SHS WSS Reddit Discussions
"It also ends up neutering the model to only focus on 'information-as-vocabulary'. It's why Timur leans so heavily on Psycheyoga to explain away behavioural inconsistencies.Jack doesn’t explain in any way here how Timur’s approach neuters Model A by focusing on informational semantics. Psycheyoga is not an attempt to explain away anything in Archetype Center methodology; rather, it is part of the model, saying that the behavior of people is determined by Psychosophy models rather than Socionics models. This is a disagreement which has to be hashed out, not an inherently inferior position.
In my view, information is everything, because we live in the world of the phenomena, not the noumena, so behaviour is information as are words, and ideas, and motivations."
“Information is everything” is a metaphysical viewpoint. It is highly controversial and very difficult to justify compared to the alternatives. It seems pretty disconnected from debates about the details of Socionics or psychology theories, since they may be compatible with many metaphysics, so probably it’s not a very useful thing to focus on here.
"I think accentuation is just cope for "I'm mistyped, and want to get my actual Leading function into my profile by some other means"."There are multiple reasons that this does not make sense as an objection to the concept of functional accentuation.
1. The concept of accentuation is not defined similarly to the “leading function” in any Socionics model. Therefore, it could not serve as such a substitute; instead it proposes something different.
"The nature of the ILE is to grow towards Fe, and away from Te. That's inherent to the growth transition and the Benefit cycles, to move from low-stakes, low-reward Demonstrative, to high-stakes, high-reward Mobilising. While Model G obviously cannot include this concept if the launcher is just an ignition spark, rather than a place of active, concerted growth, Model A can and does. It's not that I'm a 'more theatrical' version of an ILE, it's that all Model A ILEs lean towards the theatrical, and are interested in and grow in Fe, while falling back on Te whenever this attempt at Fe explodes in their face. We absorb facts like we inhale air, and come up with effective solutions with ease, but there is nothing like walking the tightrope of rejection and acceptance with people. ILEs are somewhat of a cross-breed between an LSE and an EIE, in the same way that every EIE is a cross-breed of an ILE and SEE, etc."
I see at least 3 points of concern here:
- The idea that a Sociotype grows only in one direction (from Te to Fe in the case of ILE) is a highly controversial assertion. It’s interesting as a claim, but I wonder what evidence could support it, since none is cited. Jack’s superficial justification is that one should, in general, grow from low stakes, low reward behavior to high stakes, high regard behavior. It is easy to see why this could be a form of growth, but it’s also easy to imagine that a person could engage in excessive high stakes, high reward behavior, and this is exactly what they need to stop doing in order to stop damaging their lives. Therefore, it seems intuitively that growth could happen in both directions here. So unless Jack cites reasoning or evidence to the contrary, his growth model seems quite inflexible and thus potentially less useful than many more flexible models (SHS, Cognitive Type, Objective Personality, etc.)
- The launcher is not just an ignition spark in Model G, though it’s true that one function it performs is similar to that. However, the launcher can actually grow in Model G. One problem it has is excessive inflexibility. While it is posited that it will always be a relatively inflexible function, it needs to grow from its excessive inflexibility, on a fairly regular basis, in order to not get a person into excessive trouble. In Model G, any function could be a place of active growth, which just seems more realistic and superior as a model to the relatively inflexible and less adaptable WSS.
- The gambling, risky behavior Jack describes is actually particular to a certain function within SHS: Opportunity Intuition (Ne). So in emphasizing how important it is for him to gamble and risk (in some respect) and how there is nothing else like it for him, he showcases his social mission as an EIE in SHS, describing the phenomenology of Fe into Ne extremely well. One problem with his model is that he seems to project this particular psychology onto the general case of all people, rendering his model relatively inflexible and dealing with a smaller range of psychologies. It sounds like he offers a great way for an EIE or a creative person to grow. It may not appeal to, or be as rewarding to, another person, who requires a different emphasis. In fact, Jack’s model is probably most useful to SHS EIE’s; a model of how to grow by gambling and risking in various ways and feel a personal fulfillment and rush from this, with fallback options based on individual talents. He may simply not be aware of this.
“Why a Beta and an Aristocrat, no matter the model, if models vary so much?”
I agree with Jack that Jeremy is making an unwarranted assertion. Jack could be a different type in a model that has a different semantics. For example, in Cognitive Type, Jack is pretty much universally agreed to be Gamma or Delta.
“I am somewhat inclined to disagree over Model A not being a homogenous model any more than Model G. People will develop their thoughts on Model G and further fragment, as has been seen with Model A. At the same time, the cause of fragmentation over Model A is largely due to people only selectively using certain parts of the Model, rather than developing it as a whole to see each part in an appropriate context. It has been, until recently not a complete model either, resulting in a lot of dots needing to be joined together, which no one seemed willing to do thoroughly.”
Assuming that Model G will fragment to the same degree could just be wishful speculation for someone who is committed to Model A, but in reality Model G does not have that problem yet to anywhere near the same degree. Model A has many popular interpretations, and none have yet proven superior, which is one area where Model A factually has more problems. It’s not an unsolvable problem, just difficult.
It seems like there are a lot of people who use all the parts of Model A, or at least most of them (to the point that using more would not make a big difference). For example, Dynamic Socionics, Imperative Socionics, etc. Yet, they still come to different interpretations than WSS. So Jack can’t be correct that the problem of different interpretations of Model A reduces to simply not using the mechanical parts of the model. There is a difference in interpretation of empirical evidence and semantics, which Jack and Model A have not yet resolved. People even debate how much of Model A should be used, which is a nontrivial debate.
“I lead a group and a YouTube channel. I have no power or control over anyone, except over membership and content on my group, which I am very hands-off with, and have been for several years. Where people listen to and agree with me, it is because I know typology better than most people and articulate myself well, and have, over time built up a reputation for this. Why assume bad faith of me in not looking to learn? I am, after all, learning from you now, and I have been on Reddit for a few days now, looking to learn more. You say that Model G has been out for several years as if I am supposed to have learnt about its merits by now, but it is clear that it has been evolving and developing since last I engaged with it, and therefore, it behooves me to update myself by interrogating those who know more about it. Only then, can I better ascertain the truth as to whether it is a theory worth recommending to others, or a distraction in the development of Socionics.”
I agree that Jack’s influence is not necessarily unfair by itself, though it’s something to be mindful of for those who are less able to think for themselves. But I still have 2 potential objections here:
- The reason for the assumption of bad faith is that Jack has had low willingness to learn Model G and SHS in the past, which like many topics, requires many hours of independent study, not 2 hour conversations on YouTube. And Jack has been unwilling to do this in the past while being dismissive to others who support Models and approaches that he blithely denigrates. With such behavior, one has to restore trust that discussion will be in good faith rather than with lots of dismissiveness, condescension or power contests. Maybe Jack will succeed in that and I do hope so, but it’s no guarantee.
- While Model G has evolved and developed some, it hasn’t evolved much at all since Jack engaged with it. The only reason he seems to think so is that his own understanding evolved drastically, but he barely researched or understood a significant portion of it at the time he originally engaged with it (partly because we did not even get to that much yet, so it’s not his fault). I agree that it behooves Jack to engage with those that he wants to learn from and maybe it will result in something more fruitful; it can be hoped, at least.
“In the context of Socionics, I am neither entirely conservative nor progressive. To say I object to any progress is to overlook my work in articulating the 6th and 7th information dichotomies, my abandoning of 'conscious/unconscious' in favour of 'public/private' and re-working of multiple other dichotomies, both function and reinin, to make more sense and logically follow on from each other in line with years of practice, and my development of the function interactions and transitions that describe the dynamics of Model A alongside the statics of each IME in each function slot. It is also to overlook my work pioneering practical applications for Socionics, including coaching, assessment for recruitment and promotion, team building, matchmaking and marriage counselling. Model A MUST be revised and improved over time. What I don't instantly appreciate is simply abandoning Model A entirely in favour of a different model unless there is a clear reason for doing so, and the distraction that causes to creating a united base for everyone to build upon. Even then, I will test, prod and poke such people, because I still believe in the possibility that they might be onto something, and if so, I will want to be a part of it, and I will only be able to know this if I exhaust every avenue with them. I thought I had already done so after talking with Ben Vaserlan and Mitchell Newman, but evidently there is more to Model G and SHS to investigate. Ignoring such people is not an option, because what if they are right? That is no way to pursue truth.”
I have 4 potential objections in this case:
- It seems that Jack is progressive within a certain WSS Model A paradigm, but outside of that (i.e. in most cases in typology) can be defined as conservative. Practical applications refer to the application of a given paradigm, not to a progressive openness to new ideas in the first place. In fact, conservatives are arguably more likely to engage in business, and this does not render them progressive.
- While some Model G users may want to abandon Model A, many also respect it as a prospectively valid and potentially useful Model. So Jack’s desire to not abandon Model A is something he shares with many Model G enthusiasts. It’s odd that he perceives a struggle which is mostly not happening.
- Creating a united base for Socionics may not be a useful or constructive goal, as people may have different tastes. Trying to build and promote a larger base for one’s favored approaches is fair enough, but trying to unite too much likely will just lead to overly controlling and divisive behavior. It’s better to acquire all of the empirical evidence and good arguments that you can and let the uniting stem from those naturally.
- It is really odd that Jack thought he exhausted every avenue in learning SHS from several hours long public conversations with Ben Vaserlan or myself. It appears he didn’t approach learning SHS with a realistic mindset to begin with, and I hope this is changing. You can’t understand the concrete value of a model by talking about abstract topics for a few hours; that’s more like a show or a performance, which can be fun and give some orientation, but not enough to compare two entire intellectual paradigms about a topic applied in complex, concrete ways which aren’t self-evident from abstractions alone.
“It is my distaste for division that makes me engage, and the only conflict I seek is the confrontation necessary to get the true value of Model G, if there is any at all, out of you, so that I can know if I should jump on your bandwagon or not and advocate for others to do the same. I want the pursuers of all typology models to bash heads repeatedly until we can work out which model, or which combination of models can best explain human difference and provide real and practical benefits for people that trait theories are unable to provide. At the moment, I still fail to see any value-add to Model G and several red flags in terms of a reliance on non-verbal cues to find core type, the lack of need for the typed to agree with their core type and the use of subtype and accents to make the core type fit, as well as the number of people saying that after 3 years training with a single guru in Gulenko, they still cannot type people well. However, I have yet to rule out the possibility that the lack of visible value to the many differences is just because most people are unable to articulate that value-add to me. The answer lies in me continuing to ask questions of the right people until I find out the WHY behind the model, because the WHAT on its own isn't articulating that value-add.”
I agree with Jack that debate and discussions between the different paradigms are good, as long as they are fruitful, constructive and without unnecessary arrogance. When it’s like that, it will be pleasant and without unnecessary “butting heads”. Maybe we're already moving in that direction. Here are my objections to Jack's supposed "red flags" about SHS or Model G:
- Non-verbal cues are not a red flag inherently. After all, they are a more objective, instrumental methods towards which we should ultimately be striving to have better typology models, moving towards a more scientific approach.
- If there was a need for a typed person to agree with the result of a model, then typology would be reduced to a form of sophisticated subjective validation, similar to “cold reading”. In a more scientific approach, or at least something moving in that direction, type should be based on relatively objective observations and predictions, not the opinion of a person. And ironically, I think this tends to produce more agreement in the grand scheme of things, since it re-orients subjective mindsets to a more impersonal, less biased approach.
- It’s a questionable interpretation that subtypes and accentuations have mainly the purpose to “make the core type fit”. Arguably, this more dynamic aspect of the psyche is as important as the core type itself. And it’s arguably a red flag when a model doesn’t include a more multi-level approach that distinguishes different aspects of the psyche, since it’s just common sense that some aspects of the psyche are more changeable than others.
- I wonder if there is some standard amount of time one should train in any arbitrary method in order to have a high degree of competence. If Jack thinks this should be less than 3 years, then that’s a valid opinion, but to be convincing it should be based on clear evidence.
- That Jack undertakes to judge other people and choose who are the “right people” for some task (articulating SHS), which he doesn’t likely know most of the dimensions of, shows even more of his confidence on relation ethics (R) matters. (EDIT: after talking with Jack about this, it appears that he is also using a lot of L on this point, not just R specifically, so I may have misinterpreted him to some degree, but this is also consistent with his EIE-N diagnosis and how he is often interpreted in SHS as a rather L-oriented EIE so I don’t think it’s “explaining away” anything to make this change). The EIE-N has as part of its task to select people, something an individualistic flexible scientist type like ILE would hardly undertake to judge or do, even in almost any Model A version, so I find it unusual behavior. Instead of focusing on what people can articulate to him without effort on his part, he would be best off focusing on learning as much as he actively can about SHS in the most effective way possible from the resources available and get aid only if he needs some guidance from someone experienced in the method, rather than trying to learn everything in conversation. (EDIT: for the time being, I actually think conversation isn’t a bad way to learn SHS because of limits to availability of materials, and I don’t want to make Jack feel unwelcome to discuss so I didn’t intend for it to come across that way. That said, Gulenko has a lot of older and newer articles out there that are quite good which are helpful for learning the SHS point of view, and there are plenty of good articles by myself and Radigand. That being said, the conversation shouldn’t be this one-sided game of “convince Jack of the value of Model G/SHS”, and it should be more two-sided, like showing people how his interpretation of Model A is better, assuming he thinks so).
“Even your opinion of me being EIE has me chomping at the bit over the prospect of division. You are perfectly allowed to form your opinion, AND it is good that you have found a different perspective to hold, as that creates the opportunity for someone to learn something new, but I intrinsically want to either 1) give you enough information to persuade you of my opinion, or 2) expose myself enough to your thinking that you persuade me to your opinion. I believe in there being one truth, that any of us at any time can be mistaken, and that only through ongoing discussion can we all share in that truth. THAT is progress to me, not splitting off into different theories and becoming siloed.”
On this point I agree with Jack pretty much completely. I can only hope this will really turn out to be case for us all. Though some “division” may be necessary to learn to calmly accept, and Jack may well agree with that.
... ...
“I need to speak more to these people to understand why.
There are criteria for what makes one system objectively better than another, if they are operating within the same field, e.g. human personality and behaviour.
The rules are the following:
1. The theory must be internally consistent, or it is meaningless. Then...
2. It must explain more in the field than any other internally consistent theory available, or, if all else is equal...
3. Explain as much with fewer propositions.”
I largely agree with this approach that Jack proposes. I think it only has two major limitations:
- Two theories may not be better or worse than one another if they explain totally orthogonal aspects of the psyche (aspects which are not related or very minimally related). In this case, they require synthesis (if sufficient enough for the time being) or examination on their own terms (if insufficient for the time being), not hierarchical comparison.
- Criteria 2 is highly non-trivial and needs to be explained in much more detail, otherwise it doesn’t serve as a concrete guide and isn’t useful in its own right.
“Model G is at a disadvantage by criterion 3, because it has subtype and accentuations on top of core type, before factoring in context/emotions in the moment, while Model A just has core type and context. However, if Model G utilises that greater complexity to explain more about the field than Model A, by criterion 2, then it can still be better.
If Model A is able to explain energy, social mission, social adaptivity, and differing dynamics levels of growth and change in just one level of type, no need for subtype or accentuations and then just context, then it is the stronger system instead.”
Just because a theory has more theoretical entities does not mean it has more axiomatic assumptions (entities and assumptions are not the same thing), so I don’t agree Model G has a clear disadvantage on this point. In fact, part of the reason SHS can include subtype and accentuation could be because it assumes fewer things that would restrict these entities from appearing in the theory. We’d have to look only at the core assumptions themselves, not the results of them, to determine which theory has a greater number of axioms. In any case, I agree that criteria 2 seems to be where most of the nontrivial meat of this discussion is at.
“If the underlying type is real and useful, then it needs to be articulated, and new profiles written that are less anecdotal but emanate directly from the theory.”
Anecdotal descriptions are largely not useful, so agree that this is a fair criticism of SHS. I think SHS descriptions should be more abstract and phenomenological.
“I think type remains the same from birth, or else type is not the right lens to look at the phenomenon (my main criticism of subtype), but I think that type is a very open space in which one can go through all sorts of phases and developments within the confines of what is logically possible.”
That’s not actually a possible criticism of subtype. In fact, many models which use subtype would agree that type doesn’t change. Subtype would in many ways be a theory of change within type, unless it’s seen as absolutely static, which is rare. Saying that type is just a wide open space just seems like not even having a theory about intratype variation yet, while admitting it exists. It suggests a lack of examination of the phenomenon; if after examining, no patterns are found, then it suppose it could be more legitimate as a decisive perspective, but this is contrary to what almost anyone has found.
“Nothing cowardly about me calling you out in public whilst you hide in anonymity.”
I agree that it’s not cowardly to call out someone who anonymously attacks, which is unfortunately common these days.
“1. Energy allocation and efficiency in information metabolism are intrinsic to dimensionality in Model A. Model G differentiates energy metabolism as a whole separate thing. Model A successfully integrates it into information metabolism. Occam's rasor.”
Energy allocation sounds like a particular interpretation of Model A dimensionality which has rarely been agreed upon and certainly hasn’t been proven superior to other interpretations. It also sounds potentially very rigid, if it’s based on “dimensionality”. Efficiency in IM may well be a more typical interpretation of Model A, or at least consistent with it. Model G is mainly a theory of energy metabolism, without a focus on information metabolism, since IM hasn’t proven necessary or useful to the types and aspects of psychology and behavior about which Model G theorizes (though this might change). Whether Model A successfully integrates energy metabolism into IM is completely unproven, and in this case, it’s even unclear why the two should be integrated in this sense. Occam’s Razor is hard to apply here because not much is being clearly claimed or proven.
“2. Many Model A practitioners have incorporated VI but that is no improvement unless you have empirically established a connection between physical appearance and personality. If anything it's a major disadvantage to have a dodgy and unsupported typing methodology. A big warning sign that a typing methodology is dodgy is when people can't then relate to the results they are given. Model G has that problem in spades.”
It is unquestionably a major disadvantage to have a dodgy and unsupported typing methodology. VI seems like an outdated, substandard version of a system of more flexible and well-correlated non-verbal signals, which can be at least as well supported as other typing methods nonetheless. If people in general couldn’t relate to the results they are given for a model in general, maybe it could indicate something. That’s hardly true of Model G though; in fact, most people tend to agree with Victor’s conclusions, if they use his diagnostic service.
“3. My work on Model A has successfully defined all 11 Reinin dichotomies. They all work and detailed in Module 3 of my course. In contrast, so much is changed in Model G that the interlinkages used to define the Reinin dichotomies no longer exist. For example, how do you get to Emotivist/Constructivist without a concept of Inert/Contact? The Reinin dichotomies arise out of Model A, not G, which needs a whole different set of 15 type dichotomies.”
What does it mean to successfully define something? Just because we think it’s successfully defined, is that good enough? It seems like it’s important to put out our definitions publicly and subject them to scrutiny, otherwise it’s hard to even take them seriously to begin with. I understand the need to have courses or some kind of business model, but keeping material behind paywalls is something Jack and Victor both do too much IMO and should at least be working towards doing it less IMO. Model G does have a concept of Inert/Contact, and in fact such Reinin dichotomies can be easily defined in Model G as well. Model A is actually mathematically incomplete, and only with Model G is it possible to reveal the full mathematical structure of Socionics, as Ibrahim Tencer proved a long time ago when he showed mathematically that the system of Reinin dichotomies is just one of two arbitrary alternative dichotomy systems. The Tencer dichotomies which he discovered arise naturally only out of Model G, though he did not even realize this when he discovered it, and it took my investigations into the mathematics to realize this. So Model G is able to work with Reinin dichotomies and Tencer dichotomies, making it more mathematically complete than any current version of Model A. In reality, I still think it’s best to use both models, since our understanding of the psyche is not yet complete.
“4. Where is the evidence thar Model G types people more accurately? The only way to test that is to get people to read profiles, which Model G practitioners reject as irrelevant. In doing so, falsifiability is avoided. Come up with a way to falsify the explanatory power of Model G as a prerequisite of being taken seriously. Model A practitioners put stock in writing general descriptions of the types that people can agree or disagree with (and nearly always they agree). The only real reason people don't like profiles in Model G is because it cannot return a similar agreement rate, so instead of changing the methodology you ditch the falsifiability.”
Well, there are many other ways to get evidence that a model types more accurately:
- Internal consistency
- Consistency with other bodies of facts and knowledge
- More reliable predictions of real life behavior
- High levels of double blind agreement between practitioners
- Instrumental methods (which are mostly beyond us at this point)
Profiles and "descriptions" are inadequate for this task since they would reduce typology to subjective validation and opinion, as opposed to objective analysis. Personality profiles are about as far as it gets from scientific falsifiability criteria and would probably be laughed at from that perspective by serious scientists; what is needed for true science is clear, objective claims that can be tested and evaluated consistently and instrumentally without regard for subjective opinion. And at this point, there is no evidence that people tend to agree more with Model A personality profiles than Model G profiles anyways.
“5. The existence of uneven type distributions, without a convincing rationale, is a mark against Model, G not for it. It is a sign of skew that can only be remedied by showing the uneven distributions changing in a predictable way for different populations. There is no way of it being an advantage unless the conclusion is already presumed to be true. It's like a person of dubious height and Napoleon complex saying "I know my magic mirror is more accurate at reflecting reality than a regular mirror because it makes me look 6ft 5".”
The type distribution can’t be an argument for or against a Socionics model. Assuming any type distribution a priori is pretty much completely unwarranted; a type distribution must be established empirically. Assuming it’s a disadvantage already assumes another type distribution to be true a priori, which is fallacious and anti-scientific. To say one type distribution is better than another a priori is like saying “I think people are who are 5ft 9inches are better than people who are 6ft 4inches since the latter are too tall and weird”. It’s a totally arbitrary argument.
“There is a reason western approaches didn't incorporate VI, because it leads to bad typing accuracy with typings that fail to describe people's actual personalities.”
For some versions of what is typically called VI, like typing people confidently from one still picture, it’s close to useless, I would agree. Worse, there is almost never any justification for it. That is what VI is typically understood to be.
“Accentuations are an extra layer of unnecessary complexity that render the type less falsifiable. So again, not an improvement.”
It’s debatable whether they are unnecessary complexity or real complexity. After all, they aren’t even originally Victor’s theory, but that of real psychiatrists like Karl Leonhard and Andrei Lichko. Thus, character accentuations already have more evidence than Model A in some ways. There is also no argument that they render type less falsifiable; this seems like a random claim without reason.
“Te in Model A is about how attention to reliable fact gathering and analysis leads to greater productivity in action. Te in Model G is hardly that different. Fi is pretty different.”
Te in Model G is extremely different from Western Socionics Te, and I would say the Model G version of Te is much more internally consistent. Te in Model G is not about fact gathering or analysis; that is more like structural logic behavior (combined with an irrational function) which is subject to analysis and looking for more and more information to make even more informed and "perfect" decisions. SHS P is more about moving towards a goal quickly, productiveness, making fast decisions and not overthinking. Excessive fact gathering and analysis are obstacles to productivity, and P really dislikes wasting time on it, expecting results quickly and at a faster pace. It is arguable that since the WSS version of Te includes perfectionistic gathering of information which serves as a potential obstacle to quick action and productivity, that the WSS version of Te includes concepts which are inconsistent in real life.
“MBTI Te in contrast is about imposing structure through organisation. It is basically Socionics Ti+Se.
It seems to me you're parroting snippets of things you've heard about Model A without understanding it.”
That may well be so and fits pretty well. Though it could also fit Socionics Te in some ways, depending on the model, since Te could serve as an active organizer or an organizer of a methodology, which involves some amount of organizational imposition. For the last part I have no comment.
“What are some examples of my cowardice? Evidently an ill-mannered internet troglodyte like yourself has accumulated a large selection to draw from.”
I would say one possible example of Jack’s “cowardice” is how he tends to avoid responding to or reflecting on detailed arguments which prove his points wrong, often leaving the discussion when someone gives him a detailed counterargument.
That might work as a short term tactic, but it’s potentially cowardly and ineffective as a long term strategy since ignoring things tends to pile up into surprises like “wow Model G is more popular and successful than I was ready to acknowledge”. It wouldn’t have been that surprising if he didn’t ignore so much to begin with. Maybe it’s not fair for me to judge him personally, but at the very least his approach does seem flawed in this regard.
“1. Energy metabolism is not an idea Gulenko came up with actually. It is how we digest food into physical activity and is a concept that has long existed in biology but has no place in psychology. In contrast, information metabolism is Kepinski's idea of how we convert acquired information into our decisions actions. The role of energy and how it supports Information metabolism (because all processes require energy) is covered by the 3 function dichotomies associated with dimensionality, which are Bold/Cautious, Strong/Weak, and Evaluatory/Situational. The first denotes supply of energy to the particular function. The second denotes efficiency in use of that energy by the function. The third is derived from the first and second, denoting the consistency of function activation.”
Energy metabolism has far more potential subjects in its purview than food digestion, which is just a reductionistic understanding that is even potentially inconsistent with a more holistic understanding of the human organism and its consciousness. EM also relates to psychological energy and more abstract concepts in SHS. SHS EM could certainly be said to connect with and operate continuously with the standard biophysical interpretation. The idea that it has no place in psychology is absurd since it would imply that psychology has no connection to biology, which is unrealistic and siloed, like two typology models "just doing their own thing" which Jack dislikes in the first place. He shouldn't be willing to think that way about psychology and biology either; they can't be majorly inconsistent with one another.
If Bold/Cautious describes the amount of energy flow to a function by itself, then this is a quite inflexible, potentially unrealistic model which is incapable of describing much more complex energy flows which exist in the psyche and the body. It even seems prima facie unrealistic from a Model A perspective that the Role function is allocated the same amount of energy as the Program and Mobilizing functions. The efficiency claim is more plausible, but it seems suspicious since it’s doubtful that we would be as efficient with unvalued functions which we don’t even pay as much attention to. It’s very unclear how consistency of function activation would be derived from these energetic dimensions, so that also needs to be explained for Jack's Model A account of energy to be plausible.
“2. The burden of proof for VI is huge. Look at the work being done by CT, and in the past by Pod'lair just to create a methodology, and even that was insufficient because they could not then establish criterion validity between that method and the types they were trying to identify via that method. You would need a very large sample size, and to consistently type participants by 1) the proposed VI method, and 2) an independent, commonly accepted method, such as an interview or questionnaire. Then, you'd need to see if the VI method matches up consistently with the more traditional method. Until you do that, you cannot rely on VI to type people, and it's irresponsible to do so without continually backing up your typings by looking at conventional data alongside it. Furthermore, the lack of people agreeing with their typings in the west (not that there is any evidence it has been more successful in the east) has got nothing to do with 'type images'. If you strip away the type names and just present people with their profiles in Model G without limiting assumptions of what any type is supposed to be, people still don't tend to relate to them. However, in Model A, many people who are otherwise naive to Socionics, from all over the world, have been typed and presented with profiles that eerily describe them. The response of some Model G practitioners is to denounce the sharing of profiles, removing any expectation that they even be accurate, and then saying you need multiple layers more complexity with subtype and accentuation before you can expect people to maybe relate to a description of them. That is an admission of failure, given we have no such issue with Model A profiles that achieves greater explanatory power for people without extra layers of unnecessary complexity.”
VI is a bad way of thinking about nonverbal signals, but a broader, more flexible system of nonverbal signals can indeed be verified to relate to psychology in a few ways.
- If the proposed visual signals predict objective patterns (like career choice, relationships, etc.)
- As Jack mentioned, correlating it to the results of traditional diagnostic methodology
- Relating nonverbal signals to difficult to dispute or previously confirmed scientific phenomena
As I understand it, CT has done a lot of that and has multiple studies to show for it. This puts them significantly ahead of most other typological models in evidence. True, without this, using mainly physical methods of typing people can be criticized for superficiality, though physical patterns of people can be interestingly categorized by themselves as well (but it’s very limited without further proofs and connections relating it to psychology).
The idea that people don’t relate to their types in Model G is just baseless, or based on a few biased cases. The only thing there isn’t evidence for in that regard is that people relate more to their Model A type. There are absolutely not yet any studies, statistics or unbiased body of people which prove the claim that Model A has performed better in “relatability”, and there may well never be.
It is true, nonetheless, that people often relate to their subtype or accentuations as much or more than their type. This is sensible in the theory because the type is more subconscious and shows through in behavior, whereas subtypes and accentuations are more consciously performed or are the subject of personal obsessions, respectively.
There is certainly no admission of failure on the part of Model G or SHS. After all, they seem more successful and widely embraced on Reddit than more limited and inflexible Western Socionics methods, which are falling behind in some areas. Many people think Western Socionics isn’t even internally consistent, and I tend to be of that view myself. It’s full of red flags such as:
-Te being fact gathering about anything
-Panjungianism, a position that many consider to be obviously implausible
-A smug attitude that sometimes causes a feeling of not needing to understand other approaches to typology
-Lack of fundamental changes or developments (since that is what real science tends to look like, whereas religion tends to look more like the rigid conservatism and chosen attitude that one see in Western Socionics), etc.
Those are just potential flaws at a superficial level, without rigorous criticism or examination.
“3. I went back through the Reinin dichotomies and re-defined a lot of them because their original definitions didn't follow from the more foundational material they were mathematically deduced from. For instance, the conventional definition of Tactical/Strategic actually is the opposite in some ways of what it would make sense for the intersection of Inert/Contact with iNtuition/Sensation. That had to be changed for the Reinin dichotomy to be useable and not result in contradictory typings from those who just focused more on functions and elements, and those who relied on such Reinin dichotomies as shortcuts. Information on these Reinin dichotomies and how to use them is all provided in my course, not that you are likely to purchase it.”
It’s fair enough to redefine the Reinin dichotomies, and in many ways Jack mirrors Gulenko a lot in this regard, who redefined his own versions of the Reinin dichotomies (though Gulenko seems to have based more of it empirically than Jack) and pretty much inverted Tactical/Strategic. Jack also mirrors Gulenko in using paywalls. It might be a good business decision, but it limits openness to challenge, and I wish both would develop more flexible business models which didn’t present an obstacle to the circulation of their teachings.
“4. The way to tell if what you are doing is accurate or not is to ask the people you've typed. Only when I've managed to find a type with a person that we both feel explains their motivations can I say that I have typed someone accurately, and I have a high achievement rate of that. In contrast, the practice of Model G people is to not care whether people agree with their typings or not. That is what people on here have explicitly told me. As far as they are concerned, it does not matter if you relate to your core type, and indeed, you aren't expected to even be able to see your core type. Only a highly trained Model G practitioner can REALLY know who you are at your core. It's a nonsensical, gaslighting cope if you ask me.”
Asking people you typed is a method that is VERY poor in objectivity. Going through a typing process, especially with someone authoritative trying to convince one they are a certain type, is full of biases like cold reading, Pygmalion effect, personal rapport, and more. The only way to confirm it would be objective analysis away from charisma, instrumental methods and people totally not involved in Socionics. So I think Jack is wrong that this is a good way to tell how one is doing; by that logic, certain versions of astrology and law of attraction might well be superior to Socionics.
Further, it’s a flawed idea to suggest that type is motivation. If type is only conscious motivation, then it misses the unconscious mind (which contains all the motivations a person is unaware of), which is the much larger part of our psyche than the conscious mind. A person can only agree with the conscious, and the unconscious is something they would have to learn to observe and that is a messy process. Of course, no typology model understands all of it, but some of it comes out in subtle behaviors which can be observed and predicted. As Jung said, we are what we do, not what we say we'll do, so words and self-reports can never be a decisive factor in how good a typology model is.
It’s false that using Model G involves not caring whether people relate to their types. Any good interviewer would establish rapport with their clients and make an effort to make them feel comfortable and understanding of the result. It is true that whether one agrees with their core type or not is no proof of whether it is correct or not, since whether someone “relates to” something is just subjective validation. It’s true that much of the activity of the core type is subconscious, but if one is objectively minded, they can learn to see many aspects of how it operates, and some people can already see it from the start due to comments from others over the course of their life, or their own rigorous self-examination.
I wouldn’t say only a Model G practitioner can know “who you are”, since who you are is probably more than just your Model G type, which just refers to a portion of systematic activities in your psyche and behavior. The advantage of expertise is that it grants one much more experience in spotting patterns and behaviors unavailable to most untrained eyes, but these patterns can be shown to people and be very evocative and convincing (often in part because of how undeniable yet surprising they are).
“5. That is a rationale for influential, power-oriented figures (although a linear-step-by-step thought process applies to LSI and SEE, not EIE and ILI according to Gulenko). Maybe you have not noticed, but the WSS Famous Benchmark has way more EIEs and SLEs (Gulenko tends to type these as SEEs) typed than types like IEE or LSE, so differences in distribution are to be expected among world leaders and people who pursue fame and impact. However, that is NOT a rationale for the general population or even the typology population, which is the population I had in mind when making this point. We're a bunch of internet-based geeks, not power-hungry histrionics, and the overwhelming number of EIEs and LSIs even in this context amounts to an unjustifiable skew. In contrast, WSS shows a distribution of types that changes with context. In the typology community, we see many more LIIs and IEIs being typed, compared to the EIE and SLE dominated world of fame, fashion and power.
So I will answer your question... the evidence that WSS doesn't have an unjustifiable skew in typings is that whatever disproportionality we find changes in predictable ways according to the characteristics of the population we are looking at. In contrast, Model G preserves disproportionality towards EIE and LSI, and secondarily towards SEE and ILI regardless of context. That speaks to a measurement error, not moving beyond assumptions of fair distribution.”
Detailed thinking applies to all right-spinning types; linearity is hardly the only advantage one could have in a central setting.
There’s no evidence that having a relatively large amount of EIE’s and LSI’s in the general population is an unjustifiable “skew”, and significant evidence that it’s accurate:
- Stereotypes of the male gender correspond exactly to the SHS LSI, and stereotypes of the female gender correspond exactly to the SHS EIE. That wouldn’t be the case if they weren’t statistically suspected to be more like that due to mass observation accumulating into predictable archetypes.
- Statistical studies from certain Socionics websites also seem consistent with EIE’s and LSI’s and Beta quadra in general being more prominent in the study of Socionics than other quadras.
It’s also false to suggest that SHS type distribution doesn’t shift based on context. Overwhelming amounts of EIE and LSI are only among famous figures. Among regular people, they are relatively common, but most people have a different type nonetheless (perhaps by a fairly large margin). I may explore more of the statistics of this soon.
Rather, I would argue that the shift in WSS distribution is not only unsurprising, but uninteresting, and could suggest that the model is influenced too much by assumptions of various professions or hobbies. But without examining it in more detail, I can’t say that I think it’s wrongly oriented.
... ...
Look forward to more possible responses in the future!
Also, apologies is the formatting is less than ideal; I can work on it later if need be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Ithaldir, I agree with what you said completely. I think we should learn the best of these typologies and sort out the wheat from the chaff as thoroughly as possible. I'd strongly encourage getting typed by Victor Gulenko; his conclusions are typically quite insightful. I also love OPS; I think it does a better job than any other typology system in pointing out the "voids" we leave which is very useful for self-development. And I also think Model A is a nice model too; I just don't like when it's dismissive to other potentially useful models and approaches.
DeleteYeah I like being a sort of "polymath" of models, it's quite fun to explore commonalities between radically different systems, while also finding truths unique to each. I'm hoping to get typed by Dr. G over the next couple of months, adding another to my collection of types. Have you been following up with the OPS social type addition? I haven't researched it in depth but I think there's some interesting potential there as well; I would guess I'm a 2 or a 4 in that system, though I can't say for sure. Maybe my favorite element of OPS is its lack of the pretense a lot of other typologies tend to have, in that Dave and Shan pool not only Jungian ideas but also things like Tony Robbins' human needs. It's a very fresh perspective and I could make an argument that my type there reflects my core persona of at least as well as Model A of Socionics.
DeleteIn any case...keep up these posts, I really think one of the elements hindering Model G's perception by Model A ardents is its relative obscurity, but your blog has been a boon in my introduction to Model G.
I have heard about the Social type of OPS. It seems like they are going a route similar to DCNH in SHS. Personally, I'd relate most to being a 3. And I agree that they are quite frank and down-to-earth in how they speak which is refreshing.
DeleteI can see that parallel too, especially with how each person hypothetically has a stacking of the four social types. There's probably some parallels between the social types and DCNH types themselves, I can definitely imagine a connection between the Dominant subtype and social type 1, but I haven't really gotten too deep into the weeds to further that assertion.
DeleteI submitted a video for SHS typing, it seems that I won't get the second set of questions until August but I'm looking forward to my result!