School of Classical Socionics (SCS)

A Foundational Document - written by Karniv - 2 August 2023

The School of Classical Socionics (SCS) takes a perspective on Socionics centered upon the works of Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.

Despite a boom of interest in Socionics and public interest in classical works, very little effort to explain or develop Augustinavičiūtė’s vision of Socionics has been made, and there is no major English school that currently uses her structure of Model A as a theoretical base. There is a small, grassroots community that does actively engage in and discuss this version of Socionics, and this school seeks to expand this domain to the wider public.

Overarching Goals

The goals of this school may change over time, as some of these goals are concretely realizable. Nevertheless, the 4 overarching goals will be as follows:

• Expanding the Reach Augustinavičiūtė’s Model of Socionics

For various reasons, including sexist cultural attitudes towards female scientists and the fact that Socionics only truly rose in popularity when post-Augustinavičiūtė schools and authors were most prominent, her version of Model A never truly had room to live or breathe.

• Translating Resources for Model A

At the current moment, much of Augustinavičiūtė‘s work remains untranslated or poorly translated. Even the ones that are available on WikiSocion are very poor - many of these translations have passages removed that they disagreed with, or straight up lied in translation about some of what she wrote. In addition, the works of the little-known co-author of Model A, Nikolai Medvedev, as well as various works from Antoni Kępiński have yet to have been made accessible to the general public.

• Creating Resources & Explanations for Model A

It is understandable why Augustinavičiūtė’s works are often dismissed by even long-time Socionics: her works follow a very specific “language”, and taking what she says word-for-word often will not make sense and seem logically paradoxical. However, the writer of this article, alongside other members of communities that he frequents, have decrypted her code and understand the consistencies when things may seem like a vague mess. Our goal is to create articles explaining the underlying logic of the model, and explain how certain seemingly contradictory elements fit together within the system.

• Establish a Typing Method for Model A

Augustinavičiūtė never created a consistent method for typing people in Socionics, although we do know that she typed various famous figures by analyzing the lexical content of their writings. Nevertheless, the School of System Socionics (SSS) method, thanks to brilliant minds like Irina Eglit, has found a way to type people with the lexical method using the parameters of Model A which is amazingly reliable and consistent, even among typists who do not know each other. However, SSS uses Vladimir Ermak’s model, instead of Augustinavičiūtė‘s, as a theoretical basis. Our school will modify the method to capture parameters by Augustinavičiūtė, while retaining theoretical novelties (like Dimensionality) that we think are consistent with the structure of Model A. The overarching goal is to type various members of every type, so that people can view written forms of thinking from all 16 types.

Our school seeks to accomplish these goals with small teams of motivated and knowledgeable people, rather than creating publicly editable resources (such as a Wiki, or public voting space). While we’re willing to accept people who are interested in contributions, keep in mind that we will be selective to ensure that our organization consists of knowledgeable, motivated, and not overly disruptive individuals.

Theoretical Paradigm

Our theoretical paradigm consists of 3 parts: core theory, which will stay as-is from Augustinavičiūtė, secondary theory, parts of the theory that are supported, but poorly elaborated upon by Augustinavičiūtė (this may be the area of drawing from other authors or developing new things), and accessory theory, things we (or Augustinavičiūtė herself) found compatible with her model but was written about by other authors.

As an additional note, type diagnostics and our theory will primarily exist at the lexical level - i.e. looking to analyze underlying thought processes behind communication. This is not to invalidate theory at other levels, but they will not be in our area of focus.

Core Theory

• The Mental / Vital Rings
• Phase-based Information Metabolism
• Horizontal Blocks
• The 6 Function Dichotomies outlined by Augustinavičiūtė

• Reinin Dichotomies based on these 6 (Includes Jung Dichotomies)

• Information Elements based on Introverted-Extraverted + Internal-External + Static-Dynamic
• Intertype Relationships
• The Rings of Social Progress, including sub-rings

 Secondary Theory

• Vertical Blocks
• Quadra/Clubs

• We do not use the concept of “quadra values” or “quadra indicators”.

• Other Reinin Dichotomies
• The three Model A Charge Systems
• Meridians of IMEs (Viewed symbolically, not literally)
• The Yin-Yang Subtype System

Accessory Theory

• Involution / Evolution by Viktor Gulenko (supported by Augustinavičiūtė)
• Dimensionality by Aleksandr Bukalov
• School of System Method, based on book by Irina Eglit
• Unsure if they will be included: Cognitive Styles (Gulenko) and School of System Charges (Vladimir Ermak)

Removed Theory

• Correspondence to Left/Right Brain functioning or Handedness
• Direct connection of IMEs to organs (its symbolic significance may be noted, but not literal significance)
• Direct connection of types to psychiatric disorders

Differences In Interpretation

The following list will outline the major differences between our views at the School of Western Socionics (SWS), informally called Western Socionics, which we will base on Wikisocion composites, in addition to some notable differences from SHS if anything could be confused.

• Attention to how people think, and only how people think.

Compare to SWS: Focuses on things such as what people value, and general signs of demeanor (confidence, assertiveness, emotional boisterousness)

• References Model A as a diagram of Socionics type

Compare to SWS: References Model A as a “catch-all” for a general school of thought, particularly to separate itself from SHS students.

• Heavily focused on the Mental/Vital Dichotomy, which is observable.

Compare to SWS: Focuses on Valued/Unvalued dichotomy. Either does not use Mental/Vital whatsoever, or holds it as a structural dichotomy with no significance in observation.

• Does not use Quadra Values or Quadra Characteristics. Shifts some aspects attributed to that dichotomy to Evaluatory/Situational.

Compare to SWS: Uses Quadra Values and Characteristics as fundamental to typing. Does not use the Evaluatory/Situational dichotomy.

Compare to SHS: Uses Central/Peripheral based on valued Ni-Se vs Si-Ne, whereas SCS would compare to Farsighted/Carefree based on Evaluatory Ni-Se vs Si-Ne. SHS places much more significance on this dichotomy.

• Does not use the Bold/Cautious Dichotomy.

Compare to SWS: Uses the Bold/Cautious dichotomy to what SCS would attribute to Evaluatory/Situational (being on/off by default) or Accepting/Producing (literal boldness / cautiousness with the information).

• Low prominence of the Mobilizing function. Places prominence on the Demonstrative instead.

Compare to SWS: Views the Mobilizing as highly prominent and prioritized.

• Renamed the Ignoring function to “Observing”. Does not view the “Ignoring” as ignored.

Compare to SWS: The ignoring is something ignored within the psyche, and called as such.

• Views Asymmetrical Relationships as central to social progress. Renames “Benefit” to “Request”.

Compare to SWS: Does not hold much views about social progress. Names the request intertype relationship as “benefit”.

• Dimensionality characterized by a concrete list of indicators and 4 parameters: Experience, Norms, Situation, Time.

Compare to SWS: Uses dimensionality as a level of “strength” of the element, and does not use such parameters.

Compare to SHS: Uses a different system of dimensionality based on the energy that corresponds to different functions

• Views the PoLR as significant to the psyche and in conscious awareness.

Compare to SWS: The PoLR is unimportant to the person and can easily be brushed aside.

• The Role is where the mind begins.

Compare to SWS: The Leading is where the mind begins, or what someone immediately thinks of when processing information.

IME Interpretation Differences

        This is a brief overview of the differences between the schools’ perspectives on elements. Many of the discrepancies between these schools are understandable, and one of our school’s goals is to create resources that clarifies why some of these confusions may occur and why Augustinavičiūtė viewed them that way. SHS definitions are based on Varlawend’s article and Gulenko’s book, Psychological Types: Why Are People so Different?.