Varlawend: Mysteries Among the Stars

Lately, I've been trying to type Star Wars characters for fun. This might be foolish because fictional characters are not bound to obey the frameworks of typologies trying to model reality. However, it was still fun and probably highly imperfect/debatable. FVLE (Goethe): Qui-Gon Jinn FLVE (Aristippus): Hondo Ohnaka, Nute Gunray EVLF (Ghazali): Luke Skywalker, Chirrut Imwe ELVF (Andersen): Kylo Ren EFVL (Pushkin): Darth Maul VFLE (Napoleon): Cara Dune, Wilhuff Tarkin, Cad Bane VLFE (Lenin): Darth Plagueis, GO-TO VFEL (Twardowski): Anakin/Vader, Ahsoka, Mace Windu, General Grievous, The Mandalorian, Asajj Ventress, Jango/Boba Fett VEFL (Tolstoy): Palpatine/Snoke, Count Dooku, Padme Amidala VLEF (Socrates): Bastila Shan, Thrawn VELF (Akhmatova): Princess Leia, Revan FLEV (Epicurus): Han Solo FELV (Borgia): Kit Fisto LVEF (Einstein): Yoda, Plo Koon LEVF (Pascal): Obi-Wan Kenobi FVEL (Chekhov): Captain Rex, Rey, Savage Opress, Jyn Erso FEVL (Dumas): Lando Calriss

The actual answer is EIE! My original guess: ESI (also considered IEI, SEE, but I didn't think so, it looks like my consideration of IEI was the closest) Definition of Order: Opposite to chaos (WL, interrelationship), order and chaos are two elements that exist in the world (BL) and too much chaos brings chaos and too much order brings tyranny (WI), some element of danger of tyranny and chaos (BS), judging the world as imperfect (WL, judging from the world from an abstract standpoint) Freedom: I don't believe a living creature can experience absolute freedom, but we can feel the feeling of freedom in our everyday lives, when we have enough resources like time and money or anything else to get or achieve what we need.  In that case, we are sort of free. (A lot WI here, semantics about an approximate understanding of freedom and describing time and resources which refers to WI and BS, but acknowledges by some logic that absolute freedom is not attainable) God: The cre

WORK IN PROGRESS!!! Possible Function Properties: Functions 1 & 4: Result, Effective, Coarse-Grained, Unconscious, Stable, Monologue Functions 2 & 3: Process, Assiduous, Fine-Grained, Conscious, Fussy, Dialogue Functions 1 & 3: Dominant, Motivated, Introverted, Self-Centered Functions 2 & 4: Adaptable, Flexible, Extroverted, Other-Centered Functions 1 & 2: Fearless, Liberated, Natural Functions 3 & 4: Doubting, Conditional, Maturing 1st Function: Result, Effective, Coarse-Grained, Unconscious, Stable, Monologue, Dominant, Motivated, Introverted, Self-Centered, Fearless, Liberated, Natural 2nd Function: Process, Assiduous, Fine-Grained, Conscious, Fussy, Dialogue, Adaptable, Flexible, Extroverted, Other-Centered, Fearless, Liberated, Natural 3rd Function: Process, Assiduous, Fine-Grained, Conscious, Fussy, Dialogue, Dominant, Motivated, Introverted, Self-Centered, Doubting, Conditional, Maturing 4th Function: Result, Effective, Coarse-Grained, Un

A brief consideration of 4 directions in modern Socionics that I have encountered, and their possible advantages and disadvantages.  This does not purport to come close to a whole survey of what any version of Socionics has to offer. 4 versions: -Archetype Center: Timur Protsky -Humanitarian Socionics: Victor Gulenko -World Socionics Society: Jack Oliver Aaron -Talanova Questionnaires: Victor Talanov Archetype Center Possible Advantages: ***Semantics of functions in speech are seemingly very clearly distinguished and you can even observe it in written work so it is a very flexible method in its usage. -Possible Counterpoints: How much investigation has really gone into the reliability and stability of the semantics in speech?  Can we check our perceptions in the present and how consistent they are over time in some more rigorous way?  In using semantics, they have to use language, so have they considered critiques of languages such as those of Wittgenstein, Maut

In terms of objectivity: It is difficult to agree that this technique is more objective than other typologies. True objectivity is only when instrumentation measurements are made (and as far as I understand, these dichotomies are not instrumentally measured, this is an expert assessment, so this is still a convention), and this is, first of all, a study of the brain. Yes, it is based on expert methodologies so it doesn't reach a state of maximal objectivity.  The process of having to agree with your partner in a double-blind experiment does help build perceptions which more freed from the problems of subjectivity, in the sense that you have to objectively agree on the typing independently.  However, they are still limited by what the group of people are seeing, which may not be comprehensive, and eventually we will have to test these typologies by more instrumental, scientific methods such as neuroscience, genetics or machine learning.  I will make a detailed video on the qu