# An article by Aleksandr Bukalov (model B)



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

http://socionic.info/pdf/as498.pdf (We need a good translation!!)

Issue 4/1996 of the 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal (model B)

Issue 4/1998 of the 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal

Socionics, Typologies of Jung and Mayers-Briggs: Resemblance and Difference

The differences between the structure of Jung's psychological types, types of informational metabolism in socionics and typology of were analyzed. It was shown that typology of Mayers-Briggs in contradistinction to socionics is not derived directly from the typology of Jung. The reason of divergences lies in the different understanding of the work of the psychic functions in the type and leading in the indication J-P, different from the concepts of rationality-irrationality proposed by Jung. Nevertheless differences in conceptions can be integrated in 16th component model B of the type of informational metabolism, which is including an integrational function -. This model is joining as introversial (Jung, Mayers-Briggs) and extraversial (socionics) approach to the analysis of the structure of the psychological types.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Tellus said:


> http://socionic.info/pdf/as498.pdf (We need a good translation!!)
> 
> Issue 4/1996 of the 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal (model B)
> 
> ...


Yeah, there does need to be a bridge between super extroverted socio and super intorverted MBTI. I happen to like + / - .


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@Tellus

I promise I will try and read all these one day, dude. Lol.

Thank you for taking your time to post translations for us.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@Tellus

https://translate.googleusercontent...98.pdf&usg=ALkJrhhVPy1c0lxZpvWQsgb2vsgCczUWpg


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Do I need to go through and fix all of this? Or does it work well enough as is?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Do I need to go through and fix all of this? Or does it work well enough as is?


I think it would be very interesting to read part 5. (The new informational model of the psyche - model B) in proper English. Can you fix it? 

Have you figured out how this model works?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Yeah, there does need to be a bridge between super extroverted socio and super intorverted MBTI.


I agree.



> I happen to like + / - .


The +/- signs (optimistic/realistic) are essential. It is impossible to explain our scientific and technological progress without them.

But why do we need model B? Is it because each type actually has 2 x 8 IM elements? Does model A, with the current definitions of the +/- signs, explain duality?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I: "Can you explain the signs in model A. I don't understand duality with the current placement." 

Socionist: "This 'dark' theme. Two sotsionicheskie school (authors) can not understand it themselves."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an argument for model B:

http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2004-6/signs-trekhov.html 

(Bing translator)

Mark aspect is a property that it acquires depending on in what aspect is blocked and the rings is.

That acquires aspect together with the sign? All agree that the character minus matches promising wide, not a detailed view from afar. Plus sign specific, narrowly directed look at equal parts.

The dispute need to collect statistics of work aspects in the vital′nom ring. But a similar experiment might take in advance to failure. The fact of the matter is that A. Bukalov hypothesis in due time [1] that all 16 (incl. marks) aspects are present in each.

So you can talk about two of the four rings in the model. One (mental) no doubtin identification. And regarding its constituent aspects of the dispute. One (consisting of the same dimensions as that of mental, but with other characters) are almost not noticeable. And here are the two remaining confused.

In my opinion, not yetskrupulëznogo research should adhere to determine No.1. Because it links into one system a greater number of concepts [2] and is supported by a large number of specialists.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@Tellus put it all in a new thread. May go back this afternoon and edit some errors I missed and write some of the sentences clearer.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_Tellus_ put it all in a new thread. May go back this afternoon and edit some errors I missed and write some of the sentences clearer.


Ok


----------

