My Problem with "Classical" Socionics

My Problem with Classical Socionics:

Opening Statement

Why did I choose "Western Socionics" over Classical?

I was asked that recently, and I didn't really think about it until I wrote some notes and talked with a few other socionics figures to better gather my thoughts. However, after some reflection, I decided to write my thoughts here.

The issue primarily stems from the SCS community's position on adherence to Aushra, and too much focus on "guru" culture as a whole. You can also see this trend in Enneagram circles, who I believe can rely too heavily on the "official typings" of that author. But what I mean is that you often have an "authority" on a specific school or theory, and concepts are not rated by their real-world applicability but rather by their purity to Aushra's original texts and to the original founding members (such as Antony Augustinavichiute and Viktor Gulenko).

This not only affects the overall theory but also even down to its core definitions of information elements. In the original texts, definitions are overly "mystical" and not yet firmly defined, which is why you'll find many different schools of thought within the Socionics community. This is absolutely fair for Aushra, as the inventor of a system/thing is almost never its master. You need other people to refine concepts, to hone them, and to discover better ways to utilize those mechanisms. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly, but does their prototype airplane match up to a WW2 bomber, or a modern F-35 fighter jet? Things develop and hone themselves over time. Just because plane crashes happen with modern hardware malfunctions, does that mean we should revert to prototype planes?

This highlights my second reason: their respective approaches to academia and science as a whole.

Aushra has always intended to treat Socionics as a "hard science" that seeks to study people, relationships, and how they work. Despite that intention, though, Socionics has struggled to gain mainstream appeal in the West because it lacks that empirical basis. To have a theory accepted as a science, you need to prove hypotheses via the scientific method. This is first done through an observation of the natural world; aka, behaviour that is replicable, and models that can be used to predict those behaviours/outcomes.

Despite its steep challenges, I find that Western Socionics is taking a more productive approach towards becoming empirically focused. You can see this in just the general attitude when it comes to refining and changing definitions originally made by Aushra. By slowly redefining definitions to become more based on observable trait behaviours (instead of just focusing on metabolic states), the model can now be falsified. Simply put, if an observable trait falls outside that group of behaviours, a conclusion can be proven wrong (which is a core component of the scientific method). Whereas in classical circles, doing this with purely internal psychological processes is immensely difficult and far more prone to being inconsistent.

With just that general attitude, I find WSS is doing more than SCS to encourage participation in the evolution of the model, and putting it more on the road towards becoming less pseudoscientific.

My Problem with Classical Socionics: Theory into Science

So how does a model attempt to do this?

Well, first you need to refine the model to become as clear as possible. You need to define boundaries in definitions (what an element is and what it isn't), use precise criteria, refine the language, and most importantly, use empirical data to prove the model to be correct. In the realm of socionics, this means transforming previously abstract concepts into observable, concrete definitions, and continuously testing that model to fail. In essence, this means that you can't rely on the progenitor of a concept forever, if you wish it to evolve past pseudoscience. In contrast, even the title of "Classical Socionics" is implicitly one that seeks to reject these developments in favour of pursuing something ideologically purer, even at the risk of becoming less empirical, standardized, and aligned with scientific standards.

A good example I like to use is the socionics definition of Te and Se.

Aushra (in The Dual Nature of Humanity) originally defines extroverted thinking (Te) as such:

"The use of kinetic energy. Through this element the individual receives information about the activity of the object and subject and their ability to work."

From her definition, one could come to the conclusion that kinetic energy is real-world action and movement; it is physically observable and present in our sphere of reality. In contrast, it is impossible to measure objective output through abstract ruminations and potential energy (Ne), because nothing of real-world movement gets done. So for work to actually get done, you need extroverted sensation (Se).

Te is a measure of effort and work, not a use of force itself. Kinetic energy is only meant to explain the "physical" grounded properties of observable work, and Te is about how it shifts over time.

That's all said and done. That is my interpretation anyways. However, Aushra's original definition leaves enough room for misinterpretation, and you might have already made it yourself.

The usage of the term "kinetic energy" almost makes it as if Te is about kinetic energy, instead of observing real-world grounded action and how it translates to productivity. That is a problem in Aushra's use of language. What Aushra says here makes sense on a logical level; you can't really observe work that doesn't exist, and that is precisely the reason why kinetic energy is mentioned in the definition of Te. However, it brings unnecessary noise that can potentially confuse and muddle the "true" meaning of what the definition attempts to measure.

Aushra's original definition, while it does point to something significant, also does not do enough to cleanly distinguish this element from the other.

I'm going to get really nerdy here, but bare with me.

Socionics is a typological system created and upheld by mathematical laws, and one such law is that everything defined requires its opposite and/or inverse form to be defined correctly and consistently. To define silence, you need to also define loud. Light and dark. Wet and dry, etc. This is a fundamental aspect in any definition, and this goes for the information elements as well.

If extroverted intuition (Ne) is defined as "potential energy," its opposite (extroverted sensation/ Se) needs to be strictly defined as "kinetic energy." These forms of energy are direct opposites of one another in physics, and therefore, if Aushra wishes to establish one element of focus, she needs to explain her opposite in those same rigid and consistent terms. The more consistent and rigid the definition, the stronger the system and the explanatory power behind it. If you have overlap between definitions of different aspects (or "pillars"), you are going to have a hell of a time actually using socionics and distinguishing one element from the other.

In summary, you are going to have the same issue that plagues other typological systems.

If you want an example of this issue, try asking five different MBTI practitioners what "Si" means, and you'll almost always get five different answers.

In short, if Se is defined as "kinetic energy." It needs to be the sole element focused on kinetic energy. That definition must have firm boundaries. If Ne is defined as "potential energy," you can't have other elements who also focus on potential energy. The issue with Aushra's original definition of Te, is that it also mentions kinetic energy (which is a real thing governed by Se). While "kinetic energy" is real-world movement and action, a definition that further isolates Te from Se creates a more stable system to draw conclusions from. This has been done for various elements in the Model A system.

So what Aushra, and later other members of the socionics community have done since is to slowly tighten those definitions over time. What it loses in perhaps artistic flow, flexibility, and ideological purity, WSS gains in creating a more consistent system that can more easily recreate the same outcomes using the same controlled factors.

AKA, it moves it closer to utilizing the "gold standard" of the scientific method. Now psychological types are more consistent, and you can more easily assess their real-world behaviour and use models to predict.

Elements are also further defined by the dichotomies. Aushra worked with Renien to develop fifteen, and serve to better distinguish elements from one another. She then defined Te through three separate information dichotomies, such Te being dyanmic vs static, extroverted vs. introverted, etc. As these dichotomies grew and further distinguished Te from Se, Te became "action," and Se is "kinetic energy," or the real-world energy something possesses at a specific point in time.

Definition of "Action": An action is the fact or process of doing something, performing an activity, or executing a deed.

While kinetic energy measures the energy of an object at a specific point (impact, force, etc.), action measures how that energy through processes is dispersed over time.

Now the definition of Te, according to WSS, is...

"Factually informed processes. Any working body or mechanism is made up of moving parts that change in their properties. Continuous observation of such processes provides data on how the thing works, its effects, and how it can be improved. Such data is factual and concrete, being clearly substantiated in observation. The larger the quantity of data and the more often it is updated, the better the decisions that can be made, increasing the efficiency of these processes."

In short, simply "action" and the measure of work.

No mention of "kinetic energy," or anything that could obscure and muddy its meaning.

One can certainly say that the WSS definition waters down the complexity of Aushra's original work, but I would argue that the former serves to make her work more clear and (importantly) more observable. This is not just the case with definitions on information elements but with the model as a whole. Definitions and structures are far more rigid and cleanly defined, which is precisely what you need in a system.

Closing Statements

To summarize my hot take, my primary issue with classical socionics stems from its inherent position of remaining "classical."

To many, this might seem to be a reasonable step. After all, WSS has seemingly "watered down" concepts and is leading people to mistype because it's too shallow and focused on behaviour to form its assessments. Akin to MBTI. To me, however, it feels like a fundamentally misguided approach, and is one that automatically assumes the worst intentions when concepts deviate from Aushra's original work.

But to start, this is the sacred text fallacy, or assuming Socionics' original texts are simply immune to refinement or criticism just simply because they are the origin. Descriptions are not assessed by their ties to real, observable behaviour, but rather by how closely they align with Aushra's original vision. It is important to remind the community of where those concepts come from, but not allowing people to evolve past the progenitor of the work is irrational.

This is why I find that many classical circles tend to devalue concepts such as intertype relations, because the structure that makes up intertype compatibility (which was the primary reason Aushra developed socionics to begin with) is no longer secure and refined enough to be used consistently. Sure enough, when you throw out decades' worth of refinement and collaboration because you might have been typed wrong by someone, you'll find what is left over to not be as defined. Then those people get disappointed by the perceived shortcomings of socionics and move on to other systems such as the Enneagram. It's the equivalent of amputating your foot because you stumped your toe.

Now does WSS have its issues? Absolutely.

Typings can still be wrong, people can overly rely on stereotypes, and I myself disagree with various typings made by "authorities" in the circle (such as Jack). That is perfectly normal and expected. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes, as human beings are not perfect.

This sentiment is shared by many "Western" socionist figures I've spoken to at length, such as PorcupineJason and Jack Aaron himself. However, most importantly, the disagreement is not predicated on our definitions of the elements or the model, but instead, they are based on our observations of people/characters. People can perceive different things in others, especially in different contexts.

It is where that discussion and debate that focuses on empirical behaviours (outside of strictly cognitive pathways) that brings WSS closer to becoming an accepted science, despite it having a long way to go. The definitions are not debated, but rather, how someone's behaviour lines up with the model is being assessed.

To get to the best typing (no matter the system), I believe you need two things.

1. A firm and consistent model in which definitions are concrete and refined enough to not provoke debate and disagreement on what it attempts to measure.

2. A good assessment of your subject.

This goes not just for practitioners and newbies, but authors as well. You can be someone who is wholly knowledgeable about a framework, but you can get an individual completely wrong on their motivations and beliefs, and that is okay. Or vice versa.

This is just my experience, but in western socionics circles, I find that most people who are experienced are in relative agreement on step 1. Definitions are refined enough not to be debated by themselves, at least not at length. The debate is usually centred on what each person observes in a particular subject and their particular behaviours, so step 2. This reflects the principle of testing a theory on its falsifiability. Whereas during my time in SCS (or what I like to call "Aushra-only" Socionics), there is far more debate when it comes to definitions and criteria before the discussion even hits the character assessment phase. I've seen people in the same community who will type a figure as Fe Base, or Te Base all because of their differing definitions of said information elements.

So while some might call it "watering down" the concepts posited originally by Aushra, I would argue this refining of concepts into behavioural models is WSS' greatest strength, and how it strives to move Socionics past a pseudoscientific theory into a more proveable science. Personally, I don't like the idea of spending a lot of time on a structural theory that has no real-world applicability. Additionally, I want to be a part of a model that encourages collaboration and refining those structural concepts over time to become more useful. That seems a lot more meaningful to me to spend my time on.

So, despite Socionics still being an unproven system, it does not always have to be that way. To do this, we must engage with rigorous empirical testing, define/redefine concepts and terminology to make Model A increasingly standardized, and define clear behavioural outcomes. Additionally, it would be wise to find ways to connect it to accepted fields such as nueroscience and even the Big Five Personality System. That's a long ways off, but we won't ever get to that point if people keep taking an "ideologically pure" approach rather than a pragmatic one.

So what can the Socionics community do?

To start, simply collaborate with other schools more, and stop the impulsive need to develop entirely seperate schools of thought based on minor disagreements. If Classical Socionists believe that WSS has devolved information elements and blocks, then active debate and discussion should be encouraged between both parties to further refine those concepts to make them more useful. But it should be approached from the standpoint of refining definitions for empirical use, not whether it simply "aligns" with Aushra.

Outside of knowing where Socionics comes from (which is important), people should learn to evolve past authorities to develop systems into something we can use.