My General Understanding of Psychosophy
WORK IN PROGRESS!!!
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, Unconscious, Stable, Monologue, Adaptable, Flexible, Extroverted, Other-Centered, Doubting, Conditional, Maturing
Alternative by Rob Zeke Collopy:
1st Attitude is: strong, sufficient, certain, aggressive, subjective, vulnerable, local, flippant and distinctive.
2nd Attitude is: strong, sufficient, certain, passive, objective, fearless, universal, wordy, and conditional.
3rd Attitude is: weak, insufficient, uncertain, aggressive, subjective, vulnerable, universal, wordy, and conditional.
4th Attitude is: weak, insufficient, uncertain, passive, objective, fearless, local, flippant and distinctive.
My thoughts:
I don’t like most of his High (1st and 2nd) vs Low (3rd and 4th), since strong/weak and sufficient/insufficient is too simplistic and implies 3rd and 4th can never be successful whereas 1st and 2nd always are. I do like certain vs uncertain though. I also like natural vs growing because that fits the growth aspect of the system. Another add-on might be something like tireless vs weary, since this captures the high and low energy aspect of the aspects in Archetype Center methodology.
My current best attempt:
1st function: Instinctive, Determined, Tireless, Dominant, Self-Absorbed, Vulnerable, Local, Distinctive, Coarse
2nd function: Instinctive, Determined, Tireless, Adaptable, Symbiotic, Fearless, Universal, Conditional, Fine
3rd function: Developing, Vacillating, Tiring, Dominant, Self-Absorbed, Vulnerable, Universal, Conditional, Fine
4th function: Developing, Vacillating, Tiring, Adaptable, Symbiotic, Fearless, Local, Distinctive, Coarse
Aspects:
Emotion (E): shows your emotional component in your behavior, how exactly you tend to show emotions and emotionally interact with other people, how much energy do you have on emotions and how strong your emotional-aesthetic perception of the world is. The position of emotion is important for any profession related to art and for any area where emotional communication with people is needed. Michael Jackson and many famous musicians have strong psychosophic Emotion.
Physics (F): How important for you is the material world, wealth, financial security, living conditions. Do you have a lot of requests in this area, you have high performance and how do you interact in the physical world with other people. The position of Physics largely determines domestic and sexual compatibility between people. The majority of people on Earth have strong Physics.
Will (V): Are you a strong-willed and purposeful person, can you influence other people, can you be a leader and be responsible, what is your leadership style, do you have the strength to defend your positions and resist external factors. The position of the Will directly affects your leadership qualities. Someone has them by nature, someone needs to develop them, and someone is not recommended to be a leader with great responsibility, and there is nothing to worry about. The majority of people have no strong psychosophic Will.
Logic (L): Defines interest, amount of energy and approach to the study of anything. Strong psychosophic Logic gives a person goals in the intellectual and logical sphere, science and education of any kind. The position of Logic shows how much energy you have there, whether there are goals there, how do you interact with other people in the field of Logic, whether there is potential for development, whether it is worth going in this direction, etc. Many scientists and researchers have strong Logic: e.g. Sigmund Freud, “grandfather” of socionics Carl Jung, and creator of psychosophy Alexander Afanasiev.
Aspect Pairs:
They don't have a general meaning, but only a specific meaning when paired in certain function slots. Explain each grouping:
How each type relates to EF and VL:
EF Result, VL Process:
EVLF (Ghazali), ELVF (Andersen), FVLE (Goethe), FLVE (Aristippus)
-Sexta Ena: Its representatives are characterized by processional Logic and Will, as well as the resulting Emotion and Physics. From this it follows that in the first quad, disputes and heated discussions are especially encouraged. To prove your case is what is important for each type of quadra, because it is precisely on this that his self-esteem significantly depends. These types, as a rule, are unpretentious in everyday life and in entertainment, because of which their personal relationships are the most durable, in comparison with other quadras. At the same time, they are ambitious, like to discuss their goals and decisions. They are characterized by a calm attitude to scenes of violence in artistic works, as well as an interest in what is called “the aesthetics of the abominable”. All representatives of this quadra have a keen perception of personal boundaries, which is why rapprochement with them requires special patience and perseverance. But if the rapprochement happened, breaking these relations would be very difficult. Other strengths of the types of the first quadra are their ambitiousness, bold and free thinking, as well as strong nerves.
VL Result, EF Process:
VEFL (Tolstoy), LEFV (Augustine), VFEL (Twardowski), LFEV (Berthier)
-Sexta Tessera: ???
EF Dominant, VL Adaptable:
EVFL (Pasternak), ELFV (Rousseau), FVEL (Chekhov), FLEV (Epicurus)
VL Dominant, EF Adaptable:
VELF (Akhmatova), LEVF (Pascal), VFLE (Napoleon), LFVE (Plato)
EF High, VL Low:
EFVL (Pushkin), EFLV (Bukharin), FEVL (Dumas), FELV (Borgia)
VL High, EF Low:
VLEF (Socrates), VLFE (Lenin), LVEF (Einstein), LVFE (Lao Tzu)
How each type relates to EL and FV:
EL Result, FV Process:
EFVL (Pushkin), EVFL (Pasternak), LFVE (Plato), LVFE (Lao Tzu)
-Sexta Duo: They are united by productive Emotion and Logic and procession Will and Physics. About this quadra, we can say that its representatives do not like empty talk and strive for conciseness in their statements. The second quadra can be called the “most silent” of all, since those aspects that are manifested primarily through speech (Logic and Emotion) are in the position of resultant functions. For these types of staff is very important team and interaction with him. They like to collaborate and compete with other people, to assemble a team to achieve goals and develop joint strategies. Also for them the primary question is the beauty and aesthetics of the material world. They laid the desire to decorate and lead to the ideal of their place of residence or work. In people, they value grooming more than just beautiful appearance. It is important for them that a person constantly improves, making efforts for this, and only such people, in their understanding, deserve respect. The strengths of the types of the second quadra are: the ability to achieve long-term goals, good taste, taking care of one’s health, tolerance for violent emotional manifestations, constant work on oneself. Their weaknesses are a reluctance to question established dogmas, a lack of charisma, and a low level of empathy.
FV Result, EL Process:
FELV (Borgia), FLEV (Epicurus), VELF (Akhmatova), VLEF (Socrates)
-Sexta Pente: This quadra is characterized by productive Physics and Will, as well as processional Emotion and Logic. Proceeding from this, the fifth quadra can be safely called the most talkative of all, because their processor functions are manifested primarily in speech. Art, creativity, relationships are an integral part of their life, something that truly captivates them. Logical discussions can smoothly turn into emotional outpourings and vice versa. The strong point of this quadra, which is worth developing, is undoubtedly its oratory ability. They also have a subtle sense of humor, playing with irony. Representatives of this quadra usually look from the side as calm, relaxed, confident people who are passionate about life and enthusiastic. They strive to develop and achieve success in what is interesting to them, while concentrating more on the outside world than on the inside. All types that are included in this quadra - Epicurus, Akhmatova, Socrates, Borgia - have bright qualities that attract attention to them. It is easy for them to gather a circle of admirers around them with whom they can share their ideas and charisma.
EL Dominant, FV Adaptable:
EFLV (Bukharin), EVLF (Ghazali), LFEV (Berthier), LVEF (Einstein)
FV Dominant, EL Adaptable:
FEVL (Dumas), FLVE (Aristippus), VEFL (Tolstoy), VLFE (Lenin)
EL High, FV Low:
ELFV (Rousseau), ELVF (Andersen), LEFV (Augustine), LEVF (Pascal)
FV High, EL Low:
FVEL (Chekhov), FVLE (Goethe), VFEL (Twardowski), VFLE (Napoleon)
How each type relates to EV and FL:
EV Result, FL Process:
EFLV (Bukharin), ELFV (Rousseau), VFLE (Napoleon), VLFE (Lenin)
-Sexta Tria: This quadra is characterized by processional Logic and Physics, as well as productive Emotion and Will. Therefore, its representatives are “people of the Renaissance” who make the world beautiful and spiritual. They are active, mobile, constantly improve their body, love walking and nature. This helps them get a lot of pleasure from life, maintain good health for many years. The inexhaustible interest in knowing the world makes them learn a lot, think, and discuss on all kinds of philosophical topics. Types of the third quadra work well in intellectual activity, as well as in those forms of art that require excellent knowledge of technology - needlework, drawing, classical dances and music. Their strengths are freethinking, naturalness, a subtle understanding of aesthetics. Their weaknesses are uncompromising, fussiness, a tendency to believe in beautifully designed, but not confirmed concepts.
FL Result, EV Process:
FEVL (Dumas), FVEL (Chekhov), LEVF (Pascal), LVEF (Einstein)
-Sexta Exi: They pay a lot of attention to emotions: some joke and amuse others, others escalate the atmosphere and dramatize. Whatever such people do, they always take their own or another's mood into account. Speaking of classes: types of the sixth quadra are active and purposeful. They discuss plans and are ready to persistently achieve long-term goals. Often their intentions affect other people. The methods may be different, but the essence is always the same: the representatives of this quadra campaign, they want to hurt the feelings of their audience. Chekhov, Dumas, Pascal and Einstein do not like to discuss: they trust an authoritative opinion. To convince them, it will be useful to refer to the results of experiments and life experience. As with disputes, it is difficult for these P-types to be creative in arranging their life: they are unlikely to appreciate the fit of someone else's clothing or the way the dish is originally served. First of all, in art they are interested in the feelings and aspirations of the author. The advantages of these types are determination, increased empathy, charisma, the ability to lead; disadvantages - excessive dogmatism, laziness in domestic issues and intrigue.
EV Dominant, FL Adaptable:
EFVL (Pushkin), ELVF (Andersen), VFEL (Twardowski), VLEF (Socrates)
FL Dominant, EV Adaptable:
FELV (Borgia), FVLE (Goethe), LEFV (Augustine), LVFE (Lao Tzu)
EV High, FL Low:
EVFL (Pasternak), EVLF (Ghazali), VEFL (Tolstoy), VELF (Akhmatova)
FL High, EV High:
FLEV (Epicurus), FLVE (Aristippus), LFEV (Berthier), LFVE (Plato)
...
First functions:
First Emotion:
ELVF (Andersen), EVLF (Ghazali), EVFL (Pasternak), EFVL (Pushkin), ELFV (Rousseau), EFLV (Bukharin)
First Physics:
FVLE (Goethe), FLVE (Aristippus), FLEV (Epicurus), FELV (Borgia), FEVL (Dumas), FVEL (Chekhov)
First Will:
VLFE (Lenin), VFLE (Napoleon), VFEL (Twardowski), VEFL (Tolstoy), VELF (Akhmatova), VLEF (Socrates)
First Logic:
LVFE (Lao Tzu), LFVE (Plato), LFEV (Berthier), LEFV (Augustine), LEVF (Pascal), LVEF (Einstein)
Second Functions:
Second Emotion:
VEFL (Tolstoy), LEFV (Augustine), FELV (Borgia), VELF (Akhmatova), LEVF (Pascal), FEVL (Dumas)
Second Physics:
LFVE (Plato), EFVL (Pushkin), EFLV (Bukharin), VFLE (Napoleon), VFEL (Twardowski), LFEV (Berthier)
Second Will:
EVLF (Ghazali), FVLE (Goethe), LVFE (Lao -Tzu), EVFL (Pasternak), FVEL (Chekhov), LVEF (Einstein)
Second Logic:
FLVE (Aristippus), ELVF (Andersen), ELFV (Rousseau), VLFE (Lenin), VLEF (Socrates), FLEV (Epicurus)
Third Functions:
Third Emotion:
LFEV (Berthier), VFEL (Twardowski), VLEF (Socrates), FLEV (Epicurus), FVEL (Chekhov), LVEF (Einstein)
Third Physics:
EVFL (Pasternak), LVFE (Lao Tzu), VLFE (Lenin), ELFV (Rousseau), LEFV (Augustine), VEFL (Tolstoy)
Third Will:
FLVE (Aristippus), ELVF (Andersen), EFVL (Pushkin), LFVE (Plato), LEVF (Pascal), FEVL (Dumas)
Third Logic:
EVLF (Ghazali), FVLE (Goethe), VFLE (Napoleon), EFLV (Bukharin), FELV (Borgia), VELF (Akhmatova)
Fourth Functions:
Fourth Emotion:
FVLE (Goethe), FLVE (Aristippus), LFVE (Plato), LVFE (Lao Tzu), VLFE (Lenin), VFLE (Napoleon)
Fourth Physics:
ELVF (Andersen), EVLF (Ghazali), VELF (Akhmatova), VLEF (Socrates), LVEF (Einstein), LEVF (Pascal)
Fourth Will:
EFLV (Bukharin), ELFV (Rousseau), LEFV (Augustine), LFEV (Berthier), FLEV (Epicurus), FELV (Borgia)
Fourth Logic:
EVFL (Pasternak), EFVL (Bukharin), VFEL (Twardowski), VEFL (Tolstoy), FEVL (Dumas), FVEL (Chekhov)
...
Relationship by number of shared functions:
4 shared: 1
-Identical
2 shared: 6
-Solution (shared Process)
-Sister (shared Result)
-Near-Identical (shared Low)
-Cousin (shared High)
-Customary (shared Dominant)
-Specificity (shared Adaptable)
1 shared: 8
-Invention Ring (shared 1st)
-Assistance Ring (shared 2nd)
-Enhancement Ring (shared 3rd)
-Regulation Ring (shared 4th)
0 shared: 9
-Duality (R+, P+, P-, R-)
-Radiance Ring (Leader: R+, SI-, P-, Ig-)
-Instruction Ring (Leader: R+, P+, A-, Ex-)
-Suffocation Ring (Leader: SI+, Ex+, A-, Ig-)
-Faux-Identical (SI+, SI-, Ig+, Ig-)
-Conflict (A+, Ex+, A-, Ex-)
...
Rings of Four:
Are these rings (Radiance, Instruction) Evolutionary or Involutionary like in Socionics? How about the Triangular relations below?
Radiance Ring:
-1245: ELVF (Andersen) -> LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> VFEL (Twardowski) -> FELV (Borgia)...
-1542: FVLE (Goethe) -> VLEF (Socrates) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> EFVL (Pushkin)...
-1346: EVLF (Ghazali) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> LFEV (Berthier) -> FEVL (Dumas)...
-1643: FLVE (Aristippus) -> LVEF (Einstein) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
-2356: EVFL (Pasternak) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> FLEV (Epicurus) -> LEVF (Pascal)...
-2653: LFVE (Plato) -> FVEL (Chekhov) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
Seems like the opposite direction rings (1542/1643/2653) progress in the forward direction since the main direction is decided by the Result leader, and the Process leader flexibly facilitates the process of the 3rd function for the leader. 1245/1346/2356 may have a more involutionary effect, progressing in the opposite direction, but I am not sure how that works. Or possibly, the later Sextas can help facilitate the process of the earlier one's, which is one reason that the earlier one's want there to be progress in later Sextas too. But I am not sure how this works.
Instruction Ring:
-1245: EVLF (Ghazali) -> LFVE (Plato) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-1542: FLVE (Aristippus) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> LFEV (Berthier) -> EVFL (Pasternak)...
-1346: ELVF (Andersen) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-1643: FVLE (Goethe) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> VFEL (Twardowski) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-2356: EFVL (Pushkin) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> FELV (Borgia) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-2653: LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> VLEF (Socrates) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
Here the 1245/1346/2356 appear more evolutionary. The Result leader instructs the Aggressive leader and really helps and facilitates their Low functions. But the Aggressive leader in turn is not useful to the Result leader and often displeases them, or at least the Result leader doesn't understand what they use this help for.
I am still figuring out the dynamics of these rings, and how they all intersect. It could be very complex.
There is also the Suffocation Ring, but this is symmetrical when it comes to Sextas (always flipping to the opposite) and less interesting to me for now. It doesn't illuminate much about social progress in Psychosophy, but more about how the opposite sextas exhaust and obstruct each other.
...
Rings of Three:
Invention Ring:
-123: EVLF (Ghazali) -> EFVL (Pushkin) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-132: ELVF (Andersen) -> EFVL (Bukharin) -> EVFL (Pasternak)...
-156: FLVE (Aristippus) -> FELV (Borgia) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-165: FVLE (Goethe) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-246: LFVE (Plato) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-264: LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> LFEV (Berthier)...
-345: VFLE (Napoleon) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> VLEF (Socrates)...
-354: VLFE (Lenin) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> VFEL (Twardowski)...
This appears more similar to the Instruction Ring, to me. This is because the process leader facilitates the process for the exhauster, and there is not as much help in return. Thus the direction goes as it appears: 123/156/246/345 are more evolutonary.
Assistance Ring:
-126: EVLF (Ghazali) -> LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-162: FVLE (Goethe) -> LVEF (Einstein) -> EVFL (Pasternak)...
-135: ELVF (Andersen) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-153: FLVE (Aristippus) -> VLEF (Socrates) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-234: EFVL (Pushkin) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> LFEV (Berthier)...
-243: LFVE (Plato) -> VFEL (Twardowski) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
-456: VEFL (Tolstoy) -> FELV (Borgia) -> LEVF (Pascal)...
-465: LEFV (Augustine) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> VELF (Akhmatova)...
Here the Result leader seems to use their 1st function to assist the assistee, rather than just "leading" in this aspect. And in turn, the Assistee adjusts the Assistant, getting them to focus more on their insecure function and in turn making the assistant insecure by using their 1st function. They let the Assistant control their own 1st function, but only if they adjust in certain ways. It's harder to see the directionality of this Ring.
Enhancement Ring:
-126: ELVF (Andersen) -> LFVE (Plato) -> FEVL (Dumas)...
-162: FLVE (Aristippus) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> EFVL (Pushkin)...
-135: EVLF (Ghazali) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> FELV (Borgia)...
-153: FVLE (Goethe) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
-234: EVFL (Pasternak) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> LEFV (Augustine)...
-243: LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-456: VFEL (Twardowski) -> FLEV (Epicurus) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-465: LFEV (Berthier) -> FVEL (Chekhov) -> VLEF (Socrates)...
Mainly the Results leader leads in this relationship, so it's hard to see what direction it goes. Do they make the decisions and this pull the Exhauster in their direction, or do they help the Exhauster and thus enhance them?
Regulation Ring:
-123: FVLE (Goethe) -> LFVE (Plato) -> VLFE (Lenin)...
-132: FLVE (Aristippus) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> LVFE (Lao Tzu)...
-156: ELVF (Andersen) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-165: EVLF (Ghazali) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> VLEF (Socrates)...
-246: EFVL (Pushkin) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-264: EVFL (Pasternak) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> VFEL (Twardowski)...
-345: EFLV (Bukharin) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-354: ELFV (Rousseau) -> FELV (Borgia) -> LFEV (Berthier)...
Here the Process leader helps facilitate the process for the Aggressor, and the Aggressor is more ignored by the Process leader.
...
Sexta Social Progress:
-Immediate Progress:
Exi -> Ena: Logic becomes Processional, Emotion becomes Effective
Ena -> Dio: Physics becomes Processional, Logic becomes Effective
Dio -> Tria: Logic becomes Processional, Will becomes Effective
Tria -> Tessera: Emotion becomes Processional, Logic becomes Effective
Tessera -> Pente: Logic becomes Processional, Physics becomes Effective
Pente -> Exi: Will becomes Processional, Logic becomes Effective
-Delayed Progress:
Pente -> Ena: Will becomes Processional, Emotion becomes Effective
Exi -> Dio: Physics becomes Processional, Emotion becomes Effective
Ena -> Tria: Physics becomes Processional, Will becomes Effective
Dio -> Tessera: Emotion becomes Processional, Will becomes Effective
Tria -> Pente: Emotion becomes Processional, Physics becomes Effective
Tessera -> Exi: Will becomes Processional, Physics becomes Effective
Summary
Ena:
-Gains Effective Emotion from the Processing of Pente and Exi
-Yields Processional Physics to Dio and Tria from its own extravagant Results
-Will is studied extensively by Logic in the finest processing details
Dio:
-Gains Processional Physics from the Results of Exi and Ena
-Yields Effective Will to Tria and Tessera from its own extravagant Processing
-Emotion is studied extensively by Logic to produce effective general theories
Tria:
-Gains Effective Will from the Processing of Ena and Dio
-Yields Processional Emotion to Tessera and Pente from its own extravagant Results
-Physics is studied extensively by Logic in the finest processing details
Tessera:
-Gains Processional Emotion from the Results of Dio and Tria
-Yields Effective Physics to Pente and Exi from its own extravagant Processing
-Will is studied extensively by Logic to produce effective general theories
Pente:
-Gains Effective Physics from the Processing Tria and Tessera
-Yields Processional Will to Exi and Ena from its own extravagant Result
-Emotion is studied extensively by Logic in the finest processing details
Exi:
-Gains Processional Will from the Results of Tessera and Pente
-Yields Effective Emotion to Ena and Dio from its own extravagant Processing
-Physics is studied extensively by Logic to produce effective general theories
Sexta Roles
1st Stage: Value Formation, Simplicity
2nd stage: Development, Deepening
3rd stage: Rethinking, Culmination
Ena: Effective Emotion 1st Stage, Processional Will 2nd Stage with Processional Logic, Effective Physics 3rd Stage
Dio: Processional Physics 1st Stage, Effective Emotion 2nd Stage with Effective Logic, Processional Will 3rd Stage
Tria: Effective Will 1st Stage, Processional Physics 2nd Stage with Processional Logic, Effective Emotion 3rd Stage
Tessera: Processional Emotion 1st Stage, Effective Will 2nd Stage with Effective Logic, Processional Physics 3rd Stage
Pente: Effective Physics 1st Stage, Processional Emotion 2nd Stage with Processional Logic, Effective Will 3rd Stage
Exi: Processional Will 1st Stage, Effective Physics 2nd Stage with Effective Logic, Processional Emotion 3rd Stage
-Processional Logic denotes Effective functions at edge stages with an intermediate Processional function
-Effective Logic denotes Processional functions at edge stages with an intermediate Effective function
-Sexta progress is especially energetic at edge stages. Logic compensates for this, staying with the reflective intermediate stage of the function and working with it, while logical reflections are staying out of the way the main energetic interactions
...
Possible Correlation with Socionics:
I don't think Socionics and Psychosophy types have a clear correlation in any school that I have found yet. However, certain aspects of Psychosophy might correlate well to aspects of Socionics, at least in the Humanitarian School:
...
First functions:
First Emotion:
ELVF (Andersen), EVLF (Ghazali), EVFL (Pasternak), EFVL (Pushkin), ELFV (Rousseau), EFLV (Bukharin)
First Physics:
FVLE (Goethe), FLVE (Aristippus), FLEV (Epicurus), FELV (Borgia), FEVL (Dumas), FVEL (Chekhov)
First Will:
VLFE (Lenin), VFLE (Napoleon), VFEL (Twardowski), VEFL (Tolstoy), VELF (Akhmatova), VLEF (Socrates)
First Logic:
LVFE (Lao Tzu), LFVE (Plato), LFEV (Berthier), LEFV (Augustine), LEVF (Pascal), LVEF (Einstein)
Second Functions:
Second Emotion:
VEFL (Tolstoy), LEFV (Augustine), FELV (Borgia), VELF (Akhmatova), LEVF (Pascal), FEVL (Dumas)
Second Physics:
LFVE (Plato), EFVL (Pushkin), EFLV (Bukharin), VFLE (Napoleon), VFEL (Twardowski), LFEV (Berthier)
Second Will:
EVLF (Ghazali), FVLE (Goethe), LVFE (Lao -Tzu), EVFL (Pasternak), FVEL (Chekhov), LVEF (Einstein)
Second Logic:
FLVE (Aristippus), ELVF (Andersen), ELFV (Rousseau), VLFE (Lenin), VLEF (Socrates), FLEV (Epicurus)
Third Functions:
Third Emotion:
LFEV (Berthier), VFEL (Twardowski), VLEF (Socrates), FLEV (Epicurus), FVEL (Chekhov), LVEF (Einstein)
Third Physics:
EVFL (Pasternak), LVFE (Lao Tzu), VLFE (Lenin), ELFV (Rousseau), LEFV (Augustine), VEFL (Tolstoy)
Third Will:
FLVE (Aristippus), ELVF (Andersen), EFVL (Pushkin), LFVE (Plato), LEVF (Pascal), FEVL (Dumas)
Third Logic:
EVLF (Ghazali), FVLE (Goethe), VFLE (Napoleon), EFLV (Bukharin), FELV (Borgia), VELF (Akhmatova)
Fourth Functions:
Fourth Emotion:
FVLE (Goethe), FLVE (Aristippus), LFVE (Plato), LVFE (Lao Tzu), VLFE (Lenin), VFLE (Napoleon)
Fourth Physics:
ELVF (Andersen), EVLF (Ghazali), VELF (Akhmatova), VLEF (Socrates), LVEF (Einstein), LEVF (Pascal)
Fourth Will:
EFLV (Bukharin), ELFV (Rousseau), LEFV (Augustine), LFEV (Berthier), FLEV (Epicurus), FELV (Borgia)
Fourth Logic:
EVFL (Pasternak), EFVL (Bukharin), VFEL (Twardowski), VEFL (Tolstoy), FEVL (Dumas), FVEL (Chekhov)
...
Relationship by number of shared functions:
4 shared: 1
-Identical
2 shared: 6
-Solution (shared Process)
-Sister (shared Result)
-Near-Identical (shared Low)
-Cousin (shared High)
-Customary (shared Dominant)
-Specificity (shared Adaptable)
1 shared: 8
-Invention Ring (shared 1st)
-Assistance Ring (shared 2nd)
-Enhancement Ring (shared 3rd)
-Regulation Ring (shared 4th)
0 shared: 9
-Duality (R+, P+, P-, R-)
-Radiance Ring (Leader: R+, SI-, P-, Ig-)
-Instruction Ring (Leader: R+, P+, A-, Ex-)
-Suffocation Ring (Leader: SI+, Ex+, A-, Ig-)
-Faux-Identical (SI+, SI-, Ig+, Ig-)
-Conflict (A+, Ex+, A-, Ex-)
...
Rings of Four:
Are these rings (Radiance, Instruction) Evolutionary or Involutionary like in Socionics? How about the Triangular relations below?
Radiance Ring:
-1245: ELVF (Andersen) -> LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> VFEL (Twardowski) -> FELV (Borgia)...
-1542: FVLE (Goethe) -> VLEF (Socrates) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> EFVL (Pushkin)...
-1346: EVLF (Ghazali) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> LFEV (Berthier) -> FEVL (Dumas)...
-1643: FLVE (Aristippus) -> LVEF (Einstein) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
-2356: EVFL (Pasternak) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> FLEV (Epicurus) -> LEVF (Pascal)...
-2653: LFVE (Plato) -> FVEL (Chekhov) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
Seems like the opposite direction rings (1542/1643/2653) progress in the forward direction since the main direction is decided by the Result leader, and the Process leader flexibly facilitates the process of the 3rd function for the leader. 1245/1346/2356 may have a more involutionary effect, progressing in the opposite direction, but I am not sure how that works. Or possibly, the later Sextas can help facilitate the process of the earlier one's, which is one reason that the earlier one's want there to be progress in later Sextas too. But I am not sure how this works.
Instruction Ring:
-1245: EVLF (Ghazali) -> LFVE (Plato) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-1542: FLVE (Aristippus) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> LFEV (Berthier) -> EVFL (Pasternak)...
-1346: ELVF (Andersen) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-1643: FVLE (Goethe) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> VFEL (Twardowski) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-2356: EFVL (Pushkin) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> FELV (Borgia) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-2653: LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> VLEF (Socrates) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
Here the 1245/1346/2356 appear more evolutionary. The Result leader instructs the Aggressive leader and really helps and facilitates their Low functions. But the Aggressive leader in turn is not useful to the Result leader and often displeases them, or at least the Result leader doesn't understand what they use this help for.
I am still figuring out the dynamics of these rings, and how they all intersect. It could be very complex.
There is also the Suffocation Ring, but this is symmetrical when it comes to Sextas (always flipping to the opposite) and less interesting to me for now. It doesn't illuminate much about social progress in Psychosophy, but more about how the opposite sextas exhaust and obstruct each other.
...
Rings of Three:
Invention Ring:
-123: EVLF (Ghazali) -> EFVL (Pushkin) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-132: ELVF (Andersen) -> EFVL (Bukharin) -> EVFL (Pasternak)...
-156: FLVE (Aristippus) -> FELV (Borgia) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-165: FVLE (Goethe) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-246: LFVE (Plato) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-264: LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> LFEV (Berthier)...
-345: VFLE (Napoleon) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> VLEF (Socrates)...
-354: VLFE (Lenin) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> VFEL (Twardowski)...
This appears more similar to the Instruction Ring, to me. This is because the process leader facilitates the process for the exhauster, and there is not as much help in return. Thus the direction goes as it appears: 123/156/246/345 are more evolutonary.
Assistance Ring:
-126: EVLF (Ghazali) -> LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-162: FVLE (Goethe) -> LVEF (Einstein) -> EVFL (Pasternak)...
-135: ELVF (Andersen) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-153: FLVE (Aristippus) -> VLEF (Socrates) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-234: EFVL (Pushkin) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> LFEV (Berthier)...
-243: LFVE (Plato) -> VFEL (Twardowski) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
-456: VEFL (Tolstoy) -> FELV (Borgia) -> LEVF (Pascal)...
-465: LEFV (Augustine) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> VELF (Akhmatova)...
Here the Result leader seems to use their 1st function to assist the assistee, rather than just "leading" in this aspect. And in turn, the Assistee adjusts the Assistant, getting them to focus more on their insecure function and in turn making the assistant insecure by using their 1st function. They let the Assistant control their own 1st function, but only if they adjust in certain ways. It's harder to see the directionality of this Ring.
Enhancement Ring:
-126: ELVF (Andersen) -> LFVE (Plato) -> FEVL (Dumas)...
-162: FLVE (Aristippus) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> EFVL (Pushkin)...
-135: EVLF (Ghazali) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> FELV (Borgia)...
-153: FVLE (Goethe) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> EFLV (Bukharin)...
-234: EVFL (Pasternak) -> VLFE (Lenin) -> LEFV (Augustine)...
-243: LVFE (Lao Tzu) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> ELFV (Rousseau)...
-456: VFEL (Twardowski) -> FLEV (Epicurus) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-465: LFEV (Berthier) -> FVEL (Chekhov) -> VLEF (Socrates)...
Mainly the Results leader leads in this relationship, so it's hard to see what direction it goes. Do they make the decisions and this pull the Exhauster in their direction, or do they help the Exhauster and thus enhance them?
Regulation Ring:
-123: FVLE (Goethe) -> LFVE (Plato) -> VLFE (Lenin)...
-132: FLVE (Aristippus) -> VFLE (Napoleon) -> LVFE (Lao Tzu)...
-156: ELVF (Andersen) -> VELF (Akhmatova) -> LVEF (Einstein)...
-165: EVLF (Ghazali) -> LEVF (Pascal) -> VLEF (Socrates)...
-246: EFVL (Pushkin) -> VEFL (Tolstoy) -> FVEL (Chekhov)...
-264: EVFL (Pasternak) -> FEVL (Dumas) -> VFEL (Twardowski)...
-345: EFLV (Bukharin) -> LEFV (Augustine) -> FLEV (Epicurus)...
-354: ELFV (Rousseau) -> FELV (Borgia) -> LFEV (Berthier)...
Here the Process leader helps facilitate the process for the Aggressor, and the Aggressor is more ignored by the Process leader.
...
Sexta Social Progress:
-Immediate Progress:
Exi -> Ena: Logic becomes Processional, Emotion becomes Effective
Ena -> Dio: Physics becomes Processional, Logic becomes Effective
Dio -> Tria: Logic becomes Processional, Will becomes Effective
Tria -> Tessera: Emotion becomes Processional, Logic becomes Effective
Tessera -> Pente: Logic becomes Processional, Physics becomes Effective
Pente -> Exi: Will becomes Processional, Logic becomes Effective
-Delayed Progress:
Pente -> Ena: Will becomes Processional, Emotion becomes Effective
Exi -> Dio: Physics becomes Processional, Emotion becomes Effective
Ena -> Tria: Physics becomes Processional, Will becomes Effective
Dio -> Tessera: Emotion becomes Processional, Will becomes Effective
Tria -> Pente: Emotion becomes Processional, Physics becomes Effective
Tessera -> Exi: Will becomes Processional, Physics becomes Effective
Summary
Ena:
-Gains Effective Emotion from the Processing of Pente and Exi
-Yields Processional Physics to Dio and Tria from its own extravagant Results
-Will is studied extensively by Logic in the finest processing details
Dio:
-Gains Processional Physics from the Results of Exi and Ena
-Yields Effective Will to Tria and Tessera from its own extravagant Processing
-Emotion is studied extensively by Logic to produce effective general theories
Tria:
-Gains Effective Will from the Processing of Ena and Dio
-Yields Processional Emotion to Tessera and Pente from its own extravagant Results
-Physics is studied extensively by Logic in the finest processing details
Tessera:
-Gains Processional Emotion from the Results of Dio and Tria
-Yields Effective Physics to Pente and Exi from its own extravagant Processing
-Will is studied extensively by Logic to produce effective general theories
Pente:
-Gains Effective Physics from the Processing Tria and Tessera
-Yields Processional Will to Exi and Ena from its own extravagant Result
-Emotion is studied extensively by Logic in the finest processing details
Exi:
-Gains Processional Will from the Results of Tessera and Pente
-Yields Effective Emotion to Ena and Dio from its own extravagant Processing
-Physics is studied extensively by Logic to produce effective general theories
Sexta Roles
1st Stage: Value Formation, Simplicity
2nd stage: Development, Deepening
3rd stage: Rethinking, Culmination
Ena: Effective Emotion 1st Stage, Processional Will 2nd Stage with Processional Logic, Effective Physics 3rd Stage
Dio: Processional Physics 1st Stage, Effective Emotion 2nd Stage with Effective Logic, Processional Will 3rd Stage
Tria: Effective Will 1st Stage, Processional Physics 2nd Stage with Processional Logic, Effective Emotion 3rd Stage
Tessera: Processional Emotion 1st Stage, Effective Will 2nd Stage with Effective Logic, Processional Physics 3rd Stage
Pente: Effective Physics 1st Stage, Processional Emotion 2nd Stage with Processional Logic, Effective Will 3rd Stage
Exi: Processional Will 1st Stage, Effective Physics 2nd Stage with Effective Logic, Processional Emotion 3rd Stage
-Processional Logic denotes Effective functions at edge stages with an intermediate Processional function
-Effective Logic denotes Processional functions at edge stages with an intermediate Effective function
-Sexta progress is especially energetic at edge stages. Logic compensates for this, staying with the reflective intermediate stage of the function and working with it, while logical reflections are staying out of the way the main energetic interactions
...
Possible Correlation with Socionics:
I don't think Socionics and Psychosophy types have a clear correlation in any school that I have found yet. However, certain aspects of Psychosophy might correlate well to aspects of Socionics, at least in the Humanitarian School:
Will: Te+Se (dominant behavior, basically)
Emotion: Fe+Ne (creative behavior, with more emphasis on emotion)
Logic and Physics are less clear, but:
Logic: Ti+Ni (abstract reasoning and reflection, basically)
Physics: Si+Fi (emphasis on Si, but also Fi relates due to comfortable habits and attachments to people and places, internalization of feelings into the body, sense of appropriateness and informal traditions around a place)
So, maybe these Psychosophy attitudes don't correlate to the types per se, but to specific attitudes that we have to pairs of functions within our type. And they aren't necessarily even expressed as subtypes, though they can be. It's at a deeper, possibly more permanent level than that, of a way that our type is even capable of having various subtypes and then how those subtypes are used.
Also, the fact that in a hangout Victor Gulenko claimed that it only makes sense to call Sociotypes Process/Result on the social level (and perhaps physical) is a good sign for the co-existence of these theories. In general, Socionics Process/Result is better defined as Evolutionary/Involutionary. Process/Result in some ways makes more sense to describe the functions and how they operate in Psychosophy. Psychosophy types have both Process/Results in their initial settings and it won't necessarily correspond with Evolutionary/Involutionary in Socionics.
Also, the fact that in a hangout Victor Gulenko claimed that it only makes sense to call Sociotypes Process/Result on the social level (and perhaps physical) is a good sign for the co-existence of these theories. In general, Socionics Process/Result is better defined as Evolutionary/Involutionary. Process/Result in some ways makes more sense to describe the functions and how they operate in Psychosophy. Psychosophy types have both Process/Results in their initial settings and it won't necessarily correspond with Evolutionary/Involutionary in Socionics.
Which type do you associate yourself with? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure. I've noticed that there are a few "strains" of psychosophy out there. The main one's I noticed: Original Afanasyev, OSocionike, Attitudinal Psyche, BestSocionics, Archetype Center, 24types.ru, etc. (this is hardly exhaustive)
DeleteSome of them have more of a qualitative holistic distinction between the functions, and for others the distinction is based more on language use and attempts to reduce it something like (self positive, others negative 1st attitude or self negative, others negative 3rd attitude, etc., or base it on the amount you use each function, or try to spilit them apart based on dichotomies). Some sort of mix those approaches, which is probably a good idea, but can also be done really badly. It all honestly seems like a huge mess to me (somewhat like Socionics, where there are like 40 different schools), but not very aware of that fact. Hence the importance of aggregating one's own understanding out of all that, but I'm not sure my current understanding is really what's listed above (though it's not too far).
The Archetype Center typed me FLEV, which makes a lot of sense in their methodology, which I like because it's different and seems pretty realistic to me, and based on independent thought where high will types that will enforce their will on others are actually relatively rare, and people who have high physics and prefer a comfortable level are pretty common, etc.
In something like Attitudinal Psyche, OSocionike or 24types.ru, I'd probably be something like LVEF, but those approaches seem a little simplistic to me. For example, in those approaches types like LVEF, LEVF, ELVF and VLEF are super common and I don't think that makes sense, or makes a real substantive distinction between purported members of those types. It's kind of like "new MBTI", where LVEF and LEVF are the self-assessed INTP super geniuses, ELVF is the mystical INFJ guru, and VLEF is the tough super smart INTJ mastermind. Not exactly the same, but it's sort of sad to see something potentially useful like psychosophy get reduced to the level of MBTI memes (sometimes called "memebti").
In something like BestSocionics, I have no idea what I am, because they've already introduced function subtypes. When the types aren't very clear yet, I don't think that was a very good idea; it makes it too easy to rationalize any type based on function subtypes.
In something like Original Afanasyev, I have no idea because the whole thing is so holistic and overly dramatic that it probably isn't even realistic. I'm not going to bother reading the origin Syntax of Love, because what I have read was colorful but not very useful and very exaggerated.
I have personally found Archetype center approach to make a lot of sense to me too, as they use Psychosophy together with Socionics to describe a person better. This has filled in the gap I saw in Socionics, even with DCNH system, which seemed like an attempt to describe the Psychosophy will. N is correlated with 4th will, H -with the 3rd will, however, 3rd will is considered the weakest energy in DCNH sytem.
DeleteI really thought P+S nailed it describing cases like Administrator (ESTJ/LSE) having logic in a 4th slot. It also correlated with Nardi's comments that EEG can show certain regions light up, but it is not indicative of its mastery.
I haven't delved into other psychosophy schools in detail, but descriptions and video analysis did seem a lot like MBTI, so I chose to ignore those.
I have read the Syntax of Love, and what I enjoyed is the real life relationship examples with illustrations of functional clashes and collaborations, with specific people the types are named after often. Afanasyev ignored socionics, so it doesn't do justice to describe people and relationships well.
I also liked Timur's (from Archetype Center) book "How to develop will". It had really legit descriptions for various wills.
Wow, interesting that we both found Archetype Center particularly useful. I am eager to learn more about their Socionics method also, but at this point it's harder to understand for me (albeit fascinating).
DeleteI don't see Archetype Center as a replacement for DCNH yet, because I don't think the 4 wills or psychosophy correlates well to DCNH subtypes which do seem to describe meaningful group roles that also play out similarly in other typologies (like DISC, Belbin, etc.). I can see how psychosophy might seem to correlate well with DCNH abstractly, but in practice it often doesn't work out in my experience (but I see both as very useful). I'm ILI-Harmonizing for example (typed by Victor Gulenko), but 4th will (and incidentally archetype center also types me ILI, even though their Socionics often differs from SHS).
I don't think 3rd will fits Harmonizing well because it's a "dominant" will, inclined to impose itself or be controlling, which I think is more likely for Dominant or Normalizing subtypes (in some cases Creative if they have a lot of power sensorics). Also, I've seen 1st wills multiple times among Dominant, Creative and Normalizing subtypes (not Harmonizing yet). I more or less separate SHS, the school that uses DCNH, from Archetype Center methodology at this point since their assessments are so different it's hard for me to see how they synthetically mesh together at this point. However, comparing these typologies is a topic that interests me greatly, as does figuring out which method will ultimately be more useful (and that isn't obvious to me at this point, there are just so many factors, or maybe the answer is neither and an even higher synthetic method is required).
I also really enjoyed Timur's "How to develop will", it made the wills much clearer to me in my everyday like. I like how qualitatively different they are, and how you can see the unique problems and themes that occur with each one (and I can really see it in myself as a 4th will).
I haven't been typed by AC yet, which I may do in the future. However, I identify with ILI ELVF. I am pretty sure on the psychosophy type, but I don't know if they would see me as ILI (as Gulenko has typed me). Gulenko also leaned towards thinking I am a harmonizing subtype with accentuated Fi.
DeleteBefore Gulenko I used to think I am a IEI and didn't trust his initial judgement, but psychosophy filled that gap for me. Specifically, the unconscious emotion part and its occasional "aggressive" expression, which resonates with extraverted emotion.
What I have learnt about AC approach to socionics (they call it "new socionics") is that they use semantics only to judge the type by. Comparing this to Gulenko's approach (and other schools), which also judges based on how you articulate with your eyes, your walk, overall figure, tendency to be round-shouldered, etc. E.g. "Logical LIEs are typically square-figured" or "SLI walk is typically jumpy, sneaky-like". So Timur tries to rely on methodology that leaves out the subjective factor in assessing behavior, appearance and manners.
For example, AC school views Gulenko as LIE, not LII like he thinks himself, because of his informationally strong extraverted logic. In Gulenko's system "informationally strong" does not equal "energetically strong", which is what matters when evaluating someone's type.
Good thoughts on will in relationship to DCNH. It's probably Gulenko's attempt to make typology more commercial and useful in organizational setting. I don't really find his description for, let's say, harmonizing ILI elaborated enough. It feels more as a simple label to split the subtype from others to imply the place in the organization.
I think the use of certain words makes it misleading. I wish the typologies were less esoteric and linked their categories to specific brain regions or structures as Nardi does. This would have made it more objective.
What do you think differs for process and result-oriented low wills (so 3rd and 4th wills) in terms of brain structures or connectivities? Have you ever stumbled upon info explaining this? Is it lower capacity reticular formation in action with prominent/non-prominent frontal regions of neocortex (responsible for decision-making)?
I'm a little suspicious of ELVF because A LOT of people identify with that type (including myself at one point), understandably but nonetheless it's pretty rare in Timur's method especially for a Gulenko ILI. I won't rule it out, I'm not saying you're wrong, you might be right but I'm just being cautious about the probabilities.
DeleteI highly recommend Archetype Center typing; their Socionics questionnaire was a lot of fun, and being typed professionally in psychosophy is just cool in general since it's rare. I don't doubt the possibility that you have emotion in a dominant position though, as I also do in any case, and in SHS the Critic has E- so may appear more emotionally aggressive than a Lyricist; Lyricist is a very peaceful type.
Yes, Timur types mainly by semantics it seems (in Socionics), although I think they also have observed some non-verbal signals as well (though I don't think they really use them). I still regard semantics as a form of typing by behavior since technically "everything" a person does is a kind of "behavior", or a "way of acting"; semantics is just a very specific kind of behavior. Gulenko looks at the overall behavior of a person and some selective non-verbal signals attached to that (e.g. I don't think being round-shouldered is particularly important, especially if it contradicted more obvious aspects about the behavior of the type). And Timur's psychosophy is more overall behavioral like Victor's Socionics.
Gulenko's Socionics is more holistic, but it isn't obvious to me which is more objective since both use a form of behavior, though I think both try to remove some of the subjective factor that I see come up so much in Western Socionics (where typing is based more on some kind of abstract metaphysical argumentation). That said, there is a value in some aspects of the subjective factor: being able to empathize with the subject of diagnosis, because a diagnostician participates in a typing diagnosis as much as the person being diagnosed and that is important to take into account in one's typing methodology.
I definitely think DCNH is meant to have applications in a commercial setting or business team, it seems really well built for that (very Archetype Center Black Logic!) because it explains the different roles a person can play in a team and the dynamics they have. It is also definitely meant to differentiate people within the same type. That "dynamic complex systems" approach by SHS seems important to me and is not something I see in the Archetype Center method as much. That said, subtype is something more dynamic and not necessarily stable, and its stabilities may differ in different people (the role the subtype plays in their life and how entrenched it is might be different, that is) and maybe that's something a more static psychosophy type goes a better ways towards describing. In any case, the relative stability of subtype is relatively abstracted away in SHS, though one can discuss how it's evolving.
DeleteThe use of certain words can be VERY misleading in my experience and this is why I'm not a fan of descriptions in general, especially Victor's (even though I like his overall method a lot). In each method, I think the important thing is to get good at doing real diagnostic assessments so you know what the method is actually doing from deeper principles, instead of relying on descriptions that can be interpreted in so many ways.
I think it's nice when typology can be linked to established science, but I don't regard Nardi as all that much more objective than other methods. Victor's behavior patterns and non-verbal signals, and Timur's psychosophy categories and semantics, seem probably as clear as Nardi's typology, and even when Nardi uses his EEG he still has a biased starting point in how he sorts the people into types to begin with which affects what patterns he ends up investigating (which isn't based on EEG, but mainly the work of people like Keirsey and Berens, though he has taken a liking to some of Victor's work). I love Nardi's overall harmonizing approach to typology though (Magic Diamond) and seeing more wide ranging EEG research is a very exciting prospect (for something like Socionics and psychosophy). However, some patterns may not be contained in what an EEG measures, which is only the outer layers of the brain as I understand it (though I'm a little rusty on the science).
I don't know much about how 3rd and 4th wills differ physiologically, but behaviorally they are quite different so finding a biological key to that would be very interesting. I imagine people with higher will are going to have a lot more focus on frontal regions (especially frontal left) due to their ease of decision making and motivating themselves and others towards goals. 3rd will might be the biggest mixed bag there, and 4th probably isn't going to have much focus on frontal lobe. I do wonder whether deeper mechanisms are involved as well; the brain in general has so much mystery due to the level of interconnection and how difficult to explore it is.
I have heard some mysterious popularity of self-assigning to ELVF type, I will keep you posted when I get an official typing session. I was very confident I am 3V based on typical problems described in Timur's book. However, I am dating a FLEV guy, and there is a contrast I see + specific misunderstandings of 1E and 3E, 3V and 4V happening.
DeleteI haven't read Magic Diamond yet. Will add it to my reading list.
As for school of thought preference, so far AC agrees more with me than SHS and seems more practical. Timur is more generous on his thought process when it comes to typing (famous people for example), whereas Viktor's thought process is less clear to me and indeed is more behavior-based. It should then predict how people will act under given circumstances, but can it? It doesn't seem like a very reliable method to me.
On a separate note, there is another Russian psychotherapist - Andrey Kurpatov who created a typology of his own based on interconnectivity of neocortex and the limbic system. There are only 3 types: centrists, reflectors and constructors. I have also found it to correlate to existing typologies in an interesting way with own spin on it.
I look forward to hearing your results :) If you really get ELVF, I would find that very fascinating, and I'm curious either way. Until then I have no strong opinion (unless I were to learn more about it on my own), only worries about the likelihoods.
DeleteI find both Victor and Timur frustratingly ungenerous with their thought processes, lol! At least, to the public. But that's partly because they are both 1L, and I'm a 2L who loves to endlessly discuss and debate so it doesn't offend me. I just think they put people off unnecessarily and that's unfortunate. I've taken Victor's classes for a long time now, I know his thought process and advanced knowledge and I do find his model quite predictive, sometimes shockingly so, and it has shown me sides of people I never imagined existed. It is not really about predicting actions in specific circumstances though (it's a humanitarian model, not a physics model) since it is not opposed to a tremendous amount of variation within the type that is open to ongoing adaptation (including multiple levels of subtype, all kinds of functional states, etc.), but it can make overall predictions about the personality which may be helpful to take into account. I don't think Victor's model contains everything though, and I'm eager to find whatever flaws it has by studying other models. It's what I have the most expertise in, because it explained things no other model could and I trained in it, but until I study another model in depth I don't like to make direct comparisons since I feel like I'm jumping the gun.
I will check out more about Andrey Kurpatov, thanks for that.
In my view, I can give the weakest and strongest criticisms of each side of the SHS vs AC debate as I see it (and this is very far from final, it is only so far, and even weaker or stronger criticism will likely emerge with continued investigation):
Delete-Weakest criticism of AC about SHS: they type based on behavior. The reason this criticism is meaningless is because everything humans do is behavior; there is nothing else one can possibly use to diagnose type, and the AC does the exact same thing. They categorize one specific aspect of behavior (semantics of speech) as the Socionics type and the more holistic behavioral component goes into psychosophy. We can speculate about inner structure, but it can only be inferred from behavior; the important thing is using behavior in a sophisticated way, rather than simplistically.
-Weakest criticism of SHS about AC: semantics is not innate or reliable and is based mainly on upbringing or profession. That's Victor's opinion, and I consider it merely a questionable assumption, so it counts for nothing as a criticism. Semantics of speech might be something more innate and consistent, and the only way we could determine that is by empirically investigating the question. We can't just assume it either way. Just because it doesn’t fit into the SHS method isn’t a good reason to dismiss it entirely, and that only creates blind spots that make it impossible to grow in certain ways.
-Strongest criticism of AC about SHS: they don't have sufficient focus on white logic. Victor may or may not have interesting empirical diagnostics, but either way it's hard to follow his reasoning without personal familiarity with many diagnostic cases. You have to understand his empirical results and reverse engineer the structure of his model from that; its method is more like empirical convergence than something explicitly systematic and this can lead to a lot of difficulty communicating it to anyone not familiar with a lot of empirical results in SHS. There's a lot of clarificatory work that needs to be done so that a larger audience can have a reliable set of assumptions and a suitably restricted set of structural maneuvers to work with so that they can engage in reliable and orderly SHS diagnostics without having to rely on an empirical expert and can know what sorts of arguments are strong and weak within the method.
-Strongest criticism of SHS about AC: the model lacks holism and integration. Socionics and psychosophy are awkwardly joined at the hip in this system, without any sense of how they function together as part of the same system, in spite of the fact that they address things that have considerable overlap. This may or may not work well in practice regardless, but it leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how these two theories can work together in the single dynamic system of life. Life doesn't have artificial divides that totally separate one system from another (e.g. in SHS, type is multi-level but subtype and accentuation still exist within the type structure, not as adjoining factors with apparently no overlap like antlers on a jackrabbit). In life, Socionics and Psychosophy also interact and there has to be principles of how that happens in the unified gestalt of experience (what actually occurs), otherwise we can run into unnoticed contradictions or not have any clear holistic type image (so we could end up not categorizing any visually recognizable entities, instead having a system of self-perpetuating categorization).
Perhaps a fruitful dialectic between these schools will allow both to be strengthened in time. Time will tell...