Varlawend: Mysteries Among the Stars

Previously I wrote an article on Dual Subtypes which spurred a lot of thought, but it is out of date and our conception of Complex Subtypes has grown a lot since then. There is a lot of material about this which is private and even more in-depth than what I will share here, but I want to share the basics so that people can build on it as they please and in a more up-to-date way. ... First, some basic subtype descriptions, just for the sake of reminder: Dominant subtype: Terminating, Contacting, Connecting -Formula: PF(E) -Role: Ambitious Hastening Leader -Temperament: Linear-Assertive The dominant subtype is distinguished by the following behaviors in the group: -set to compete -often recognized by others as a leader -sets clear goals and is well focused on them -ambitious, although sometimes claims the opposite -agrees only to temporary compromises -needs victory above all else -behaves decisively in difficult situations, shows high performance, indicates what to do and who is going

In 2016, Arend Hintze, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology & Computer Science and Engineering at Michigan State University, came out with an article about a hierarchy of 4 fundamental types of artificial intelligence . There are other possible frameworks to measure the progress of artificial intelligence and deep learning, but Arend's way happens to line up very well with the 4 dimensions within Model G in Socionics. Victor Gulenko already came up with a variety of basic ideas for what the dimensions mean, and he also came up with very clever ideas for how the functions work (which I will review). Even so, in connection with the ideas of Hintze and other researchers, it is possible for them to be further elucidated and made even more applicable. Ben Vaserlan's Model G Graphic (Victor Gulenko's Ideas of the Functions, for reference) In Model G: - the Launcher and Control functions (to the right of the chart) have 1-dimension - the Role and the Brake functions hav

It is interesting to understand the correlation between typology theories like Enneagram and Socionics, because then we can make some inferences from one to the other. We can also have some insight into possible redundancies or complementation between the theories. I do not believe that Enneagram type has much correlation to the level of sociotype, since sociotype has a great deal of variation. In Humanitarian Socionics, any sociotype is capable of being paired with any subtype or any functional accentuation, but it doesn't give an explanation as to why we are drawn to specific functional accentuations or why those functional accentuations are specifically enduring (except for the fact that it relates to a psychological complex, which is obvious). Enneagram is a deep and dynamic theory of fixations which are more enduring than our SHS subtype or accentuations. An enneagram type is more like a specific archetypal or motivation complex which describes our ability to flexibly flow in

More The list below is simply reorganized from the link above to make it easier to compare tritypes, I'm not claiming credit for anything. 125: The Ethical Scholar, The Know-It-All -512: Simone de Beauvoir, Patti Smith 126: The Advocate Firebrand, The Tyranny of Should -126: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -612: Emma Watson 127: The Spirited Educator, The Virtuous Entertainer -127: Kenneth Copeland -721: Joe Biden 135: The Technocrat, The Meticulous Android -135: Mitch McConnel -153: Greta Thunberg -351: Tim Ferriss -513: Yuval Noah Harari -531: Rooney Mara, Ken Wilber, Tilda Swinton 136: The Drill Sergeant, The Strict Protocol -136: Hillary Clinton -163: Asha Rangappa -316: Megyn Kelly, Nancy Pelosi -361: Sarah Michelle Gellar -613: Gillian Anderson, Jerry Seinfeld -631: Tina Fey, Jennifer Aniston, Kristen Bell, David Tenant, Debra Messing, Eric McCormack, Amy Poehler, Reese Witherspoon, Julie Louis-Dreyfus, Rue McClanahan 137: The Startup, The Symphonic Architect -137: Cate Blanchett, L

https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/trelft/model_g_ili_social_mission_and_subtype_variants/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf There is a lot in this post that I agree with and support, and a lot that I disagree with. The TLDR is that I like your suggestions for developing a subtype in oneself which is undeveloped, and agree with many of the disconnected comments about Critics, but I think there are a fair few errors in how the subtypes are defined and especially in how you conceive of the SHS subtype system.   I mostly agree with your first paragraph, with the exception that ILI’s are particularly unthreatening to large organizations. It’s probably difficult for single people of most types to threaten large organizations, but Critics are one of the most revolutionary types from the perspective of SHS Socionics, so I would say they can threaten them more than most types. Creative Critics can use their convincing sense of irony and cynicism to disenchant