# Unique Theory? What do you think about this?



## Stribog (Jul 13, 2012)

Ok.


So I've recently discovered this video, and it definitely caught my interest. I'm not well-versed enough in Socionics yet to really feel comfortable judging the accuracy of what he is saying, but what are your guys' opinions on this?








There's probably a good chance most from this community have seen this before. But lets talk about it today.


It seems legit...-ish.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Hmm, I'd never seen this video before. I'll write my thoughts as they come up...

- He is using different terminology to define information elements or functions but so far they have the same meaning.
- Sensorics or sensing isn't entirely limited to what you can physically touch. Perceiving the kinetic energy of people, which is defined as an aspect of Se, is not perceived through touch. I don't need to touch a person to observe how strong their willpower is.
- Spirit? Hmm, ok...
- Soul? Er, I don't know what to think of these terms.
- Intuition is not part of the mind? Maybe I'm nitpicking...
- I have some issues with his example where he puts all the aspects into action. The part about logics seems fine but I'm having so many issues with his way of presenting things. First of all, what does it mean to have a vision of a cup of tea? I can't begin to analyze that without first comprehending the idea. Second of all, the aspect of feeling being a rational/judging function is entirely lost and merely represented as "emotions", which is not the same. I can be a pretty emotional person, does that mean I judge things through feeling more frequently? No. Sensing = resources and obtaining resources is an interesting way of putting it though.
- Same problem with the second example. Moreover, this example is very simplistic and I don't know if hammering a nail is something that could be classified as logics. It simply sounds like straight-forward responding to your enviroment, sensing. In fact, this whole example could be described as sensing alone, now that I think about it. Actually, why is intuition the deposit of all ideas or thoughts?
- Yep, this guy's Ti-Fe.
- But apparently he thinks otherwise...? Hmm...
- Are the changes in terms necessary?
- Following explanation is fine, though it does not expand to the entirety of Model A but I guess it's meant as an introductory thing.
- Uuuh I'm confused by the type's nicknames and I'm not sure which types he's talking about but if he meant to differentiate Ti and Te I did not get it =/
- "And that is real" lol.

So yeah, I mostly have a problem with some of his definitions and the changing of terminology. The explanations are simple but they work as an introduction to the system.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I'd agree with @Pancreatic Pandora and take it a step further to say that in changing the names and in weaving them together with other concepts not core to the system, he is misrepresenting the basics of Socionics. He somewhat starts with the same axioms but his presentation has the appearance of deriving them from principles not found in Socionics theory and which are frankly superfluous at best.

He would have been better off just explaining the four types of information elements, explain that there are introverted and extroverted versions of each, and allude to how these elements are sorted into Model A. He covered this to some degree, but it was packaged in a bunch of other ideas that I think distract from the picture.

In addition, I didn't find his examples particularly compelling. I think it's enough to say that because the information aspects are said to exist objectively in the real world, we must all have some reaction to them through our information elements, and these must be balanced in some way. The "how would I approach hammering a nail?" example honestly doesn't sound like it would correspond to the thought process or behavior of any particular type. No one sits and thinks about it, and no type really has a specific process for it.

Overall it wasn't a terrible introduction but it was so bloated and filled with unnecessary flowery terminology that obfuscates the point.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

It's a good video, I watched it yesterday but didn't comment then. When he's talking about his four valued functions it's a bit difficult to follow since he completely skips mentioning model a and jumps right into it but for the most part, I like his talk. The narrator is an ENTj/LIE which is why he goes into depth of Jack ENTj/LIE duality with Drieser ISFj/ESI and Quixote ENTp/ILE.

At any rate, I think it's a good introductory video for Gammas and Deltas who want to get into Socionics but don't know where to start.


----------



## finesthour (Jun 12, 2014)

I was fascinated by the first half. Just keep in mind that the linear ananlysis may be a necessary evill My other issue, as always is that I'm not convinced that the Socionics relations (Duality etc) are truly reliable.


----------

