"Your weight is 53% likely to be 318 lbs"

Did your physician ever measure your body weight? You remember how it was, don’t you. You step on the scale and it says 92 lbs. Pretty odd, because the scale you have at home usually shows you are 124 lbs. But the physician hurries to say, that he is a professional physician! He measures your weight professionally and it is nothing else but 92 lbs. Besides, it is very good to have such weight, because it is considered good, and others can only dream about being that slim!

You may start to doubt, if your own scale is correct.

Then you go to another physician, and you let him measure your weight again. What is the result? Take a deep breath and hold on tight. The doc looks at the screen and announces 318 lbs. Three hundred eighteen pounds. Could that be possible?

Have you just eaten up a few boxes of pizza, without noticing that? Or, maybe somebody has just replaced your leg with stones?

You ask: “Why?” The doctor eagerly explains. “We are so proud to have just got the newest scale in the market! Do you see, how it shines? And when you step up on, you hear that beautiful music. This is surely the best scale you could use to measure your weight! It is so complicated! State of art! It operates on photons and quasars. There is a laser beam running inside, that checks 37 parameters related to your weight and then it calculates the average. Your weight is 53% likely to be 318 lbs, 49% likely to be 287 lbs and 42% likely to be 109 lbs. Don’t you see how precise our results are? Isn’t it fascinating?”

I don’t believe, that anybody would put up with this lack of professionalism in medicine. At least one physician above would have serious troubles, if this story were true.

Unfortunately, when personality types are considered, the “shining” and theoretical reasoning of the typing methods is often valued more, than observations and the mere knowledge of Socionics basics.

“I was typed as EIE. Then I was typed again as ESI. When I’m in bad mood, I’m always typed as ESI. Then I started my business and I’ve been typed as LIE.”

“There are just different schools of typing in Socionics. Therefore you get different types.”

Would you put up with a physician’s explanation that there are just “different kind of scales” and that is why they cannot measure your body weight properly? Would you???

Or, maybe you would put up with a “specialist” who cannot determine your biological sex?

For some people Socionics has become some sort of a battlefield for their wits, an area of infinite arguing pro and contra some type or feature. It has much less to do about observations of one’s behavior or attitudes, it stopped to be about typing itself, but rather about discussing, which type somebody can be.

Could you imagine a couple of doctors, who are drinking tea and considering one of their colleagues.

“Is he a male or a female?”

”Look, he doesn’t have a beard, so he is female.”

”But sometimes he has stubbles, so he can grow a beard, so he is male.”

”But THAT is not a beard, is it? And besides, this sort of a hair-do is a female-type.”

”No, this is a male-type.”

”Explain me why is this a male-type.”

“Who votes he is a male? And who votes he is a female?”

When somebody’s personality type is determined in a similar conversation…

And then comes another conversation, with other experts, typists and voters.

And then comes one more typist and says, Socionics is unscientific.

Please, make a clear distinction.

Socionics IS scientific. Many of its typists aren’t.

When Aushra Augusta, the founder, studied Jung dichotomies (thinking – feeling, sensorical – intuitive, that sort of stuff), she noticed that each type manifested the same features somewhat differently. IEI’s manifestations of intuition are not the same as ILE’s. LSE’s rationality is different from LIE’s.

Aushra was smart enough, to start to look for a more robust model. She observed hundreds of people and she compared. Finally, she succeeded! As for today, the model of a personality type proposed by Aushra, the A-model, is the only one, that completely describes a personality type, and goes even far beyond. A-model digs into the biggest WHY.

Why do people perceive the world as they do? Why do people like somebody else or dislike somebody else? What are the attitudes of a person towards specific people and towards different areas of life?

Aushra-model regards a personality type as a bunch of eight attitudes (functions) towards eight areas of life (aspects). This is the basics, one has to know in Socionics. Eight aspects and eight functions. How they feel and how they operate.

However, for some people that appeared too simple. They found it too difficult to just observe real people, like Aushra did. They preferred to discard the practical discovery work and just surround themselves with theories.

I do not want to invalidate the theories and mathematical models proposed by Gregory Renin. His expansion of features “is extremely interesting and needs to be studied” (Aushra’s words). The attitudes that Reinin tells us about may shed a lot of light on some ideal personality behavior – how one would consider things and act, if he were un-restricted by social and family biases. Renin’s model could be extremely useful in therapeutic Socionics.

But for tea-party-typists Renin features gave an unlimited ground to argue. “He said the word ‘no’, so he is a negativist!” “He votes for democrats, so he cannot be of ‘aristocratic’ quadras!” You understand, what I mean, don’t you? Stereotypes started to flourish. As in any area, that hasn’t been researched enough and that remains ambiguous.

Does this help you to discover, where lies your biggest potential? Does it help you to predict and control your relationship? Relax, it doesn’t.

There is too few practical observational material collected, to describe precisely, how Renin features are manifested, through different types, through different people, who grew up in different families and societies with different values. Some of the values were accentuated more than others. Does that change one’s type? It doesn’t. Does it change one’s manifestations of Renin features – it does. An EIE who grew up in a family, that traditionally votes democrats, is less likely to break this tradition. An emotivist type, whose Dad yelled “Don’t play a buffoon! Can’t you …ing get serious!” each time he saw his child smiling or crying, will surely express more “thinkingness”.

So. What can be done about that all?

Basics. The basic basics. The robust, plain and complete A-model, that was intended to understand a personality, and that is now the only model, that gives more answers than questions.

Eight attitudes (functions), eight areas of life (aspects). One type. Precise and exact. One page on my website, that gives you understanding of yourself and of your relations with others. My help in making it ultimately clear for you, how your functions operate, so that there’s certainty about what type you are. This is the goal of Socionics. This is why Aushra discovered it.