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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Secondary Theory
Accessory Theory
Removed Theory
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.
Compare to SWS: Focuses on things such as what people value, and general signs of demeanor (confidence, assertiveness, emotional boisterousness)
Compare to SWS: References Model A as a “catch-all” for a general school of thought, particularly to separate itself from SHS students.
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.
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.
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).
Compare to SWS: Views the Mobilizing as highly prominent and prioritized.
Compare to SWS: The ignoring is something ignored within the psyche, and called as such.
Compare to SWS: Does not hold much views about social progress. Names the request intertype relationship as “benefit”.
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
Compare to SWS: The PoLR is unimportant to the person and can easily be brushed aside.
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?.
Description of Phenomenon | SCS | SWS | SHS |
Work | Te | Te | Te |
Efficiency | Te | Te | Te |
Methods of Action | Te | Te | - |
Rules, Laws, and Instructions | Te | Ti | Ti |
Logical Formulae | Te | - | Ti |
Physical Activity | Te | Se | - |
Fighting, Aggression | Te | Se | Se |
The Use of Force | Te | Se | Se |
Gathering Data | - | Te | - |
Emotions & Moods | Fe | Fe | Fe |
Direct Influence | Fe | - | - |
Sounds / Music | Fe | - | - |
Volume of Voice | Fe | - | - |
Physical Chemistry / Excitation | Fe | - | - |
Internal Content & Structure | Ne | Ti | Ti |
Potential | Ne | Ne | Ne |
Mental Skills, Abilities | Ne | Ti / Ne | Ne |
Physical Skills / Strength | Ne | Se | Se |
Underlying Essence & Nature | Ne | Ni | - |
Cultural / Spiritual Composition | Ne | Ni | - |
Adherence to a Structure, even if called “System” (Like Typology) | Ne | Ti | Ti |
Open/Close Mindedness | - | Ne | Ti |
Physical Appearance and Form | Se | Si | Si |
Colors and Aesthetics | Se | Si | Si |
Beauty | Se | Si | Si |
Clothes, Stylistic Appearances | Se | Si | Si |
Money and Finances | Se | Te | Te |
Physical Resources | Se | - | Te |
Will or Volition | Se | Se | Se |
Presently Available Forces | Se | Se | Se |
Kinetic Strength | Se | Se | Se |
Material Objects | Se | - | - |
Names | Se | - | - |
Scientific Thinking | Se | Te | Ti |
Goals | Se | Se / Ni | - |
Defense | - | Se | Se |
Position in Space | Ti | - | - |
Official Positions | Ti | Se | Se |
Hierarchies | Ti | Ti+Se | Se |
Need, Dependency, Leverage | Ti | Se | Se |
Power | Ti | Se | Se |
Logic | Ti | Ti | Ti |
Systems Bound by Laws | Ti | Ti | Ti |
Justice | Ti | Fi | - |
Distancing from Fights | Ti | Si | Si |
Fear | Ti | - | - |
Respect (in the sense of admiration) | Ti | Fi | Fi |
Relationships | Fi | Fi | Fi |
Attraction or Repulsion | Fi | Fi | Fi |
Hatred, Dislike | Fi | Fi | Fi |
Love, Desire | Fi | Fi | Fi |
Conscience, Honor, Dignity | Fi | Fi | Fi |
Respect (in terms of kindness) | Fi | Fi | Fi |
Mutual Influence | Fi | Fe | - |
Tone of Voice | Fi | Fe | - |
Time | Ni | - | Ni |
Inner Life | Ni | - | - |
Pacing, Hurriedness | Ni | - | Ni |
Anxiety | Ni | - | Ni |
Purpose (of Events) | Ni | Ni | - |
Purpose (as in meaning / goals) | Ne / Se | Ni | - |
Present Situation | Si | - | - |
Sensations, Well-being | Si | Si | Si |
Management of Space | Si | Si | Si |
Health | Si | Si | Si |
Recreating Sensory Experiences | Si | Si | Si |
Hedonism | Si | Se | - |
Background Noise | Si | - | - |
Conflict-Aversion, Keeping Peace | - | Si | Fi |