Introverted Ethics in Action - Rocky Balboa

Yesterday I watched Rocky Balboa, written and directed by Silvester Stallone, who also plays the main character. The final film of his Rocky series - which are among Stallone's most successful, Rocky Balboa is a personal movie that mirrors the author's own life and sentiments.

I have typed Stallone as SEE, but there is so much in the movie (along with ) that it makes an excellent demonstration of introverted ethics.

The dominant information aspect of the first quarter or so of the movie is . We are shown Rocky's grief and tender feelings for his deceased wife Adrian. We lament with Rocky that his son has strayed away from him despite Rocky's concern for him. We are sentimental with Rocky as he is reminded of places and events from his youth that held special meaning for him.

All of these things focus on feelings of like and attachment that the characters feel towards one another and towards events, things, and places. These feelings are hardly visible externally (in contrast to !) - except for a calm smile here and there - and are mainly conveyed on screen using sappy music that makes you sob and long, up-close facial shots. Here's a short clip that demonstrates what I'm talking about.

Note the use of slow, nostalgic string music with a simple piano melody in the background. This music conveys . Even more importantly, the cameras focus on Rocky's face, letting us see every twitch and sign of hidden feeling. Basically, they're forcing us to empathize with Rocky. Paulie, on the other hand, is shown from a distance, essentially making it impossible for us to empathize with him. Paulie gets mad at Rocky, and related yelling ensues, but then they settle back to a mood, and the camera's move closer to Paulie, letting us feel what he feels.

These tear-jerker techniques are a favorite of the American movie industry, but there are many countries where they are rarely, if ever used (Russian cinema, for one).

Scenes with Rocky and his son are also particularly poignant and use the same kinds of techniques to make the audience cry and empathize. Note that almost everywhere is mixed with (challenging each other, getting rough, telling each other what they want, etc.).

After the first quarter of the movie, the main emphasis shifts to , where the real point of the movie lies. Rocky's focus shifts to a difficult external obstacle (the upcoming boxing match, of course) that requires all his strength and concentration to tackle. Note that this emphasis reflects the spiritual philosophy I wrote about two posts ago.

Evolution of Religions and Movements

A fascinating aspect of religions and movements is their evolution. Often, within just a few generations, religions and other movements metamorphosize into something with an "energy" quite different from the original teaching. Most often, it seems to me, the greatest changes take place in the first few decades after the death of the founder, with evolution becoming very gradual after that (but still accumulating dramatic changes when viewed over long periods of time).

The movements I am aware of all had charismatic founders who were intensely focused on their work and leadership and had a profound effect on followers. What seems to happen is that after the founder's passing, a vacuum suddenly forms and the movement undergoes a crisis of existence: "what next?" The teaching had been so intertwined with the personality of the founder himself that followers feel lost and rudderless. As a rule, founders of teachings do not leave behind successors of their own stature, since people of their stature tend to form their own teachings rather than follow in others' footsteps. Early high-stature followers seem to splinter off and create individualized versions of the teaching or movement, leaving mostly people with a follower mentality around the original founder.

With the memory of the founder still fresh in everyone's minds, people begin to compile everything that he or she said, did, and wrote. A period of canonization begins where followers try to be as true as possible to the teachings of the founder and follow his instructions - whether explicit or implicit - as closely as possible. At the same time, they look for a logical new direction for the movement to take. After a period of searching, the movement finds a stable configuration and gradually settles down for the long term - if it has survived the crisis. Depending on the vitality of the original movement, there may be periodic "spikes" of energy and change, and disturbances in society, such as wars and calamities, can give the movement a completely new impulse. Otherwise, the trend seems to be towards greater conservatism, traditionalism, and stability over time.

It is interesting that movements often attract many creative, talented, and charismatic individuals during the early stages. These people are attracted to the chance to learn and be involved in something new and unique. And no, not all of them are types! They are people of all kinds of types who are passionate about learning and development. And they are also quite competitive. Many want to be teachers and leaders. These people contribute a lot to the movement early on but then create splinter groups or leave the movement altogether if they are not able to find a position of sufficient influence within the movement.

This creates a paradox. Spiritual movements are created by charismatic individuals who tell others of their own path to God, enlightenment, or success, but their movements are made up almost exclusively of people who, for various reasons, cannot repeat their teacher's spiritual path. The ones whose paths are in fact similar to the founder's leave the movement and start their own. To put it simply, the spiritual leader is teaching people who are followers by nature about becoming spiritual leaders. The real peers of spiritual leaders are not their followers, but the spiritual leaders of other teachings.

The natural evolution and loss of relevance of religions and other movements over time ensures that there is always demand for new ones that are full of vigor and fresh ideas and approaches. In a coming post or posts I will discuss a number of religions and teachings and their evolution and socionic emphases.

Identifying "Types" of Religions and Teachings

Identifying the "type" of a religion or teaching isn't about describing specific practices, as an anthropologist would do, but involves identifying the general priorities of the teaching. Here are some guidelines that describe what teachings built around different elements of information metabolism would look like. Maybe you'll recognize some teachings you know well in these descriptions:

: An emphasis on one's search for truth and insight in the outside world: experiencing different traditions and cultures, meeting people from different walks of life, and finding out information from different systems and disciplines that contributes to one's spiritual development. The search is never over, and one is never completely sure of the results. Intense searching is perceived as an expression of spirituality. To be able to devote themselves wholly to this search, followers are encouraged not to be tied down by property and commitments.

: An emphasis on developing personal power and presence. Personal power is honed by overcoming difficult obstacles and submitting oneself to demanding ordeals and strenuous exercises. Followers are encouraged to rid themselves of fear and weakness, focus intently on the present, and learn to make a powerful impression on others. Followers believe the road to one's spiritual goal is littered with difficult obstacles, tempting detours, and even danger, and that only those with powerful intent can conquer.

: An emphasis on service, worthy activity, and productivity as expressions of spirituality. Followers believe they need to be busy doing good, productive things to merit divine approval. Wealth and professional success are seen as being likely consequences of one's spiritual growth. An emphasis on taking initiative and doing something about the causes one cares about rather than simply talking about them or waiting for God to take care of them. Followers focus on building a flawless, rational society.

: An emphasis on devotion and ecstasy as expressions of spirituality and faith. Followers publicly express powerful emotional states through loud singing, praising God, speaking in tongues, weeping, ranting, or spontaneous dancing. Followers pursue an emotional union with God and other believers where they lose their sense of self for a time. In order to cultivate this emotional state, followers look for ways to turn off or limit the activity of the rational mind. An emphasis on including others in joyous experiences.

: An emphasis on liberating oneself from physical attachments, often through the cultivation of a trance-like state of sublime detachment. Followers pursue inner peace by limiting sensory input and worldly hustle and bustle and by hypnotic chanting and performing simple repetitive motions both at gatherings and during individual practice and meditation. Visions, hallucinations, and out-of-body sensations are welcomed as signs of spiritual progression.

: An emphasis on developing the body and achieving spiritual goals using physical means. Well-developed physical techniques such as breathing exercises, stretching, balancing, body movements, and following dietary principles. An embracement of enjoyment as a fundamental principle of spiritual growth. An emphasis on temperance and balance. Followers are encouraged to look inside themselves to discover their genuine desires and find ways of realizing them. Pleasure is not shunned, but welcomed and cultivated.

: An emphasis on studying and mastering the belief system of the teaching, especially holy writ. An emphasis on following teachings in their purity as they were intended to be followed, with little allowance for situational interpretations. Followers studiously focus on learning written teachings and discuss correct interpretations with each other. Mental clarity and strict, logical thinking are honed. Followers tend to ignore others' personal sentiments and can show them their errors using logical arguments.

: An emphasis on moral perfection, warm interaction, and charitable treatment of others. Spirituality is perceived as a warm feeling you carry around with you and share with other people. Followers actively cultivate a sense of duty, indebtedness, gratitude, modesty, and humility, as well as respectful, tactful, and caring treatment of others. An emphasis on perfecting one's stable relationships - especially within the family, but also with one's coworkers and other members of the community.

Religions and Teachings through a Socionics Prism

Religion is a fascinating topic and far too broad for one article, and I expect to write more on the subject in the future. This article will be a somewhat disorganized introduction to the subject.

"Typing" a religion or teaching involves making a subjective assessment of the most important characteristics of the teaching. It's not enough to study the written works of the teaching; you have to have some experience interacting with adherents of the teaching to see where the real emphasis is placed. For instance, there are hundreds of churches that claim to be based on the Bible, but you would have little idea of what modern Christianity is like if you only read the Bible. Each church places emphasis on slightly different things and has unique traditions that are at least as important to defining the overall atmosphere and message of the faith than the actual holy writ. Thus, an analysis of a religion or teaching from a socionic or other standpoint requires looking at lifestyle, interaction, and cultural traditions as well as the written teachings themselves.

Many different Christian churches can be grouped together because of their basic similarities, but you will still find very fundamental differences between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and a number of other subgroups. Religious groups that are geographically separated, take root in different countries, and coexist with different political regimes always evolve differently, even if they were originally based on the same writings. As I have already said, only a small part of the lifestyle and practice of any religious group is derived directly from its scripture. This is why one holy book can give rise to hundreds or thousands of religious groups, each with their slightly different interpretation of scripture. Even religious movements that began as an attempt to correct errors and return to the "pure" religion eventually splinter into dozens of denominations themselves. For example, look at this "family tree" of Baptist denominations in the United States.

To illustrate the importance of tradition over scripture, let's look at the use of the cross in Christianity. The practice of using crosses in Christian architecture, wearing them on one's body, and using the cross as a symbol of one's faith is outlined nowhere in the Bible. These traditions evolved over the centuries in complex ways. Yet these practices are an integral part of modern Christianity, and one's acceptance in a Christian community may well depend in part on whether one accepts traditions having to do with the use of the cross and other things that aren't derived from the Bible. But I digress...

Roots of Typology

Personality typologies are often accused of being "unscientific," as if everything that is unscientific is not worthwhile. Yes, typologies are unscientific - in the sense of applying qualitative, not quantitative categories to people (with all the ensuing complications). And yet typologies keep cropping up in many different areas of human activity as a practical necessity. Let's look at some of the contexts that have produced typologies.

Firstly, people spontaneously generate simplistic typologies all the time in everyday conversation with other people, most often with just two types but sometimes with three or four:

- "There are two kinds of people: those who... etc."
- "I've noticed there are big differences between first, second, and third-generation Asian immigrants in the U.S...."
- "Our school was full of jocks. Nerds like me avoided them at all cost."
- "I think people who do drugs have a fundamentally different brain chemistry."

None of these "typologies" is "scientific," since they imply qualitative "type diagnosis," and much of their apparent unambiguity breaks down when you try to type every single person. But their purpose is to generate an awareness of significant differences between people for the sake of personal understanding.

Secondly, somewhat more complex typologies are applied in business, sports, health, and other fields. In these cases up to five types may be used, but not much more than that. In health, there are Hippocrates' "four temperaments" or "humors." In sports there are people with predominantly fast-twitch muscles and those with predominantly slow-twist muscles. (I'm not very well-read in sports, so I can't recall other examples, but I know I have come across a few of them.) In business there are many fairly simple typologies of leaders, typologies of employees, and typologies of clients. The purpose of these is to predict general behavior within the context of your activity for the purpose of maximizing effectiveness.

Finally, there are the most complex typologies usually associated with mysticism and spiritual growth. Here I would include Jung's typology (since he was interested in understanding the process of individual growth in different people). The "four temperaments" of Hippocrates might go here as well. Spiritual teacher Gurdjieff taught that many esoteric teachings divided people into types - "twelve or maybe more." Aldous Huxley, in his book Perennial Philosophy, relates Sheldon's somatotypes to preferred spiritual paths. Tibetan buddhists and other eastern religions and western monastic orders appear to demonstrate an awareness of types and allow for somewhat different spiritual paths for different disciples (as opposed to mass religion, which does not differentiate). In a more bastardized form, some of these typologies are marketed in the West on the self-help market. Your Temperament: Discover Its Potential is a typical title. The purpose of all these typologies is to facilitate personal development by discovering innate characteristics and developing individuality.

Basically, typologies of this last category tend to arise whenever complex skills are systematically handed down from teacher to disciple, usually within some sort of spiritual or quasi-spiritual discipline. In this highly demanding context, individual differences between people become obvious, a lot of attention is directed at each individual disciple or apprentice, and it is paramount to have disciples choose the right approach within the discipline early on to avoid discouragement and failure. So some sort of typology is a practical necessity here as well, even if it is not fully elucidated and exists in the form of collective know-how.

To summarize, we can see that the creation of typologies - whether mundane or complex - is a natural human tendency that increases understanding and effectiveness by helping to recognize and take advantage of significant differences between people. The implied purpose of socionics - like other development-oriented typologies - is to contribute to individuals' self-realization and to effectiveness and wisdom in interpersonal interaction.

An Integrated Social Science

One of the topics I think about a lot is the nature and workings of human society and the role of different kinds of people in society. Science seems to have an insufficient understanding of these things at the moment. Sociology studies society at a whole, minimizing the role of the individual or of different kinds of individuals. Psychology studies the individual, but doesn't look at the implications of differing personalities on society as a whole. Personality psychology studies individual differences, but not the results of these differences. Social psychology examines the mechanisms of social relations, but not the differences between individuals. Economics describes production-related behavior on the micro and macro scale, but doesn't consider how production niches are pursued on an individual scale, or the psychological and biological basis for choosing different niches. Political science tries to understand the nature of power structures, but not the role of different kinds of people within them. And so on. (Please correct me if you are competent in any of the fields I have listed and believe I am misrepresenting them.)

Do you sense that the picture is incomplete - that the social sciences lack an overarching philosophical framework? I certainly do. Basically, what is missing today is an integral approach that would put each of these separate fields in their proper perspective and show how individual differences between people play out on the psychological, interpersonal, societal, economic, and political level - in addition to recognizing the commonalities between people that are already described well by these fields.

An integrated social science would show how the societal level reflects upon the individual and how the individual level reflects upon the societal. We would know what kind of people rise to power in different circumstances and different kinds of power systems, as well as the psychological effects on the individual of living under different power systems. We would know what kinds of people are responsible for generating different kinds of social relations and movements and would understand which economic and political conditions bring which tendencies to the forefront.

I'll bet some readers might think I'm going to suggest that socionics can provide this framework. More zealous socionists indeed see socionics as precisely this kind of overarching philosophical framework. However, I am skeptical, because of the underdeveloped empirical basis of socionics. I don't think modern social science will accept a philosophical framework that introduces arbitrary new categories without demonstrating that they are essential to an understanding of phenomena. This would go against Occam's razor. Socionics as a discipline, however, can be very useful to the individual, even if a lack of empiricism often makes dialogue difficult between socionists. At the very least, it has opened my eyes to a lot of very interesting phenomena. If socionics develops an empirical backing, it may be able to provide very valuable insights to contribute to an integral social science.

I personally know of two approaches which are working towards an integral social science. One is Ken Wilber's "integral psychology," which attempts to integrate worldwide esoteric teachings regarding different states of consciousness and developmental stages with modern psychology and sociology. This is very interesting, but so far Wilber seems to have barely touched on such fields as economics and political science. Also, he focuses at the subjective experience of individuals much more than things that can be objectively measured, which may lead to problems with future scientific research in the field. Nonetheless, this approach seems promising.

The other approach is the ever-expanding paradigm of Darwinian evolution and natural selection. Evolution has been successfully applied to physiology and - as of the mid-20th century - to human behavior (via evolutionary psychology). In the late 1970s a new field of inquiry - "memetics" - was born that attempted to apply the concept of replicators to social phenomena (mainly trends, fads, belief systems, ideas), as well as the development of the brain.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett has described the theory of evolution as "universal acid" - a substance that eats through anything, even the container that holds it or the ground that it drops onto. Dennett and others have tried to show how evolution brings us to a new understanding of value systems and morality - areas far removed from what natural selection was originally intended to explain. Incrementally, Darwinism is being applied to more and more of the social sciences.

In my opinion, evolution by natural selection is the concept that is most likely to establish a common framework for understanding the social sciences and the interrelations between them. This process seems to be well underway. In psychology (especially in the West) non-empiric approaches are gradually being marginalized (Freudian psychoanalysis, transpersonal psychology, humanistic psychology, and others), despite their intuitive appeal. As more and more empirical instruments are being developed - primarily through the use of computers and information technologies - it is becoming easier and easier to test hypotheses in the social sciences. And evolution is the theory with the firmest empirical basis in probably all of modern science.

Despite the lack of genuinely empirical studies and fundamental research in socionics, I believe its basic principles actually fit very well into the evolutionary paradigm. I have explained how in a separate article that is all about socionic phenomena but makes no mention of socionics itself. Evolution can help explain why there are differences between people and why there are different varieties of personal relationships.

As socionics and personality psychology develop more clever and effective tools for empirical research, it should become easier to detect defining differences between people. For example, height and weight might be very easier to measure, but they probably play a much less definitive role in interpersonal relationships than other, externally invisible factors. Some people today say of personality typologies that they are unsupported by scientific research and thus are "baloney," but they are wrong. Science has not yet developed the tools to detect definitive personality differences that have been evident to people for thousands of years who have observed these differences in the course of their day-to-day interaction with others. The fact that these differences have been described in different words using different systems does not mean that they do not exist objectively.

Evolution is also helping out the social sciences by highlighting parallels between the animal world and humans' social relations that allow us to look at our species from without and gain a wider perspective. Those who research wild dogs, primates, lions, and other animals which are genetically not far removed from humans find a wide span of personalities, social relationships ranging from altruistic friendship to domination and submission, and social structures that share close similarities to those we find in our own species. Research in genetics and neurobiology, now part of the evolutionary framework, is constantly adding new pieces to the puzzle.

Natural selection - which raises our understanding of competition to a whole new level - can help us understand what's really going on behind the scenes of economic interaction and production. The concepts of comparative advantage and production niches - which are fundamentally Darwinian - apply just as much to human relationships as they do to national economies, as some economists have suggested (I wish I could cite something here).

A consideration of evolutionary factors affecting personal relationships would also help flesh out socionics, which currently suffers from its appearance of maximalism. Socionics seems to simplify some aspects of personality and relationships and has a hard time accounting for characteristics that depart from what is described by its model. Many socionists would disagree with me, saying that by introducing such concepts as "accented functions," one can add flexibility to the socionics model. However, socionics cannot explain why some people's functions would be "accented" in the first place (except by assuming some previous intertype influence on the person that led to a continual emphasis of that function). Economics, psychology, and social psychology - underpinned by evolution - on the other hand, can provide simpler explanations for departures from socionic patterns.

Obviously, a lot of research remains to be done, and it is unlikely that socionics would become part of any integral social science without undergoing some sort of metamorphosis in order to become more like a natural science. The same can probably be said of other social sciences. But this is what might well happen in the future as our technology and scientific understanding advances.

Balancing the Internal and the External

As Jung explained, each person has both extraverted and introverted mechanisms, but betrays his dominant orientation under pressure and in times of stress. Each of us has a certain tendency to take one's own instrument a bit too far and ignore the other side of life, unconsciously expecting that "the socium" - i.e. society and the people around us - will take care of the rest for us. Often they do, baited by our valuable Ego-block "goods."

But other times, for various reasons, no one comes to the rescue. This is the chronically imbalanced (and often non-dualized) individual. Even dualization doesn't completely fix the problem of finding a balance between the internal and the external. With a dual nearby, one may find that, after an initial balancing-out where partners "soak up" each other's strengths and build up their own Super-id block, yet more energy is loosed to direct towards one's strengths, and the problem of keeping balance simply moves up to the next level of self-realization.

This is why, after the mechanisms of dualization have done their work and the hormone bath of passionate love is past, self-development requires will and effort. You need to consciously value the areas that balance you out and strive to maintain them and not let them go down the tubes as you coast down the road of least resistance.

For extratims, the path of least resistance is to be drawn into the external world with its chatter, competition, interchange, and rewards so much that you cease to maintain and develop your inner world or do the hard work of improving your skills and thoughts.

For introtims, the path of least resistance is to focus on developing and improving inner products and experiences that either have little or no real-world application, or you simply neglect the task of introducing people to them.

Examples of these are easy to find around us. However, successful people of extraverted and introverted types alike display competency in both the extraverted and introverted realms. Some examples:

Charles Darwin (ILI) was a pronounced introvert who almost spent too long of a time developing his ideas and could have missed his chance to be the first to publish them. However, he made the effort and carefully wrote a book that others would understand easily (and not only himself, which some ILIs are prone to do).

Vladimir Horowitz (ESE) was an extraverted performer who managed to take the time early on to submit himself to concentrated discipline and meticulously develop the piano skills necessary to achieve fame.

Garrison Keillor (IEI) is a rather quiet introvert who made the effort to take his rich inner experiences public and create a radio show that people would actually listen to.

Thomas Huxley (IEE), "Darwin's bulldog," was a master at exchanging ideas and engaging public discourse who took the time to become a specialist in his field (and not just chat about everything that is interesting as some IEEs are prone to do) and work on his understanding of different theories to the point that he could recognize Darwin's as being superior.

As we can see, great achievements involve a combination of internal and external effort. The internal component creates quality and depth, and the external is responsible for correctly assessing societal needs, expectations, and competition.

The Man Who Can Move Anything

Wally Wallington is a man who can singlehandedly move very heavy objects - not with the aid of machinery or even brute strength,but rather using simple mechanical means.

Here is a 6-minute video showing him moving many-ton stones using techniques that he believes may have been used to build Stonehenge.

First, some non-socionic insights on the nature of invention.

What this man has done might not seem too incredible. Anyone might have come up with this if they had just thought about it long enough. In fact, most inventors would agree that "ingenious ideas" come simply after thinking about things long enough.

Some ideas come through reflection and concentrated thought. Others come only through activity and application. It may be a common Myers-Briggs stereotype that intuitive types are more inventive, but socionics basically accepts that people of all types can be equally inventive, but they tend to display it in different ways. More generally, people demonstrate inventiveness and competency in areas related to their strong functions and conservatism (and often incompetency) in their weak areas.

So, now on to the man's socionic type.

As I have said, we can't type the man based on his inventiveness alone or even on the field of his inventiveness. What he has shown in practice, someone else might have been able to describe in theory. However, the process by which he arrived at his invention suggests sensing. He had to have the persistence and patience to spend long hours doing essentially physical activities and obtain enjoyment from them. Everything in this video suggests that the day-to-day process of turning stones, building scaffolding, and shifting weights around in clever ways is an enjoyable "flow" experience for him. Since these things engage physical receptors and involve direct physical contact with objects, we can associate this with sensing.

If he were intuitive, we would expect him to have spent just enough time on practical applications to get the general idea and realize that this was possible. He would very likely have spent a greater proportion of his time, for example, on looking for information in books on ancient construction techniques.

The other dichotomy that is easy to observe is logic. Wallington is not at all emotionally expressive, but speaks in a plain, matter-of-fact style about what he is doing and the characteristics of the blocks. When the huge stone falls into place, his enthusiasm is incredibly restrained: an expressionless "looks good" is all he says about it while everyone claps.

Now, which "vertness" of these elements dominates? or ? or ?

Since he is concerned with the logic of objects themselves - and not systems or interrelations between objects - we can suppose that this is . This is supported by the fact that it is clearly that Wallington "suppresses" - not . He keeps a lid on all displays of emotion and excitement.

Next, it seems that Wallington's focus is on rather than . He is not out there to "conquer" or "subdue" the stones, but rather to enjoy himself. Erecting things is clearly a pastime that he is happy to enjoy in solitude. His general air is one of relaxation and not mobilization.

Now we are down to two options - LSE and SLI. Both are very credible, but SLI seems more likely due to his relaxedness and air of simplicity and down-to-earthness. However, these are also common characteristics of LSEs, so I can't rule that out until I read more about him.

IQ and Socionic Type: The Smartest Man in the World

What socionic types would you expect to have the highest IQs?

How well does IQ reflect your ideas of intelligence?

What is intelligence?

These are some things to reflect upon when viewing this video about the smartest man in the world - Chris Langan - who has an IQ of around 195:
part 1 - part 2 - part 3 (around 10 minutes each)

I have an opinion about his type. What do you think? (please comment)

I will present my version of his type in exactly one week, on February 16th.
___________________________________________________________

VOTE COUNT (voting now closed!)

We have 8 votes here:
ILE
ESE
LSI - 2
SLE
LIE
ILI - 2
Visitors are pretty sure he is a logical type (7 out of 8) and are split 50-50 regarding rational/irrational, extratim/introtim, and sensing/intuition.

If we add votes from the thread at the16types, taking care not to count people's votes twice, we get the following combined statistics (counting only the clear votes where people gave one version):
ILE -2
ESE
LSI - 3
SLE
LIE
ILI - 3
LSE - 4
(also given as alternate options were EIE and SLI)
Now everyone is basically certain he is a logical type (14 out of 15), and a slight majority thinks he is extraverted (9 out of 15), rational (9 out of 15), and sensing (9 out of 15).
___________________________________________________________

AND MY VERSION IS...

First, let's work on formulating our observations from the videos and try to find some words and phrases we think would describe him well, and some that would describe him poorly.

Describe him well:
- tough
- controlled
- self-contained
- [potentially] controlling
- not easily intimidated
- physically confident
- demanding thinking style
- coherent thought processes
- highly verbally proficient
- highly confident of his own judgments
- prone to make harsh judgments
- even, matter-of-fact speaking style
- restrained smiles and laughter
- uses some crude comparisons
- prefers strong statements

DO NOT describe him well:
- meek
- mild
- emotional
- externally expressive
- fidgety
- flighty
- finicky
- easy-going
- light-hearted
- bubbly
- bursting with ideas
- tangential
- wishy-washy
- constantly on the move
- unconventional appearance
- distant
- absent-minded
- dreamy
- imaginative
- enjoys speculation
- unsure of himself physically

Note that most, but not all of these traits are closely related to socionic types and dichotomies. We are simply "flexing" our observation muscles and making sure we are able to generate accurate descriptions of the person we are studying, regardless of how we diagnose his type.

That being said, I am convinced he is an LSI.

In my opinion, Langan's most outstanding trait is his sense of controlledness of behavior and thought. He continually submits his thoughts and behavior to certain strict bounds, of which he is highly aware. This is an expression of . Every thought is carefully and confidently expressed. There is no room for doubt or vacillation (there may be in his worldview, but it is not a part of his dominant behavior). Thoughts are clearly delineated and judgments are well thought-out and often harsh and absolute. His movements are well-controlled and contained and convey a sense of restraint and confidence. No wonder he is a convincing bar bouncer.

Langan frequently demonstrates - not only via his "mobilized" physical state, but also in his speech. He makes frequent use of strong words and phrases like "I booted his ass out of the house" and "our country is led by a bunch of dunces." Such phrases and their accompanying intonation show agressiveness and a readiness to back up one's words with decisive action or force if necessary.

Here's Wikipedia's biography of Langan for additional insight.

The Psyche and Reality: Augusta's Understanding

In an earlier post I mentioned the confusion surrounding the terms "function" and "information aspect." In actuality there are three different things that each have their own proper name, and people often mix them up or use them interchangeably for convenience. To clear up the confusion, I have created the following visual (the underlined words are not links):

*Note that in Jungian typology both IM elements and functions of the psyche are called "functions" ("thinking," "feeling," etc. are called functions, but so are the "leading function," "vulnerable function," etc.), while there is no concept that corresponds to information aspects in socionics.

Augusta saw objective reality as consisting of "bodies and fields" - objects and their interrelations. Individuals' perception is able to register all aspects of reality (or at least those accessible to our species) to some degree, but focuses on certain aspects more than others. Hence, the categories used to "divide up" reality can also be used to describe the corresponding "modules" of perception that register them. These modules Augusta called IM elements, or elements of information metabolism. The aspects of reality Augusta called information aspects. She viewed reality as sending living beings a constant stream of information about itself. This stream breaks down into different information aspects much as light breaks down into the colors of the rainbow.

To describe the differences in perception of information between individuals, Augusta used Jung's concept of functions of the psyche. By assigning a number to each IM element in her model of a specific type, she was able to describe the priority of perception, or - in her preferred wording - "the degree of clarity and differentiation of perception" of the given information aspect. The first two IM elements determine the ordering of the other six according to the rules outlined by Jung. At first Augusta referred to only 4 functions, following Jung's example. She called this "Model J." However, there was a logical inconsistency. Reality consisted of 8 information aspects, but only four of these were represented in the model of the psyche, suggesting that the psyche was unable to register the other four. Eventually Augusta and her associates introduced the 8-function model, called "Model A," and found the proper places for perception of all 8 aspects of reality in the socionic model of the psyche.

Simplifying Reality Through the Weak Functions

This topic came to me while working on a translation of Augusta's The Dual Nature of Man. Augusta's type was ILE. She had a definite tendency to simplify factors affecting relationships and interaction between people. Today her theoretical understanding of socionics and intertype interaction still lies at the foundation of socionics, but they have been fleshed out and are widely recognized to be not as clear-cut as she originally described them. In comparison, my blog and website show a more diverse approach to the topic of human interaction that includes other sources of insight (psychology, evolution, personal observations) in addition to socionics.

The difference? Augusta was an ILE with weak (simplistic) , whereas for me is an area of creativity and multi-dimensional perception. Augusta in effect describes a sphere with the aid of . Since her explanations of relationships are secondary to her discovery of new patterns and structure in personality and information interchange, her oversimplifications are permissable, but in the long run they lose out in memetic competition to more fleshed-out and sensitive approaches to understanding relationships. Her understanding of relationships is rough and simplistic and doesn't pick up on the nuances of people's subjective feelings and the diversity of factors that influence these feelings from day to day.

Each of us simplifies certain aspects of reality as well. Have you ever met people who say and believe that all you have to do to maintain good health is eat less than 2000 calories a day, or visit the doctor every six months, or jog three times a week for 40 minutes? Have you ever met people who say and believe that all you have to do to develop your intellectual powers is read one book a week? Or that the key to maintaining a good relationship with your spouse is to frame statements about the relationships in the first person rather than the third (e.g. "I feel distressed when... " instead of "You never... !")? Or that the key to professional success is to perform one's duties and assignments diligently? Or that the way to ensure their physical safety is to take a self-defense course?

Each of these beliefs bears the mark of a weak function (usually the Super-ego). People take a one-dimensional approach toward a multi-dimensional issue. The purpose of this approach is to avoid thinking about this particular aspect of life in order to direct a larger proportion of attention and energy to our "favorite" tasks and activities. People with a multi-dimensional intuitive understanding of the area in question display a willingness to examine the nuances of each problem as it comes up instead of applying a blanket solution (one might say, a "final solution," to use Hitler's revealing choice of words). In certain areas of life each of us is prone to concoct "final solutions" that - naturally - must ultimately fail, since we assume that the problems that arise in this area will always be of the same narrow type that we have been able to foresee. But not all health problems arise from obesity, reading does not involve the entire intellect, relationships cannot be saved through careful wording, diligent employees are often laid off, and robbers do not always attack from the front and warn that they are assaulting you.

In the absence of close relationships with duals (and, to a degree, activators and partial duals), this one-dimensional approach often turns into a rigid false conviction; the individual believes he has found the single correct way of doing things and does not recognize his own incompetency. Dual relations in particular tend to keep the psyche flexible and constantly remind the individual of his own subjectivity in many areas of reality.

ILIs on the Internet: a Case Study

Of all socionic types, ILIs consistently seem to feel the most at home in the virtual world of computers and the Internet. ILIs are often found writing blogs, managing forums, participating in online discussions, designing websites, and playing computer games. To me what's remarkable is that ILIs who are computer and Internet geeks don't typically feel distressed by their "excessive" online activities, as opposed to people of most other types. It's just a part of normal life to them and isn't any better or worse than real-life activities.

Here is a great example - in my opinion - of an ILI who is very active on the Internet: M. Alan Kazlev. He is the author of www.kheper.net - a sort of sprawling online encyclopedia of articles on esoterism with over 1500 page.

The site has virtually no design elements and lacks a unified navigational structure, but it is fascinating to jump from topic to associated topic if you share Kazlev's interest in "new scientific and esoteric evolutionary paradigm concerning the nature of existence and its infinite metamorphoses, and the transformation of the Earth and the planetary consciousness to a post-singularity state of Supramental (Infinite Truth-Consciousness) divinisation" (from the site index). Here is a complete list of topics presented on the website.

In my opinion, Kazlev's interest in and approach to spirituality is quite characteristic of ILIs in general. ILIs' worldview is full of uncertainty and rarely allows for a final commitment to one single overarching idea system. Such a "final commitment" would imply closing one's eyes to contradictions that ILIs are prone to see in every aspect of human activity. Rather than try to resolve these contradictions by proposing their own competing material/external explanation of reality, spiritually-minded ILIs instead strive to establish contact with "higher powers," "the light within," or some similar source of non-rational knowledge that goes beyond describing physical, observable reality (which is always contradictory to an ILI). As Kazlev says, "I am an empiricist. I accept only what is certain. For me, certain is the light from within." The worldview of a well-developed ILI cannot be expressed using verbal, logical means (as opposed to LIIs), and truth cannot be reduced to words and formulations.

Kazlev has a strong interest in things related to the theme of "changes in functioning over time" as it applies to the world around us, the world within, and art forms:

• palaeontology and the evolution, transformations, and the phylogeny of life through Geological time
• esotericism and occult cosmologies, and the theme of involution, evolution, and metamorphosis
• science Fiction - whether reading, writing, or worldbuilding, including hard science space opera, my two projects at the moment being the transhuman worldbuilding project Orion's Arm
  [source]

In addition to www.kheper.net, Kazlev runs "Orion's Arm," "a bold new shared worldbuilding and creative writing project, creating and exploring a new vision of the future of humanity and other sentient beings, ten thousand years hence" [source]. Not surprisingly, the project is dedicated to the memory of famous science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem, himself an ILI.

Finally, Kazlev has two blogs - here and here, a formidable project on the history and evolution of life on earth called Palaeos (remember that I've typed the scrupulous Charles Darwin as ILI), and a wiki encyclopedia on the history of life on earth. In addition, he is a very active contributor to a host of topics on Wikipedia.

At one of Kazlev's blogs we read a sentiment common among ILIs:

"Although I do consider myself an intellectual of sorts (albeit a spiritual-esoteric intellectual) I do get bored with too much mental debate. Especially where the emotional being gets involved, then you have a big argument, with lots of hurt feelings, shadow projection, misinterpretation, etc. That's why it's better to follow the pure spiritual path and access the reality behind the words."
[source]

This reflects the ILI's value of above all else. involves a image or vision of reality that goes beyond words (because it is based on mental images). Also, the Gamma Quadra values of over are evident. It's better to preserve good feelings than push one's logical idea system on others, especially when ILIs are by nature skeptical about the chances of finding truth in logical idea systems in the first place.

Finally, let's take a look at Kazlev's own biography. Sincere, self-aware biographies are always a fascinating read. Here we find out about the early origins of Kazlev's interest in science and palaentology, and that his "physical and especially emotinal development always lagged behind, whereas my intellectual development and imagination was very advanced. At the same time, my alienation was so great that I remeber thinking at this time that I really might be a martian." We also learn of what sounds like a dual friendship with an SEE:

At this time I had a friend called Daniel... who was schizophrenic and hyperactive, but a really nice guiy, not at all intelligent but very feeling centered, tall, social and emotionally developed and easy going, extravertive and talkative, obsessed with sex, and would go on all the time about things like how long his dick was which I really wasn't interested in hearing about. He was the opposite of me who was (and am) short, intense, moody, intellectual, private, emotionally backward (not now, but then)... Anyway Daniel and I used to walk the streets of Melbourne together, a bit like Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy. He was one of my few close friends, although we were quite opposite.

Also interesting is how a relationship helped him become less of a slob, how he spent several years doing nothing but playing computer games, and how a speech impediment has affected his functioning.

I hope Alan will forgive me for "showcasing" him here, if he happens to come across this.

My Interest in Socionics

Each person who is seriously involved in socionics has his own reasons and personal history that led him to this. My own interest in socionics is based on several things:

• my innate curiosity about people and relationships: how and why do people differ, and how and why do relationships differ?
• my interest in personal development: how can I identify and rid myself of ineffective behavior, thoughts, and sentiments to lead a balanced and fulfilling life and achieve the clearest possible perception free of projections and the influences of random emotional and cultural baggage?
• my innate desire to help people discover their unique individuality, have fulfilling relationships, and do good things in life.
• my inborn, deep-down conviction of the possibility of deeply fulfilling, ideal relationships that would make a person feel happy and whole; personal experience that demonstrated the impossibility of such a relationship with most people, and experience that proved that my ideals could be met through duality as understood by socionics, and that other people whom I was not compatible with could experience the same thing with other partners.

For some stories of how people have found out about socionics, here's an interesting link.

Getting to Know Introtims and Extratims

The process of getting to know an introtim is quite different from the process of getting to know an extratim. Introtims are designed to respond to efforts made by others, while extratims are designed to make efforts themselves. These orientations are usually most apparent during the process of making acquaintances and getting to know each other better. Sexual programs (i.e. male initiative) can add another dimension to these patterns that I will not discuss here.

Introtims:
Introtims live with the sensation that there are always people who want to talk to them, get to know them, or do something with them. Their life philosophy is very often built around how to respond to these people.

Extratims:
Extratims live with the sensation that it is their job in life to put forth an effort to establish contact and interaction with people.Their life philosophy is very often built around how best to do this.

By no means are we equating socionic extraversion to "talkativeness." Introtims can be very talkative and extratims very reserved (though extreme cases convey a sense of tension and dissatisfaction, whereas by comparison very talkative extratims and very reserved introtims seem more natural).

The difference is that introtims do not tend to talk about themselves, but rather share their experiences, sentiments, thoughts, etc. that apply to the situation or discussion at hand. This kind of talkativeness serves to support communication and refine the situation, and not to get to know people better.

Extratims, on the other hand, tend to talk about themselves even when it isn't required by the situation at hand. In doing so, they inadvertently broaden the context of discussion and open up new topics. Some extratims can be silent for a long time, but then suddenly say or do something that significantly extends the context of the situation.

In general, introverted behavior serves to refine situations and bring them closer to satisfying participants' internal needs, while extraverted behavior serves to expand situations and bring them closer to the demands of external reality.

Let's look at the three possible combinations below:

Two introtims
Introtims, as a rule, establish personal contact with each other and build relationships as a result of being in the same location and circumstances for an extended period of time. In this case, no one has to make an effort to get to know the other - it just happens naturally within the context of their shared activities and experiences.

Two introtims can live together for years and never really know what the other person is like because they haven't ever discussed their personal qualities (similarities and differences) in depth. Instead, they know very well the other person's behavior, thoughts, and sentiments in the context of their shared experiences. Exasperated by the deficit of information circulating between them, they may make strange demands on the other's behavior without ever realizing the objective nature of the problem (i.e. that they have objective differences or similarities). Most often, relationships between two introtims have an aura of eccentricity, as if people are living in their own little bizarre world.

Two extratims
Extratims, as a rule, establish personal contact with other people by making an effort and saying more than needs to be said or asking more than needs to be asked in the given situation. When they are interested in a person, they try to find out about them directly by asking questions or by talking about themselves and expecting that the other person will follow suit. This ensures that people begin talking about their own general characteristics, which is necessary in order to establish a personal relationship.

Most often extratims react to other extratims' attempts to open them up and get to know them better with indifference or hostility concealed under a layer of tactfulness - especially if they sense the other person is treating them like an introvert. Hence, to have a stable relationship two extratims need to make a habit of talking about external things and avoid trying to "build a relationship" with the other by getting too personal. A possible exception is relations of activation, where partners are often able to help resolve each other's problems through direct intervention (without asking permission). Most often, relationships between two extratims lack "glue" and seem to have little that keeps them together.

An introtim and an extratim
Usually it is the extratim that makes the initial effort to establish a connection with the other person. The extratim has usually noticed certain qualities in the other person before the introtim is even aware. Based on his or her observations, the extratim decides to make an effort to open the other person up (each type in his own way). At this point the introtim knows very little about the extratim, but - more often than not - decides to humor the other person and respond to his efforts. At the very least, the introtim acknowledges the extratim's efforts to initiate communication (which is more than many extratims will do).

Video sample:
Johnny Depp and Rosie O'Donnell

If a stable relationship forms, the extratim and introtim complement each other by both expanding and refining situations, topics of discussion, and spheres of shared activity. Their interaction focuses on serving both internal and external needs. The introtim is satisfied that someone is around to periodically stir up the waters and generate convenient opportunities for change, and the extratim is content that someone is around to manage the inner life of the relationship and provide a sense of internal stability.

On a cultural level
In extraverted cultures like the United States, the prevailing habit is to talk about yourself, asking others about themselves, and go beyond (and ignore) the context of the situation when establishing a connection with people. In introverted cultures like Russia or Ukraine, people have a habit of establishing contact by talking about their responses to the shared situation they are in, without making others uncomfortable by expanding the situation or directing attention towards people's characteristics.

Socionics and Internet Addiction

In light of the recent problems at the16types.info, the most popular English-language socionics forum, I looked around at some other forums and came across this interesting post by a girl who used to be an active participant in online socionics discussions.

In my opinion, the central issue here is not the usefulness of socionics in general (I will discuss this below), but Internet addiction. Many people fall prey to the emotional draw of online forums where they spend hours and hours each day satisfying their need for communication and connection with others. Often people find they have personal relationships and emotional attachments to people on the forums or chat rooms that they have never, and will likely never meet. Dependence on cyber-sex and online pornography is yet worse. Some kinds of dependency, such as the nagging desire to check one's e-mail or do yet another Google search on a random topic, are more inane. The awareness of any kind of Internet dependency is almost always unpleasant and creates the desire to "fight the addiction," reduce or drop one's online activities, and give more attention to events occurring in real life. Often people repeatedly try and fail. If the author of the post is able to hold true to her decision, I would congratulate her. I'm sure she will not regret her decision in the least.

At the same time, I don't believe socionics has much to do with her negative sentiments. It really doesn't matter much what the subject matter of the forum is - socionics, snowboarding, freemasonry, or forex; the side effects of excessive online participation will be very similar. Of course, the best thing to do is to find some way to bring the center of gravity of one's life back into the real world and devote less emotional energy to one's online communication.

For myself - also a fairly active participant of socionics forums (but not nearly as active as the author of the post used to be) - attachment to online discussions has been an occasional issue. However, I am a newcomer to online forums and don't find them very addictive in the first place. Also, I'm older and have my own business to do and my own relationships that are more important than forums. Next, socionics for me is part of my professional interests, so the time and effort I put into serious discussion on forums also goes into "building" my websites and intellectual territory. Each good new realization or formulation is like another brick in the wall of a house I am building. If it weren't for the expectation of doing something with this material and knowledge in the future, my participation would seem like a waste of time. Finally, the bulk of my socionics activities take place in the real world in the form of analysis and discussions with real people (friends who are into socionics and psychology). I regularly get letters from people who are very interested in socionics but have never posted at the16types or other forums.

In short, yes - socionics forums can be addictive. And socionics can prove to be a waste of time if it is not discussed and developed offline (more on possible negative side-effects of socionics here). I recommend trying to stick to "professional" discussion of topics and watching yourself for signs of trying to satisfy emotional needs online. A test of the depth of your "professional" interest in socionics might be this: would you ever write someone a personal letter to discuss a socionics topic in depth just between the two of you (as opposed to having a discussion on a forum)? If not, you may be interested in social recognition more than you are in socionics and related topics.

The next step is to develop your socionics activities offline if the subject really interests you. Our upcoming meeting in London in April, I hope, will be the first step towards forming a real-life socionics community in the West. Perhaps real friendships and more professional collaboration will arise as a result. I think that will be a very healthy development, and I hope similar meetings will take place in the future. Real-life encounters and cooperation involve more aspects of one's being and don't produce unhealthy addictions (unless people get together to do drugs :-).

Walking a fine line between participation in real life and the virtual global community is difficult and is one of the fundamental problems of our day. I would not be surprised to see popular movements in the future to get rid of or drastically limit the role of computers in our lives. For now, each of us needs to have an idea of how to tell what is healthy and what isn't and make corresponding lifestyle choices.

How to Create Psychologically Compatible Robots

In the foreseeable future household robots may become commonplace. These robots will likely serve not only to help keep order in the home, but to provide emotional support to their stressed out, friendship-starved owners. To elicit an emotional attachment, they will need to display human qualities and psychologically complement their owners.

Potentially, robots could be created that would arouse a greater attachment than a human partner could. The way to do this is to make robots that have no personal goals of their own, but are wholly devoted to satisfying their owners' needs and whims. If robots were also designed to satisfy their owners sexually, the effect could be addictive.

How would you go about creating a psychologically compatible robot?
To generate an attachment between master and robot, the robot would have to display helplessness in the areas that the master is strongest in. This makes the master feel needed by the robot, and in return the robot would have to provide needed assistance to the master as well. If you create a purely functional robot that carries out a single set of tasks and has no human weaknesses and no implicit neediness, there will be no attachment with owners (except for the most technically minded people who "love" machines). For an emotional attachment to form, robot and master must fulfill each other's psychological needs. This implies a certain degree of psychological lopsidedness and neediness, which creates a motivation for cooperation.

The robot would have to display helplessness indirectly - not through blunt questions like, "Can you clean me? I feel dirty." To this the owner would probably reply, "Go clean yourself. I'm busy." Much more effective would be to have the robot cough and look tired and preoccupied when dust begins to build up inside or some other maintenance is required. This kind of robot behavior would be ideal for owners with strong . These robots would lighten up and start sharing insightful observations about events around them as soon as they are fed and properly taken care of. They would also need to finicky and infantile to provide an outlet for their owners' caretaking tendencies.

People with strong would need robot helpers that are cute and harmless playthings that constantly lose track of wires and outlets, phone numbers, things to do, and tools and appliances. Such robots should be able to put on a sad face and say, "Now what am I going to do? The refrigerator doesn't seem to be working any more, and I can't remember where I put the warranty." At the same time, these robots need to be adept at listening and comforting owners who struggle with irritation.

People with strong would need robot companions who habitually take things too seriously and take issue with other people's choice of words, leading to frequent arguments. Such robots should be able to complain convincingly about a lack of comradery and kinship with others and should feel depressed when they are time and time again left out of fun, socializing, and close relationships. These robots soften up and become animated when their emotionally spirited masters are around. In return, they need to be able to listen staunchly to emotional tirades and help their owners figure out what is at the root of their discontent.

People with strong have a need for robots with strong material desires who are chronically anxious and worried about the future. These robots would need to ask questions like, "what if we don't make it to the bus stop on time?" with a worried face. At the same time, these robots would need to constantly whip their owners into shape by calling them "lazy bums" and by saying "I need the trash taken out NOW," "why haven't you called Aunt Bettie yet?", etc.

People with strong have a need for robot helpers who suffer from a lack of will and personal desires. Such robots would need to be able to complain with a hopeless look about a lack of motivation and guidance in their day-to-day tasks. These robots would be daydreamers who chronically forget about the world around them, but have a strong sense of meaning and purpose and can hypnotize their owners with their predictions and internal vision.

People with strong have a need for robot helpers who are always joking and acting up, but can't communicate information in a clear, logical, and dispassionate manner. When corrected by their owners, they would say, "Yes sirree" or "that, my friend, is precisely what I wanted to say" with a mockingly serious expression.

People with strong have a need for robot companions who are hard-working and diligent, but frequently experience irritation when other people get in the way of their goals and don't act rationally. These robots should be able to sigh dejectedly and say, "my relationship with the garbage man is the source of much distress for me," or "What is wrong with people? Am I the only one who isn't mentally ill?"

People with strong have a need for robot helpers who worry about their undeveloped talents and potential and wonder what strengths and weaknesses they have compared to other people (or robots). They should be able to convey this insecurity on their face in moments of weakness. At the same time, these robots should be good at supporting any new initiatives of their owners and should be programmed to remind their owners to use the bathroom, ask them if they are hungry or cold, and suggest ways to remedy these situations (i.e. "Oh you poor thing - you look as if you haven't eaten anything all day. How about I microwave the pizza leftovers?").