Talk:Socionic type

I have copied the section on "Type dichotomies" to the page on dichotomies. (Admin 00:53, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

But now, this section of one of these articles must be deleted. The one from Dichotomy is more updated. Machintruc 07:20, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I think it should be deleted here, because it is less related to the page subject. (Admin 07:23, 10 June 2007 (CDT))

That's done. I pretty much like initiative. Machintruc 07:25, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I think we should change the article name. Most of us westerners don't use "IM types" on a regular basis. On the other hand, "Socionic types" is both neutral and obvious, and is more parallel to "Big 5 types", "MBTI types", or whatever. Thehotelambush 21:57, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

No. It would let us forget a root idea which is that socionics is based on IM. Machintruc 06:48, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

That is an idea which I have found no use for. And besides, who are we to enforce a specific interpretation of socionic types? It seems unnecessarily limiting. Thehotelambush 18:25, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I mentioned this under ILI, but perhaps here would be a better place to bring it up: Why don't we just have a bot automatically update the descriptions under each of the types from the descriptions under the IM elements? For example, for ILI, Ni should be the same as "Ni as a base (1st) function" in the Ni page; Te should be the same as "Te as a creative (2nd) function" in the Te page, etc. Otherwise, we're just redoing the same work, right? (Unless the intent is to have two versions of each of these, just because one wants to express different viewpoints....or maybe the descriptions under the types are meant to be more subjective, "personalized" and less general?)

Of course, another way to do it is to have the bot automatically update from the other page, but allow additional text underneath each function that doesn't get overwritten by the bot. --Jonathan 08:18, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

or maybe the descriptions under the types are meant to be more subjective, "personalized" and less general? I think that's the general idea. Perhaps we could have auto-generated type descriptions as an alternative, and see how well they work, leaving open the possibility of using them as the default descriptions. (Btw, it won't be necessary to update the pages with each edit; see Wikipedia:Transclusion. However, a bot could easily make the pages in the first place.) Thehotelambush 15:45, 14 July 2007 (CDT)