Varlawend: Mysteries Among the Stars

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...

What I seek to offer is a specific path towards improving our relationship with our 8th function that tries to transform the nihilism and resignation that can arise in this relationship. Such attitudes of nihilism and resignation can be quite subtle and unconscious rather than overtly intended, especially if you are reflecting attitudes that are quite common in other people. Depth psychology suggests that most people have an unconscious affinity for these negative emotions of nihilism and resignation, including myself . I relate to the pain of the 8th function a lot since it has been cruelly imposed on me, and thus I have a lot of care and empathy towards other people like myself who are struggling with it. I believe the struggle with the 8th function has the potential to be alchemically transformed into psychological gold, and I am unusually sensitive to approaches which don't take it in that direction since I believe I have an accentuation on that aspect of my own 8th function (a...

1st to 1st function: the drive of differentiation, individuation 1st to 3rd function: the drive of assimilation, enantiodromia, compensation 1st to 2nd function, and 1st to 4th function: the drive of acceleration, work, energy 1st to 5th function, and 1st to 7th function: the drive of deceleration, reflection, discharge 1st to 6th function: the erotic drive, the drive of life, vitality, merging 1st to 8th function: the thanatic drive, the drive of death, passivity, decay and renewal

This is a speculative ranking of how common it is for each type in SHS to occur on standard lists of famous figures in the public eye.  With more data, it is possible that slight changes could be made. Virtually Always: EIE Very Common: LSI Common: SLE, SEE, ILI Uncommon: ILE, IEI Rare: ESE, LII, LIE, IEE Almost Never: SEI, ESI, LSE, EII, SLI

This article is out of date! Use this linked article instead! D - Dominant C - Creative N - Normalizing H - Harmonizing Primary - Far-Distance/Goal Subtype Secondary - Close-Distance/Implementation Subtype DD - Relentless Autocrat DC - Resourceful Director DN - Legacy Leader DH - Sacrificial Champion CD - Maverick Pioneer CC - Unconstrained Generator CN - Exploratory Guide CH - Collaborative Innovator ND - Responsible Guardian NC - Perfecting Experimenter NN - Strict Adherent NH - Adjusting Stabilizer HD - Diplomatic Resolver HC - Unconventional Idealist HN - Expert Consultant HH - Receptive Dreamer (descriptions and examples coming eventually) Dominant Primary: DD - Relentless Autocrat DC - Resourceful Director DN - Legacy Leader DH - Sacrificial Champion Creative Primary: CD - Maverick Pioneer CC - Unconstrained Generator CN - Exploratory Guide CH - Collaborative Innovator Normalizing Primary: ND - Responsible Guardian NC - Perfecting Experimen...

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

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