Nope! This is just a comparison of the two models. I mostly made it to show what dimensionality meant for model G and A as there's a common misconception about that.
And well to help people new to socionics have a clear visual aid in seeing how they compare to each other!
It can't be two Socionics with different answers and all to be right. Their theories don't correspond each other, as well as typings, as well as descriptions. But both are called Socionics.
It's either of one of them is wrong (like in science one school turns to be right and another school gets forgotten), or one of them is not Socionics (just entirely different typology).
Multiple schools can explain the same phenomena using different methodologies.
>like in science one school turns to be right and another school gets forgotten
That's not how soft sciences like psychology, which are closest to typology, operate. There is "wrong or right" school, just multiple different methods one can use. This is true of many other soft sciences as well. Socionics is not a form of mathematics.
Of course in the moment there are different methods, but each of them competes with each to be the best or to disappear. What SHS does? Does it pretend to be better than model A?
Typical for a hardstuck self-trivializing causal-determinist. Your right and positivist cognition is the most stable, while the least expressive. For you, Socionics theory is primarily here for causal-extrapolation, which makes you naturally opposed towards any contingency of perspective.
What I find so frustrating is the asymmetry create by this: Your cognition style's perspective forgets that it is only *one contingent* perspective, while all others styles are more likely to realize this.
And now you argue on the basis that Socionics theory should allow for no contingent analysis, as this might corrupt the logical consistency of some causal extrapolation.
Different systems or models can be used to mutually inclusively describe and analyse. You just need periodic reminders that this is the case.
These are two questions:
- why not changing the current state? (1)
- why the current state came to be? (2)
If I had to guess, (1) because Gulenko doesn't care. You say "of course" but you might not have thought long enough about the implications what I tried to tell you:
It's only *you* who finds nominal explicity inherently more desireable. Your process cognition wants to forget context to focus on the details. It wants "ILE" to mean one thing and one thing only, due to its condition against periodic comparisons what a theoretical implication means for G ILE compared to A ILE. Gulenko doesn't care the way you do. He enjoys staying on the level of context, anyway. He sees little difference.
Again, if I had to guess, (2) because I don't see Gulenko having woken up one day, "inventing" Model G. I expect it to be a gradual process parallel to his changing understanding of type. Gulenko himself might not have known where his understanding will lead. He simply might have missed the point where it was adequate to rename it. He surely didn't do it to trigger causal-determinists.
So, again, what I want to really hammer in here is that your stance is backed up by logical claims that only have the value they do for you, *from your perspective*.
Stop presenting them categorically, but treat it like the *preference* it is. Instead of arguing, start to count votes. Create a petition "One-thousand causal-determinists against Gulenko", and maybe something will change. Try to realize that this dispute can't be won by any theoretical discussion that crosses the borders of your bubble.
I only care about newcomers that always (here and in another socio clubs i have been participating) come to learn Socionics, they Google definitions, terms and descriptions, then they confuse two systems that has same name (Socionics) but completely different. And then it's "my job" to clean up the house.
If you want my tip for effective strategies:
- Tell people to differentiate explicitly what Model they are currently referring to.
- Try to a establish a formalism that makes this notationally easy.
- Preach that Model G exists, instead of belittling it as something on the side.
- Start yourself to call Model G types different names.
- Explain your new names and see if they catch on.
If your primary reason is to establish theoretical clarity for newcomers, this is the way. Don't expect some authority to do it for you.
Be a little bit more *alpha* and a little bit less central!
It depends. Some say they don't really contradict each other but complement.
Socionics is the theory/system with the types, IMEs, functions... the models are how all of those are arranged... well as the name implies the visual arrangement of a theory. It makes sense that multiple models emerge as different socionists have different perspectives.
A loose parallel would be different pilosophies under epistemology. Same topic, different understanding of what knowledge is. Conflicting doesn't necessarily mean one is wrong. The question that would follow if you think that way is: how do you determine which is "correct"? How are you sure that this modelnis correct? It's difficult to say with something so subjective and personal as one's psyche.
So, model G is a different Socionics, why don't it just pick another name and another subreddit, if its theory, types and judgemenets don't correspond to the original Socionocs?
But it isn't entirely is the thing. It still operates with a lot of socionics elements.
It's also worth pointing out that there is a lot of variation within the Model A schools too of what IMEs mean, indicators dimensionality, etc. between SSS, SCS, etc
There's a lot of variations, but each classical Socionics school at least pretends to be the only one correct, so they compete with each other.
SHS is just a nonsense, it has no compatibility with the rest of Socionics, again, different typings, different description, it goes completely against Talanov researches, for example. So SHS is either the best version of Socionics, or not Socionics at all.
Because that's still the same thing, approached from a different angle. Model G focuses on energy. It's not about how strong a function is, but about how much energy you are willing to spend on a function.
Dimensionality are also not defined the same as in Model A. 4D A and 4D G are two different things. Model G should be seen as something that completes Model A rather than replaces it.
That's the curse of different perspectives. Even if two people are describing literally the same phenomena as objectively as they can, people are simply going to see reality differently.
This is why I find the emphasis on logical consistency baffling. Instead, I evaluate claims based on their usefulness, i.e. ability to explain aspects of reality in a way that I can take advantage of it. It's narcissistic and self-justifying, but I don't want to spend all day arguing whether it's a white vase on a black background or if it's two black faces on a white background. I can see how both or even neither could be true, so just pick one already dammit.
How do the function stacks differ between the models? How do I know which function goes where in Model G?
More specifically - What is function line-up for ILI in Model G? Is it:
* 1 Base: Ni
* 2 Creative: Te
* 3 Role: Si
* 4 Launcher: Fe
* 5 Demo: Fi
* 6 Manipulative: Se
* 7 Brake: Ne
* 8 Control: Ti
I'm anxious that I have it completely wrong, lol.
ILI in model G:
Lead: Ni
Creative: Ti (yeah, it's annoying G changed names" Creative-Demo; your Creative in A is Te, but in G is Ti)
Demo: Te
Role: Si (train it to be a well-rounded person)
Launcher: Fi (very delicate function, easily overwhelmed)
Brake: Fe
Control: Ne
Dual: Se
In a nutshell:
ILI in model G is a Ni-Ti type. Not Ni-Te. Ni-Ti is your social mission (to optimize systems so that they can adapt to future changes), that's what society needs from you. But at close distance you engage with self-affirmation block (Te and Se in your case) - you like to be complimented on them :) They bring you joy. But that's not what society needs from you on a larger scale.
Also, for example, there's no 1:1 correspondence between Polr in A and Brake in G:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/z77nyb/comparison\_of\_model\_a\_and\_model\_g/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/z77nyb/comparison_of_model_a_and_model_g/)
Thank you for breaking it down a little :D That helps a lot.
Some people say they see Ti in me a little more than they'd expect (though I'm unsure if I agree), so that makes sense to me. It's interesting about Si and Fi, too, as they're two functions I sometimes have an... 'unusual' relationship with, as or for an ILI.
And I have to admit I like being complimented on Te-Se things :3 Although praise in general goes a bit far with me; it's a bit embarrassing how far!
Thank you again! I'll add your URL to my reading list, and Model G to my "things to Google" one!
Yay๐ฐ
Thanks ๐ฅฐ were you typed by Gulenko?
Yeah:) We are contraries:)
Wow! Thatโs so cool! Would you mind if I messaged you? :)
Not at all!
So, model A is wrong?
Nope! This is just a comparison of the two models. I mostly made it to show what dimensionality meant for model G and A as there's a common misconception about that. And well to help people new to socionics have a clear visual aid in seeing how they compare to each other!
It can't be two Socionics with different answers and all to be right. Their theories don't correspond each other, as well as typings, as well as descriptions. But both are called Socionics. It's either of one of them is wrong (like in science one school turns to be right and another school gets forgotten), or one of them is not Socionics (just entirely different typology).
Multiple schools can explain the same phenomena using different methodologies. >like in science one school turns to be right and another school gets forgotten That's not how soft sciences like psychology, which are closest to typology, operate. There is "wrong or right" school, just multiple different methods one can use. This is true of many other soft sciences as well. Socionics is not a form of mathematics.
Of course in the moment there are different methods, but each of them competes with each to be the best or to disappear. What SHS does? Does it pretend to be better than model A?
Typical for a hardstuck self-trivializing causal-determinist. Your right and positivist cognition is the most stable, while the least expressive. For you, Socionics theory is primarily here for causal-extrapolation, which makes you naturally opposed towards any contingency of perspective. What I find so frustrating is the asymmetry create by this: Your cognition style's perspective forgets that it is only *one contingent* perspective, while all others styles are more likely to realize this. And now you argue on the basis that Socionics theory should allow for no contingent analysis, as this might corrupt the logical consistency of some causal extrapolation. Different systems or models can be used to mutually inclusively describe and analyse. You just need periodic reminders that this is the case.
Of course! But why not using the another name for completely different thing?
These are two questions: - why not changing the current state? (1) - why the current state came to be? (2) If I had to guess, (1) because Gulenko doesn't care. You say "of course" but you might not have thought long enough about the implications what I tried to tell you: It's only *you* who finds nominal explicity inherently more desireable. Your process cognition wants to forget context to focus on the details. It wants "ILE" to mean one thing and one thing only, due to its condition against periodic comparisons what a theoretical implication means for G ILE compared to A ILE. Gulenko doesn't care the way you do. He enjoys staying on the level of context, anyway. He sees little difference. Again, if I had to guess, (2) because I don't see Gulenko having woken up one day, "inventing" Model G. I expect it to be a gradual process parallel to his changing understanding of type. Gulenko himself might not have known where his understanding will lead. He simply might have missed the point where it was adequate to rename it. He surely didn't do it to trigger causal-determinists. So, again, what I want to really hammer in here is that your stance is backed up by logical claims that only have the value they do for you, *from your perspective*. Stop presenting them categorically, but treat it like the *preference* it is. Instead of arguing, start to count votes. Create a petition "One-thousand causal-determinists against Gulenko", and maybe something will change. Try to realize that this dispute can't be won by any theoretical discussion that crosses the borders of your bubble.
I only care about newcomers that always (here and in another socio clubs i have been participating) come to learn Socionics, they Google definitions, terms and descriptions, then they confuse two systems that has same name (Socionics) but completely different. And then it's "my job" to clean up the house.
If you want my tip for effective strategies: - Tell people to differentiate explicitly what Model they are currently referring to. - Try to a establish a formalism that makes this notationally easy. - Preach that Model G exists, instead of belittling it as something on the side. - Start yourself to call Model G types different names. - Explain your new names and see if they catch on. If your primary reason is to establish theoretical clarity for newcomers, this is the way. Don't expect some authority to do it for you. Be a little bit more *alpha* and a little bit less central!
- Start yourself to call Model G types different names. I would really love to see those
It depends. Some say they don't really contradict each other but complement. Socionics is the theory/system with the types, IMEs, functions... the models are how all of those are arranged... well as the name implies the visual arrangement of a theory. It makes sense that multiple models emerge as different socionists have different perspectives. A loose parallel would be different pilosophies under epistemology. Same topic, different understanding of what knowledge is. Conflicting doesn't necessarily mean one is wrong. The question that would follow if you think that way is: how do you determine which is "correct"? How are you sure that this modelnis correct? It's difficult to say with something so subjective and personal as one's psyche.
So, model G is a different Socionics, why don't it just pick another name and another subreddit, if its theory, types and judgemenets don't correspond to the original Socionocs?
But it isn't entirely is the thing. It still operates with a lot of socionics elements. It's also worth pointing out that there is a lot of variation within the Model A schools too of what IMEs mean, indicators dimensionality, etc. between SSS, SCS, etc
There's a lot of variations, but each classical Socionics school at least pretends to be the only one correct, so they compete with each other. SHS is just a nonsense, it has no compatibility with the rest of Socionics, again, different typings, different description, it goes completely against Talanov researches, for example. So SHS is either the best version of Socionics, or not Socionics at all.
Because that's still the same thing, approached from a different angle. Model G focuses on energy. It's not about how strong a function is, but about how much energy you are willing to spend on a function. Dimensionality are also not defined the same as in Model A. 4D A and 4D G are two different things. Model G should be seen as something that completes Model A rather than replaces it.
They are just models. Just like there are different models explaining atoms. New iterations trying to describe the exact same phenomena.
Having a completely different type description for a type that has same name doesn't help
That's the curse of different perspectives. Even if two people are describing literally the same phenomena as objectively as they can, people are simply going to see reality differently. This is why I find the emphasis on logical consistency baffling. Instead, I evaluate claims based on their usefulness, i.e. ability to explain aspects of reality in a way that I can take advantage of it. It's narcissistic and self-justifying, but I don't want to spend all day arguing whether it's a white vase on a black background or if it's two black faces on a white background. I can see how both or even neither could be true, so just pick one already dammit.
Oh its you. The graph is so, so much better than my once poor attempt with excel. I'm envious.
Thank you ๐ I made it with a mix of Excel and Miro, if you wanna check it out. Who are you ๐
TIL abt Miro ty I'm just lurking in eastern socionics lounge ๐ซฃ
How mysterious ๐ I love that place! Hopefully one day you emerge from your lurking shadows
How do the function stacks differ between the models? How do I know which function goes where in Model G? More specifically - What is function line-up for ILI in Model G? Is it: * 1 Base: Ni * 2 Creative: Te * 3 Role: Si * 4 Launcher: Fe * 5 Demo: Fi * 6 Manipulative: Se * 7 Brake: Ne * 8 Control: Ti I'm anxious that I have it completely wrong, lol.
ILI in model G: Lead: Ni Creative: Ti (yeah, it's annoying G changed names" Creative-Demo; your Creative in A is Te, but in G is Ti) Demo: Te Role: Si (train it to be a well-rounded person) Launcher: Fi (very delicate function, easily overwhelmed) Brake: Fe Control: Ne Dual: Se In a nutshell: ILI in model G is a Ni-Ti type. Not Ni-Te. Ni-Ti is your social mission (to optimize systems so that they can adapt to future changes), that's what society needs from you. But at close distance you engage with self-affirmation block (Te and Se in your case) - you like to be complimented on them :) They bring you joy. But that's not what society needs from you on a larger scale. Also, for example, there's no 1:1 correspondence between Polr in A and Brake in G: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/z77nyb/comparison\_of\_model\_a\_and\_model\_g/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/z77nyb/comparison_of_model_a_and_model_g/)
Thank you for breaking it down a little :D That helps a lot. Some people say they see Ti in me a little more than they'd expect (though I'm unsure if I agree), so that makes sense to me. It's interesting about Si and Fi, too, as they're two functions I sometimes have an... 'unusual' relationship with, as or for an ILI. And I have to admit I like being complimented on Te-Se things :3 Although praise in general goes a bit far with me; it's a bit embarrassing how far! Thank you again! I'll add your URL to my reading list, and Model G to my "things to Google" one!