Talk:Smilexian socionics

just a personal comment on Smilex socionics... to me it always seemed overly complex and I have a very hard time taking it in. I've tried but it always ends up just being words to me. Maybe it's the Te thing? Bionicgoat 03:16, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I haven't touched it with a ten-foot pole either :-) --Admin 03:19, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I have never discussed that with him -- but my impression is that they are the result of a huge and lengthy attempt to "make sense" of socionics and deciding, or concluding, that Reinin dichotomies were the best "raw data" available, and that it made no sense (based on personal experience) to say that types do not change. He himself reported how he changed from ESE to EIE to LIE to LSE throughout his life. My inclination is to see it as a huge Ti exercise but trying to take into account all the available Te information at a precise moment, as if he'd take all the articles on Reinin, Gulenko groups, +/-, lay it on a desk, and go, "ok, this is all the information available, let's now see how it all fits together consistently". To me that already suggests Ti>Te preference, since it would never occur to me that in a field such as socionics I already had all the information available or all of it would be necessarily reliable. Also, the interpretation of how the Reinin dichotomies fit together as in taciturn-process etc is a new one; it's not directly derived from the available Reinin definitions afaik. Having said that, I must say that I do find it useful to look at people through that prism sometimes. On the other hand, its biggest flaw, I think, is typing; Smilingeyes himself seems to recognize this and he has shown little inclination to type people online using his method. If you type someone by applying the dichotomies to their described behavior, you are often in situatiosn where you are undecided between, say, LSE and SLE, which from a classical perspective makes little sense. Expat 03:40, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm thinking of writing a "crash course" mainly referring to the relevant threads - or is it overdone for our purposes? Expat 09:38, 25 July 2007 (BST)

I think that's a good idea. The less dependent the wiki is on the forum the better. Thehotelambush 19:43, 25 July 2007 (BST)

But that's the thing -- it would rely very heavily on links to threads -- I'm not going to write everything again. Expat 20:20, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Eh, go for it. Thehotelambush 20:59, 25 July 2007 (BST)

May I pat myself in the back and say that this page is good? Unless someone objects and wants to improve it? Expat 22:31, 26 July 2007 (BST)