Varlawend: Mysteries Among the Stars

Warning: These correlations are NOT strict.  They can be violated by unique development. -Manager Te: ILE-D, SLE-D, SLE-N, LSI-D, LIE-D, ILI-D, LSE-D -Builder Te: ILE-N, LIE-N, LSE-N, SLI-N -Ideologue Ti: LSI-N, ILI-N -Systemist Ti: LII-C, LII-N -Shepherd Fe: ESE-D, EIE-D, SEE-D -Host Fe: ESE-N, SEI-C, SEE-N, IEE-N -Quester Fi: EII-D -Romantic Fi: IEI-N, EII-C, EII-N -Mover Se: SLE-C, LSI-C, LSE-C, SLI-D, SLI-C -Sensate Se: ESE-H, SEI-H, SLE-H, SEE-H, ESI-C, SLI-H -Defender Si: ESI-D, ESI-N -Hearth Si: SEI-N, LSI-H, ESI-H, LSE-H -Marketer Ne: ILE-C, ESE-C, SEI-D, EIE-C, IEI-D, SEE-C, LIE-C, IEE-D, IEE-C -Catalyst Ne: ILE-H, IEI-C, LIE-H, ILI-C, IEE-H -Visionary Ni: LII-D, EIE-N -Oracle Ni: LII-H, EIE-H, IEI-H, ILI-H, EII-H

Safsom: I don't want people to take this literally and say "mmm yess immoral person being said bad. Beta or Delta." Because there is more to the "aristocracy" of Deltas if there does even exist one - I think it is quite internal, subdued, and to do with personal space. I find the only people Deltas categorically dislike and subject to "hierarchical" formation are those that disagree with considering new perspectives and hold too strongly to one view. Aristocratic/Democratic to me seems less realistic. My response: I agree with you that the aristocracy of Delta is far more subdued than the aristocracy of Beta, to the point that calling it aristocracy is questionable (but there may be something to it). This is a good point that needs to be explored more decisively at some point IMO. ... Safsom: Static/Dynamic and Judicious/Decisive are usually fine. So is Merry/Serious. Result/Process is a bit too easy to distort, I don't see it as realistic My Re

I will be considering: -The Mastermind (INTJ, Contender Rational) -The Architect (INTP, Accommodating Rational) -The Counselor (INFJ, Contender Idealist) -The Healer (INFP, Accommodating Idealist) Levels of fit for particular points: 4 - Yes/strong agreement 3 - Maybe/significant agreement, but some issues 2 - Meh/a lot of problems, but a tiny bit of truth 1 - No/mostly or total disagreement The Mastermind (INTJ, Contender Rational): Mastermind total: -Yes: 1 -Maybe: 11 -Meh: 7 -No: 6 (No)- First of all, I honestly don't like the name "Mastermind".  It sounds like it might attract people who narcissistically want to think of themselves as a mastermind, or that it might push people away who might really resemble the type but wouldn't identify with such a bombastic title. (Maybe)- I do relate to the Mastermind in that I am very inclined to think forward and think about what might go wrong, whether that's in doing a project, the timing of the release, going on a vaca

A loose isomorphism between the introverted Socionics functions and the SHS multi-level model of the Sociotype: type proper, subtype, accentuation, and the moment to moment functional states that could be graphed in a functional profile. Type = L (structural logic), rigid system of functions and structural relationships, strict and unchanging in life Subtype = S (comfort sensorics), semi-stable equilibrium of functions that you grow comfortable with in day to day life, takes a major shake up to retune to new preferences Accentuation = R (relation ethics), attachment and psychological imprint towards certain functional states, only removed by purposefully choosing the opposite Functional States/Profile = T (temporal intuition), constant flux of one state to another, impermanence, tracing a process of subtle patterns in a person’s unique destiny not constrained by structure or attachment, but very complicated

Model G is a model used in the Humanitarian Socionics School, primarily to account for its observations of the Socionics types in a way that may differ from how Model A has traditionally accounted for them (even though Model A has not really been able garner general agreement either). There are other reasons for the model, including some philosophical ideas about energy (as opposed to information socionics) that aren’t as dependent on the fashions of post-Soviet education when Socionics was being formed and that dovetail quite well with the practical approach of SHS. However, I find those reasons are often less relevant than the first more fundamental reason I mentioned (that the model is better at accounting for the observations which is really the level at which descriptive models need to be compared instead of at the level of incommensurable abstractions). Often would be “refuters” of Model G, who don’t have a disposition conducive to thinking with multiple models or to the diffi