As indicated, the purpose of this thread is to introduce the core tenets of American Socionics.
American Socionics is primarily comprised of three distinct schools of thought [Smilexian Socionics (SmilingEyes); Socionix (Mfckr): Stackemup Typology (Socionics-side) (Me)] which have these overlapping tenets in common.
Stackemup Typology ushered in the era of the Typology Multi-verse. It subsumes Stackemup Typology (enneagram-side) and Stackemup Typology (socionics-side). Prior to that, the progression of socionics among publishers and schools of thought primarily got stuck inside of a one typology mindset and ultimately devolved.
Fundamentally, American Socionics asserts and underscores Three Core Tenets.
1. Jung, not Aushra
The nuts and bolts of Jung's definitions for the functions control in Socionics. The core differences from MBTI is that in Socionics Jung's functions are organized under model A, so Jung's functions are filtered through different roles.
Russian Socionists, mainly Aushra and her students, have essentially refused to give Jung his proper due as the pioneer, father and definer of all the functions used in Socionics and engaged in a good deal of historical revisionism. They are seeking to usurp Jung's definitions of the functions with Aushra's definitions of the functions. That's fine, but don't call it Socionics and nobody needs to be legitimizing it as socionics.
Gulenko, for example, has conceded the point. After an extensive study, he published a paper which essentially concluded that the functions used in both MBTI and Socionics have its origin in Jung's definitions. The Aushra wing of Russian Socionics regards his paper as a type of heresy.
American Socionics doesn't need to conduct a study into that question. Its blatantly obvious. These are Jung's functions, Jung's definitions. The major innovation here is the organization of JUng's functions into Model A. The Aushra wing of Russian socionics is the most prominent in not wanting to give Jung credit for being first in time to identify and define the functions. In American socionics, people who deserve the credit get the credit, so we give Jung credit for being first in time to identify and define the functions because he was the first in time to identify and define the functions.
That makes sense, right. If you come up with a new theory of intertype relations, American Socionics will credit you for it. The Aushra wing of Russian Socionics might try to lay claim to your theory as something they came up with.
2. VI, not conjecture
For decades, Russian socionists have been trying to crack the VI templates for every socionics type and subtype. I mean, yeah, Aushra has VI templates. Socionics.com has VI templates. But they were terrible.
Stackemup Typology (socionics-side) has cracked the valid VI templates for every socionics type and subtype.
Socionics New Wave (Stackemup Typology) (socionics) on Pinterest
Click here for more information on my VI templates.
A Core Primer On Stackemup Typology (Socionics-Side)'s VI Templates
3. Cognition, not Behavior
Socionics pertains to information metabolisms. It speaks to cognition. However, at a certain point, perhaps due to being confined to its own one-dimensional, one typology closed universe, a lot of Russian Socionists began invading the domain of behavior and personality.
A good example of this is founded in russian socionics' conflation of Si with Type 9....You see it in so many descriptions and discussions.
Given that Stackemup Typology ushered in the era of the typology multi-verse, avoidance of allowing situations to disturb one's mental tranquility is pure enneagram nine. Nines negate the impact of their actions through the defense mechanism known as isolation. They disassociate...it allows them to be aggressive without really having to experience the impact of that aggression. For example, in this Coronavirus epidemic, you will find a lot of e9s positively reframing the pandemic so as to avoid having to attribute blame to any one person or country. (Said positive reframing keeps them out of touch with having to experience Anger).
But now if you're reading certain serious Russian Socionists, what I just described all falls under the nature and scope of Si.
Take the attribution of avoidance to Si. Avoidance is behaviorally-related rather than cognition-type related...because the crux is 'to avoid', to avoid disturbing situations. To avoid is a behavior, so, thus, does not infer any particular cognition and has no significance socionically. People with vastly different styles of cognition can engage in avoidance. Yet, this was the direction Si and moreso SEI ended up becoming taken in.
This is an overall problem. The nature and scope of descriptions for functions in Russian Socionics has become excessively broad and accorded to itself unfettered access into domains of enneagram type. The nature and scope of descriptions for functions in American Socionics is more specific and focused on cognition.
American Socionics is primarily comprised of three distinct schools of thought [Smilexian Socionics (SmilingEyes); Socionix (Mfckr): Stackemup Typology (Socionics-side) (Me)] which have these overlapping tenets in common.
Stackemup Typology ushered in the era of the Typology Multi-verse. It subsumes Stackemup Typology (enneagram-side) and Stackemup Typology (socionics-side). Prior to that, the progression of socionics among publishers and schools of thought primarily got stuck inside of a one typology mindset and ultimately devolved.
Fundamentally, American Socionics asserts and underscores Three Core Tenets.
1. Jung, not Aushra
The nuts and bolts of Jung's definitions for the functions control in Socionics. The core differences from MBTI is that in Socionics Jung's functions are organized under model A, so Jung's functions are filtered through different roles.
Russian Socionists, mainly Aushra and her students, have essentially refused to give Jung his proper due as the pioneer, father and definer of all the functions used in Socionics and engaged in a good deal of historical revisionism. They are seeking to usurp Jung's definitions of the functions with Aushra's definitions of the functions. That's fine, but don't call it Socionics and nobody needs to be legitimizing it as socionics.
Gulenko, for example, has conceded the point. After an extensive study, he published a paper which essentially concluded that the functions used in both MBTI and Socionics have its origin in Jung's definitions. The Aushra wing of Russian Socionics regards his paper as a type of heresy.
American Socionics doesn't need to conduct a study into that question. Its blatantly obvious. These are Jung's functions, Jung's definitions. The major innovation here is the organization of JUng's functions into Model A. The Aushra wing of Russian socionics is the most prominent in not wanting to give Jung credit for being first in time to identify and define the functions. In American socionics, people who deserve the credit get the credit, so we give Jung credit for being first in time to identify and define the functions because he was the first in time to identify and define the functions.
That makes sense, right. If you come up with a new theory of intertype relations, American Socionics will credit you for it. The Aushra wing of Russian Socionics might try to lay claim to your theory as something they came up with.
2. VI, not conjecture
For decades, Russian socionists have been trying to crack the VI templates for every socionics type and subtype. I mean, yeah, Aushra has VI templates. Socionics.com has VI templates. But they were terrible.
Stackemup Typology (socionics-side) has cracked the valid VI templates for every socionics type and subtype.
Socionics New Wave (Stackemup Typology) (socionics) on Pinterest
Click here for more information on my VI templates.
A Core Primer On Stackemup Typology (Socionics-Side)'s VI Templates
3. Cognition, not Behavior
Socionics pertains to information metabolisms. It speaks to cognition. However, at a certain point, perhaps due to being confined to its own one-dimensional, one typology closed universe, a lot of Russian Socionists began invading the domain of behavior and personality.
A good example of this is founded in russian socionics' conflation of Si with Type 9....You see it in so many descriptions and discussions.
Given that Stackemup Typology ushered in the era of the typology multi-verse, avoidance of allowing situations to disturb one's mental tranquility is pure enneagram nine. Nines negate the impact of their actions through the defense mechanism known as isolation. They disassociate...it allows them to be aggressive without really having to experience the impact of that aggression. For example, in this Coronavirus epidemic, you will find a lot of e9s positively reframing the pandemic so as to avoid having to attribute blame to any one person or country. (Said positive reframing keeps them out of touch with having to experience Anger).
But now if you're reading certain serious Russian Socionists, what I just described all falls under the nature and scope of Si.
Take the attribution of avoidance to Si. Avoidance is behaviorally-related rather than cognition-type related...because the crux is 'to avoid', to avoid disturbing situations. To avoid is a behavior, so, thus, does not infer any particular cognition and has no significance socionically. People with vastly different styles of cognition can engage in avoidance. Yet, this was the direction Si and moreso SEI ended up becoming taken in.
This is an overall problem. The nature and scope of descriptions for functions in Russian Socionics has become excessively broad and accorded to itself unfettered access into domains of enneagram type. The nature and scope of descriptions for functions in American Socionics is more specific and focused on cognition.
