Smilexian socionics

This page is about a theory constructed by a single western socionist. There might only be a handful of socionists who believe in it.

Smilexian socionics is a complex interpretation of socionics, apparently authored single-handedly by the user known as Smilingeyes in the16types.info forum. It emphasizes the role of temperaments and Reinin dichotomies over Model A but not totally denying the latter. It can be regarded as a hypothetical interpretation of the phenomena described by classical socionics rather than an alternative to it. Smilexian socionics has had considerable influence in that forum. At the same time, many readers find the formulations overly complex and difficult to understand. Others seem to take it as a part of classical socionics without recognizing that it has had no noticeable influence outside that forum, certainly not among the broader socionics community. Smilexian socionics is perhaps best approached as a powerful intellectual exercise helpful to put several assumptions in classical socionics in perspective and even to question them. The sheer intellectual force of the work, which includes concepts such as "mathematico-mechanical socionics", has essentially prevented an equally powerful criticism from being written so far.

Main premises of Smilexian socionics

• The most stable aspect of a person's type is the temperament.
• Within that same temperament, the type as defined by Model A can and does change on a situational basis, over the short-term or long-term.
• Intertype relations as in Model A are determined by the a person's present longer-term situational type.
• The most characteristic and observable traits of a type are those related to Reinin dichotomies and combinations thereof, including the Gulenko romance styles.
• The functional preference as defined by Model A is intrinsically related to the precise combination of those traits at a certain point along the temperament.
• The plus and minus functional traits are actually due to that precise point in the temperament, the functions being called "abstract" or "concrete".
• This certain point is as likely to be a type as a subtype, as these lie along a continuum within a temperament.
• Model A actually describes merely a "still picture" of a person's overall type variations; usually the person's "default mode" in a longer-term situational perspective, which nonetheless is subject to change as well.

References for Smilexian socionics

This page or section needs work.

That hypothesis is described in some threads in the the16types.info forum:

• Mathematico-mechanical socionics: Smilexian socionics uses somewhat different definitions for Reinin dichotomies than the original ones; this hypothesis uses definitions based on the combination of functions in the ego of the types belonging to each dichotomy.
• Easy-to-use behavioral tracker: the best summary of the principles of Smilexian socionics, demonstrating how the combination of Reinin dichotomies and Gulenko groups along each temperament leads to specific points with regard to quadras and functions, and therefore to specific characteristics in a person's motivations and reactions.
• Reinin modelling: attempts to match behavior and motivations as predicted by the "tracker" above to that of public and historical figures.
• Changing type: Smilingeyes's own experiences on undergoing type change.
• "Smilexian socionics 101.2": a lengthy overview of the thoughts and definitions of the hypothesis.
• Dichotomic descriptions of types: an overview of the socionics types, combining material from classical socionics with insights from Smilexian socionics.

Criticism

Classical and Smilexian socionics have a central difference, the issue of whether the Model A type changes or not. Smilingeyes himself has supported his assertion that it changes on his personal observations of people, including himself; he has reported that his "main" type changed from ESE to EIE to LIE to LSE according to the stage in his life. Many have made precisely the opposite observations, also regarding themselves — that their types have not changed in this way. One major issue then is what exactly makes a person be of a specific type, and when it can be said that it has changed. It can be argued that a supposed change from, say, LIE to LSE reflects merely a major change in the individual's personal circumstances, such as from an uncertain professional situation that requires constant focus on next moves and future trends () to a stable one with intensive demand of focus on events on a daily basis (). To the external observer such a change in behavior might seem like a change in type; the real question is how the individual deals with the two situations internally and how the nature of the person's interaction with other people changes as a result.