a lot more of these things on my own, not just for you specifically, and Victor Gulenko has already unpacked a lot of them to some extent in his papers and other work.
“Do a really good job at 1, 2 and 3 and you'll have got yourself a convert in me. I will prostrate myself before your superior reasoning. I'll go out and tell everyone how great Model G is. Until you have the confidence to do 1, 2 and 3, I'll just think you're an evasive apologist who doesn't actually believe in what he's spending his time with.”
This is an example of excessive dramatism. I’m not interested in having a convert in you and don’t treat typologies like religions. I treat them as research programs and more or less useful models and wisdoms. Prostrating yourself before my reasoning would be strange and sycophantic, and I definitely do not encourage the latter quality in people. In any case, it’s NOT just about reasoning, as I already said. It’s also about perception and exploration, which forms the foundation of any reasoning to begin with. I am willing to have a discussion about any of these things if you are really sincere about it, but I can’t do it forever as I do have a life to live. Phrasing the amount of time I would best spend on you as a matter of confidence is manipulative.
Likewise, if you want to prove why Model A is so much better than Model G, or your school is so much better than SHS, then I am willing to discuss that. We are in the same boat in that regard, and you owe me just as many explanations if you want to persuade me. You seem more interested in this idea of a convert than I am though, given your fixation with how many people you imagine to agree with you and with persuading others through “reasoning”. At the end of the day, it’s not about persuading one person at the present moment, like me or you, but following potential in the long run and coming up with real, more pervasive and undeniable evidence and usefulness, and deliberately exploring the weaknesses and limitations of your theories to try to make them more antifragile, useful and accurate. That takes hard work on your own ideas to make progress on specific problems (scrutinizing your theories and people more, coming up with experiments, learning more of what you don’t know and criticizing your theories and taking the best of what remains, finding new ways to measure and refine your perception, etc.). Mere debate or discussion about these ideas can’t single-handedly solve anything, but I do think refining the dialectic is important so it’s true that it also matters.
As for BELIEF, I don’t believe in Model G. I am sure it is a simplification of reality, just like Model A. All typology methods are. I do believe that it is a more useful tool in several ways, and that it is worth exploring further, applying to people’s lives, and refining. It would be hard to argue that I don’t believe that since my behavior and the time that I spend on it very much indicates that I believe it. But, my belief can be challenged if this is all really as bankrupt as you say, but you make a lot of claims about it that you seem to expect me just to feel or agree with, when my perceptions on the matter are vastly different than yours. - Mitchell Newman “Getting started and bragging isn't a good way to define blast either. What are you getting started on? People in general will find it easier to get started on tasks related to their savior functions and procrastinate more on tasks related to their demon functions. Someone with high blast, will likely procrastinate on tasks requiring high consume. For myself it's easy to get started on more routine tasks that are already in my known box of information but it's harder for me to take on tasks that require more extensive research or tasks where organization is poor or there are too many unknowns and I have to resort to guessing. (demon Ne).”
That’s interesting, I could see Blast as getting started in some ways, in the sense of taking initiative maybe? To make points, in actions and words? Not sure that’s a good way of saying it. But I can see how someone who is SC/P, for example, would not be getting started on anything specifc, and focusing more on spontaneous reflections. So, I think there may be something to the getting started association to Blast, but at the same time a lot to clarify with it and maybe better ways of describing it.
“Why is bragging blast? People could be bragging about any function or animal in OP? I will say that based on that alone, I would be low blast because I rarely brag about things. I just work hard and let the results speak for themselves.”
I wonder if bragging could be a more immature manifestation of Blast. Since it does seem a little bit about controlling and fitting things into your box + tribe spectrum comparisons. That would be interesting to explore, especially if a Blaster like you, with Play secondary no less, doesn’t brag much, but I do see some people using Blast in ways I would describe as bragging.
“Another aspect commonly misunderstood about blast is 'controlling the tribe.' Yes, this can certainly be a manifestation of blast, but many people with high blast will not relate to this as 'controlling the tribe' has a negative connotation of rigidly dominating others. Someone with low or unvalued Se in socionics will likely not relate to it. Also it matters to some degree if the Te or Fe in blast is feminine or masculine. Masculine Te/Fe will be more obviously "controlling". People with Te/Fe as feminine like myself will do it in a more gentle way.”
That makes a ton of sense. I think the masculinity and femininity of the functions plays a huge role there. I am audio too, so I am not inclined to “control the tribe” with my blast (though maybe it is possible to manipulate it with feminine De). My rigidity, interestingly, is on Consume (M-Se, M-Fi). I’ve always had a hard time describing it. One speculation I had is that it aggressively consumes and researches on what it finds interesting, in a more penetrative way. Whereas feminine consume might be more something like consuming what comes to you and being open to consuming what comes your way on those channels.
- Get link
- Other Apps
A few thoughts. Firstly, I love your blog! It is very difficult to find good quality in-depth information on SHS. So, thank you! I vaguely remember watching Laura's interview on Ben Vaserlan's podcast. What most stuck out to me was that she felt like a normalizing subtype to me. I could potentially see either EIE or LII for her based on the interview. I was much more confident in typing her as a normalizing subtype. One thing that struck me as being slightly odd for an LII, but maybe shouldn't have, is that she was so uncertain of her type. I am an LII myself and have never doubted my type for a second. Same thing with MBTI INTP way back in the day. I assumed that this was pretty typical for an LII, but maybe I was mistaken. In your experience, do most LII's easily identify with/as their type?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am very curious about the prospect of remotely attending SHS. But I understand that this is a little bit tricky for those of us that only speak English. I am looking to achieve a high degree of competency,so, it would be a long term undertaking. I am wondering if you might consider briefly discussing some of the practicalities of your experience with me at some point? Either way, thanks for a really cool blog.
Glad you enjoy the blog. Much more interesting material to come, hopefully. I agree that Laura’s unstable cognitive landscape is highly indicative of dialectical algorithmic cognition. I have to same style, so I mean no insult to her, but nonetheless anything seems obviously wrong for her in SHS. I’d sooner consider ILI than LII, but EIE does seem to fit better. SHS diagnostics often surprise people, so I’d recommend being open to the possibility that you won’t be typed LII. Lots of EIE’s, LSI’s, and ILI’s tend to think they are LII for various reasons. However, I’m not saying you aren’t LII, just that it’s a commonly claimed type and I don’t want you to be disappointed. Maybe your certainty and stability is indicative of static cognition, at least, but it can come from subtypes or accentuations. Most LII’s identify as LII in SHS, but a lot of people identify with LII who aren’t, particularly the three types I mentioned. It’s possible to get more into the reasons that is, and I could do a post on it eventually.
ReplyDeleteI also only speak English, and I have been taking SHS classes for over a year. I can get you in contact with Gulenko’s assistant if you want to do it. I highly recommend it! The classes do cost some money, but not as much as those thousands of dollar MBTI retreats. Gulenko’s typology in my opinion is the highest quality typology in existence and the one I have learned the most from.
Thank you for the response! Yes, I would very much appreciate the connection. I am currently revising my life, such that things should be highly conducive to the study of SHS typology. Studying the SHS in depth would be a dream come true for me.
DeleteYes, I take your meaning regarding the possibility of being a different type. I am open to said possibility, though I am quite certain that I am not LSI and would be surprised to be EIE. ILI would be possible, if anything. I think that I am an LII harmonizing subtype. I also relate a little to the dominant, but I highly doubt that I am a dominant subtype. I am very certain that I am not a normalizing subtype, for whatever reason.
I appreciate that you are beginning to share some more in-depth subtype information! Unlike some people, I cannot be fully satisfied with the 64 types/subtypes. Individual differences and intertype differences are the intellectual equivalent of crack rock to me. It is fascinating that some would prefer to simply stick to the core 16 types, whereas others, such as myself, would prefer to take it 128 or beyond.
Again, thank you for your response, as well as the informative blog.
Just contact the SHS school here (https://socioniks.net/contactus/) and you’ll be talking to Anastasia, Gulenko’s assistant. Tell them you know me and that you’re interested in taking the classes with English translations and I think they’ll be able to get you involved in a group.
DeleteI wouldn’t be surprised if you weren’t an N subtype. They seem to be the people I most often have the most intractable disagreements with. But we need normalizers, and there are good ones. And yes I agree that more nuance in type variants is quite important! Best, Varlawend
Thank you, I will do that. Yes, normalizers are definitely needed. I have known some wonderful normalizers, whom I value very much. But I tend to conflict with them the most. They sometimes seem easier for me to spot as well. Not sure why, though.
Delete