# A Core Primer On Stackemup Typology (Socionics-Side)'s VI Templates



## Heavy (Jun 16, 2010)

These are high-quality, time-tested, time-proof valid VI templates that completely demolish Aushra and Socionics.com's VI templates in terms of quality and practicality (Russian socionists have been trying to develop top notch VI templates for decades). I beat 'em to it. 


Socionics New Wave (Stackemup Typology) (socionics) on Pinterest


Each section contains a workable, easy to master VI template that you can use to type yourself and others with. Grouping by the physical structure of eyes accurately predicts cognitive markers for purposes of socionics typing. If you are not using VI for your socionics typings, I would submit that you're relying primarily upon conjecture and speculation. 


One objection to VI is that ‘well, if you are saying to supplement VI with common sense, doesn’t that mean VI is not sound?” No, not true. Common sense tells you this person is not a LSE even if you can't make a strong VI connection between them and that type. That doesn’t mean to give up on the VI. It just means your eye isn't yet trained enough to pick up on the VI connection. That the connection is more subtle than you are giving it credit for and that you have to be more cogent in looking at it. 


A second objection is that it can’t be this clearcut. It’s not. There are plenty of look-a-likes such that it’s not always clear-cut. I run into many ambiguous examples. The VI also changes ever so slightly with stacking that you really do need a trained eye. So there are a number of variations even within the same socionics type. Knowing what to look for to resolve those ambiguities is the difference between an expert socionics typer and one that is not. Again, I have already put the time in the trenches working these ambiguities out.


A third objection is that you cannot determine somebody's type by VI. VI has already been proven with samples of identical twins. Identical twins have the same micro-expressions and cognitive markers. They tend to know what the other is thinking and can easily finish each other's thoughts/sentences. VI opponents point out that identical twins can often be very different from each other and identical twins often tout their differences. But the desire to individuate is very common in human nature. It may be more of a hang up for identical twins such that they can develop an aversion to having an identical twin. So they find areas of differences, and intentionally cultivate areas of differences, from their twin as if to emphasize that they are not like each other. My VI templates speak more directly to the nature of biological cognition (socionics).


A fourth objection is that people that VI the same type are not always a hundred percent alike. Of course, they are not always going to be a hundred percent alike. But that's where enneagram and stacking come into play, and where the list is particularly flexible. For example, Robert Redford and Bill Clinton are both IEE-Fi. But Clinton is a 3w2 and redford is a 6w7. Clinton is more ambitious, competitive and confident by nature/temperament than Redford is. 


Nevertheless, both Redford and Clinton have a similar cognition when it comes to using their NeFi to mirror, to adapt themselves to different roles, to change masks in order to suit the occasion, to engage in fluffy, pop pseudo-psycho analysis of others, etc. Redford channels that into acting and Clinton channels his cognition into politics. If you don't have a firm grasp on Enneagram , you may assume they have a different socionics type. This was a mistake socionists made in the past as they were locked inside of a one typology closed universe. Fortunately, as those who have reviewed my Core Primer for Enneagram Types in the Enneagram Sub-forum, that's no longer a problem as Stackemup Typology has ushered in the era of the Typology Multi-verse. 


I stand by the pinterest list 100 percent as the best diagnostic typing tool out there. If you like typing celebrities, or other members, this makes typing time manageable. Why should you waste time out of your life researching celebrities before you can type them or confirm your typing of them. VI provides the ultimate shortcut and the pinterest list lays out the blue print. In the real world, when you meet somebody and you have the VI down pat, you can very quickly size up the person’s type. You won’t need to know their life story, you won’t need to ask them eighty to a hundred questions, and you don’t a year to chart down their cognition so that you can come here, start a ’type this person’ thread and lay out a 1000 details about the person only to get ten different answers.


----------



## mrei (Nov 10, 2019)

I just wish you explain how you do your VI


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

mrei said:


> I just wish you explain how you do your VI


Please. Especially explain this below:


Heavy said:


> A third objection is that you cannot determine somebody's type by VI. VI has already been proven with samples of identical twins. Identical twins have the same micro-expressions and cognitive markers. They tend to know what the other is thinking and can easily finish each other's thoughts/sentences.


If you're doing what I think you're doing, this seems like fallacious reasoning.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Heavy

I'm calling BS. I want more evidence of how you determined your typing.


----------



## sweetrice (Jun 21, 2019)

He is very active on 16types as user Kill4me, and although his contributions are for the most part interesting and constructive, you will waste your time asking for justifications


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

*WARNING!!!!*

Be aware that this poster has a bad reputation on other socionics forums as someone who likely has NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He touts his own understanding of socionics as something widely accepted, when nobody subscribes to it. Lack of attention to his horrendous typings is what prompts him to make these posts which are misleading.

He is not recognized by any official socionics source.

If you're a newcomer to socionics, rely on official socionics sources and descriptions and don't trust a single word this madhatter says. You have been warned.

p.s. on 16types where he posts under kill4me they openly tell this guy to take his meds 
https://www.the16types.info/vbullet...99-Wuhan-Flu?p=1382036&viewfull=1#post1382036


----------



## Heavy (Jun 16, 2010)

I've been getting some questions about this so let me clear it up now, I never sanctioned sociotypes pinterest page to use the phrase that I coined, "VI Templates."


sociotypes pinterest does not belong to American Socionics. American Socionics consists of Smilexian Socionics, Socionix, and Stackemup Typology (socionics side) aka socionics new wave.


I also got word that sociotypes pinterest page is not related in any way to ww.sociotype.com.]

VI Templates is a trademark of Stackemup Typology.

sociotypes pinterest is put up by a 3w4 sp/so whose trying to tap into Stackemup Typology (socionics-side)'s trademark in order to pick up followers.


The introduction on Stackemup Typology (Socionics-side)'s pinterest page reads: 


"Here are the VI templates for each socionic type (plus subtype) Visit pinterest.com/stackemupennea for Stackemup Typology's breakdown for the enneagram types."


sociotypes pinterest reads:


"VI templates for each subtype. Register so you can view all the galleries. *Regularly revised* and updated."


***



***


The big difference between me and "sociotype" is they have to "regularly revise" their VI templates and typings. 


It says right there in the title (see above screenshot) "regularly revised."


Obviously they are not using the real VI templates. That's why they have to "regularly revise" theirs. 


"Regularly revise", as in, the person doesn't know what the hell they are doing


"Regularly Revised", as in , the person is still trying to figure things out, still in the process of discovering the actual valid VI templates - that Stackemup Typology (socionics-side) has already discovered and charted out - and "regularly revised" as in still trying to work through logical, conceptual, and structural flaws. 


We can't take any of their typings seriously because that pinterest page continually changes its typings around.


i've got it from a good source that the sociotypes pinterest changed over a hundred typings around in the last three weeks. One follower cites that entire templates are constantly being shifted around and that at least half of the people typed LII had different typings a month ago.


That's insanity.


I've never had to "regularly revise" mine. If you have to "regularly revise" your VI templates and/or typings, then that's the result of pervasive logical, conceptual and structural flaws. 


Obvioulsy sociotypes pinterest page knows that its typings are mostly wrong and that its VI templates are poor, but it wants you to stick around so that they can try to spend endless time revising it another 5,000 times. Give 'em five years. They're just on the third draft.


My VI templates have been the same since day one. I had it all worked out when I put my templates up years ago. I've said it a 1000 times. I cracked the only valid VI templates for every socionics type and subtype. Mine are logically, conceptually, structurally flawless.


Obviously whoever is responsible for this board not only uses my typings, uses and combines my VI templates under the label of different types, but also copied the phrase I coined "VI template". 


That's why they have followers. At least three of their followers confused it with Stackemup Typology. Probably a lot of them did. Maybe the rest confused them with sociotype .com. 


sociotypes pinterest page is definitely one to cross off your visiting list.


----------



## Heavy (Jun 16, 2010)

www.pinterest.com/sociothiefs' typings are atrocious. Watch this.

Stackemup Typology (Socionics-Side) EATS UP sociothief' so-called "SLE-Ti" exemplars. 


This is the correct and accurate typings for each of sociothiefs' make believe SLE-Ti exemplars, as follows:


Tom Felton, David Carradine, Tim Blake Nelson: LIE-Te (https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/lie-te/)
Evan Rachel Wood: IEI-Fe (https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/iei-fe/)
Winona Ryder: SEI-Si (https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/sei-si/)
Jason Momoa: SLI-Si (https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/sli-si/)
Rutger Hauer, Anthony Hopkins, Jerome Flynn, Meryl Streep: EII-Fi: https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/eii-fi/
David Bowie: EIE-Ni (https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/eie-ni/)
Madonna: SLE-Se (https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/sle-se/)
Sharon Stone, Sasha Gray, Lucy Lawless: SEE-Fi (https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/see-fi/)


*I just ate up sociothiefs' "SLE-Ti" exemplars. I'm even heavier than before. 
Watch the interviews for these people as well...all obviously not SLE-Ti 
My VI templates are far more crisp, tigher, sharper and accurate. 
sociothiefs got one actual SLE (Madonna)! but even still, came out with the wrong subtype, and Madonna is an obvious one. *

sociothiefs' typings for SLE-Ti are soo bad just like all the other typings, no wonder sociothief regularly revises. 

These are SLE-Ti: *Donald Trump, Ernest Hemingway, Mike Tyson, John Gotti, Huey Long, Jimmy Hoffa, Lyle Alzado, La China, John Dillinger, Taco Bowman, Lenny McClean, Xie Caipingz, Don Arden, Mickey Cohen, GG Allin, Connor McGregor, Carmine Galante, Charles Bronson (UK Prisoner), Ty Cobbz*


These are not SLE-Ti: _Wynona Ryder, Meryl Streep, Sasha Gray, Evan Rachel Wood, Tim Blake Nelson, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Felton, demi moore, rutger hauer, Jason Momoa, David Carradine, Sharon Ston_e

The "are SLE-Ti" group are not accepting of Fi and fit all aspects of Model A's cognitive markers for SLE. They all have Fi Polr. 

The "are not SLE-Ti" group are clearly accepting of Fi and do not fit all aspects of Model A's cognitive markers for SLE. None have Fi Polr. I mean, winona ryder, come on...get real. Only in science fiction...


----------

