thoughts on socionics as a system

[redbaron]

it's a neat categorized thing but I wonder if the reality is that people fall somewhere on a continuum rather than being one specific type. Sure, we all know people who seem to be very obviously this or that type. I know textbook SLEs, IEEs, SEIs and ILEs. But there are others that kind of defy the whole categorization thing. And I think it's probably because reality can't always be shoved into a category that easily. For example, my dad is SEI-Fe but quite heavy on the Fe almost to the point of being IEI. I mean, I realize that the theory says you can't be both. But I almost see him as being BOTH Ne and Se seeking. He reacts with equal enthusiasm to each! I also think there could be a person who is strong in both ego blocks, take for example Ni and Fe. But yet it's unclear whether they're NiFe or FeNi. It's not like a huge problem or anything but I'm not sure the reality is that they're one or the other. I know that's what the theory of socionics SAYS but I don't know if that's the truth. It could just be that they lead with both at different times. Trying endlessly to figure out which is the BASE function might be just a waste of time. Some people are obviously rational or irrational. With others, it's less obvious. And then subtypes come in and explain. Or people use enneagram and stackings to explain certain things. And there's who your parents are that may have affected you or your religious beliefs. I mean, when you look at people and all the factors that influence who they are, it's kind of amazing that you can discover their ego block functions at all. And maybe it's not all that important in the end.

[tcaudilllg]

Here we go again....

[Suz]

Redbaron I think this is a great idea for a philosophical thread. I definitely have some thoughts about this.

First of all, I definitely believe that within a type there is a great deal of variation, both in how the functions manifest, as well as the degree of strength in each function.

I also believe that how someone of a certain type appears to behave depends on multiple external factors including:

1. External physical and emotional stressors--e.g. sleep deprivation, grief, fear

2. People (of non-dual type) that one must interact with -- I think we all sometimes lose sight of the fact that we change ourselves to an extent, to suit people of other types both on a short term basis depending on who you are talking to or surrounded by in the moment, as well as long term depending on chronic interactions which may become more of a permanent part of you. So unless both your parents and all of your friends are your duals and all your relationship have been with duals, you likely have been working on not acting as your pure type ever since childhood. How you deviate from your type will depend on what those people's types are and how close you have had to be.

3. Requirements of your job--to attain a certain place in your career, you have had to work on developing certain skills, even some that dont come easily to you. The difference among people of different types is some skills and traits come naturally, while other skills and traits are an uphill battle, stress you out, require hard work on your part. You still have to do those things, though, because it's your job. Again, how this contribute to deviation from your pure type behavior will depend on the kind of job it is, and skills required to succeed in it, as well the sociotype of people you have had to work with on an extended basis (unless, again, you've been lucky enough to be surrounded by duals throughout your entire career).

That's all I have time to write about for now. Definitely a lot more thoughts on this.

[FDG]

Well...yeah, you're perfectly right, redbaron. That's why you have temperament rings and smilingeye's sine wave graphs of reinin dichotomies.

[The Greeter]

Well...yeah, you're perfectly right, redbaron. That's why you have temperament rings and smilingeye's sine wave graphs of reinin dichotomies.

After reading the original post I was going to cite Smilingeyes as well. And those are important questions to ponder.

[thePirate]

it's a neat categorized thing but I wonder if the reality is that people fall somewhere on a continuum rather than being one specific type. Sure, we all know people who seem to be very obviously this or that type. I know textbook SLEs, IEEs, SEIs and ILEs. But there are others that kind of defy the whole categorization thing. And I think it's probably because reality can't always be shoved into a category that easily. For example, my dad is SEI-Fe but quite heavy on the Fe almost to the point of being IEI. I mean, I realize that the theory says you can't be both. But I almost see him as being BOTH Ne and Se seeking. He reacts with equal enthusiasm to each! I also think there could be a person who is strong in both ego blocks, take for example Ni and Fe. But yet it's unclear whether they're NiFe or FeNi. It's not like a huge problem or anything but I'm not sure the reality is that they're one or the other. I know that's what the theory of socionics SAYS but I don't know if that's the truth. It could just be that they lead with both at different times. Trying endlessly to figure out which is the BASE function might be just a waste of time. Some people are obviously rational or irrational. With others, it's less obvious. And then subtypes come in and explain. Or people use enneagram and stackings to explain certain things. And there's who your parents are that may have affected you or your religious beliefs. I mean, when you look at people and all the factors that influence who they are, it's kind of amazing that you can discover their ego block functions at all. And maybe it's not all that important in the end.

This shows a lack of understanding on your part. You just asked what Fe PoLR was right? You still have abit more studying to do. Reacting with enthusiasm to something isnt a way of checking for someones DS. Theres more subtleties to stuff like this that you arent grasping. As far as other factors go, I really think their irrelevant in finding type. Types manifest their functions, period. As far as Fe/Ni Ni/Fe there is IS an observable difference in these two types. Not recognizing this like you do is a signal to observe more.

[stanprollyright]

it's a neat categorized thing but I wonder if the reality is that people fall somewhere on a continuum rather than being one specific type. Sure, we all know people who seem to be very obviously this or that type. I know textbook SLEs, IEEs, SEIs and ILEs. But there are others that kind of defy the whole categorization thing. And I think it's probably because reality can't always be shoved into a category that easily. For example, my dad is SEI-Fe but quite heavy on the Fe almost to the point of being IEI. I mean, I realize that the theory says you can't be both. But I almost see him as being BOTH Ne and Se seeking. He reacts with equal enthusiasm to each! I also think there could be a person who is strong in both ego blocks, take for example Ni and Fe. But yet it's unclear whether they're NiFe or FeNi. It's not like a huge problem or anything but I'm not sure the reality is that they're one or the other. I know that's what the theory of socionics SAYS but I don't know if that's the truth. It could just be that they lead with both at different times. Trying endlessly to figure out which is the BASE function might be just a waste of time. Some people are obviously rational or irrational. With others, it's less obvious. And then subtypes come in and explain. Or people use enneagram and stackings to explain certain things. And there's who your parents are that may have affected you or your religious beliefs. I mean, when you look at people and all the factors that influence who they are, it's kind of amazing that you can discover their ego block functions at all. And maybe it's not all that important in the end.

I've generally always seen accepting/producing subtypes as a sliding scale. Someone with a heavy producing subtype may actually be just as strong in their creative than their base, but their base still manifests as an accepting function and their creative as a producing, keeping the same roles within the ego block. Obviously, it's difficult to tell which is which from an external view. The best practical way to determine these peoples' types is by temperament, which isn't affected as much by subtype.

[Trevor]

This shows a lack of understanding on your part.

She's got a point. And btw, I think she's better at socionics than you are.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

it's a neat categorized thing but I wonder if the reality is that people fall somewhere on a continuum rather than being one specific type. Sure, we all know people who seem to be very obviously this or that type. I know textbook SLEs, IEEs, SEIs and ILEs. But there are others that kind of defy the whole categorization thing. And I think it's probably because reality can't always be shoved into a category that easily. For example, my dad is SEI-Fe but quite heavy on the Fe almost to the point of being IEI. I mean, I realize that the theory says you can't be both. But I almost see him as being BOTH Ne and Se seeking. He reacts with equal enthusiasm to each! I also think there could be a person who is strong in both ego blocks, take for example Ni and Fe. But yet it's unclear whether they're NiFe or FeNi. It's not like a huge problem or anything but I'm not sure the reality is that they're one or the other. I know that's what the theory of socionics SAYS but I don't know if that's the truth. It could just be that they lead with both at different times. Trying endlessly to figure out which is the BASE function might be just a waste of time. Some people are obviously rational or irrational. With others, it's less obvious. And then subtypes come in and explain. Or people use enneagram and stackings to explain certain things. And there's who your parents are that may have affected you or your religious beliefs. I mean, when you look at people and all the factors that influence who they are, it's kind of amazing that you can discover their ego block functions at all. And maybe it's not all that important in the end.

It's just a theory, personally I wouldn't sweat it too much trying to decide if someone is X or Y -EI etc.

For me socionics has some uses, it can give me some hints or some clues as to how people work in terms of how they like their info, and maybe I should be a little cautious with some of them.

But, something I mentioned recently, I know an ESTp and an ESTj. Normally I get on quite well with ESTj's but this particular ESTj I am referring to has what seems to be best described as control freak tendencies (can look up on internet), and he's quite tiring to be around, so although the ESTp I find a bit unsubtle in a way for my tastes, he's reasonably healthy as people go and would rather be around him for some purposes.

The other way, if you really want to determine types, is to improve your VI, if you can. OR come up with definitions of functions that make sense to you personally, rather than having to try to transfer other peoples defintions into your own thought processes (for instance, personally I find some of the function definitions on wiki to be a bit too Ni influenced, although maybe you don't have that problem, but if you do it can help to read up on stuff written by people of a comparable type...which may not have to be case for you, but I think it useful for whoever may read this, should they be so inclined).

[silverchris9]

Eh. I have difficulty with the continuum vs. absolute thing myself, but the thing is, I think life almost inexorably pushes us towards specialization. Like, someone who was moderately OK at all the functions probably couldn't survive in the real world, and given that no one's aware of developing socionics traits in the womb, as a newborn, etc., I think the specialization happens to every one, just because it's easier, it produces results. You know, maybe as a newborn you find that expressing your emotions produces positive results (i.e., milk, toy, etc.) and failing to do so produces negative results (no milk, no toy, etc.). Well, you're probably on your way to being an Fe-ego. On the other hand, if you find that you get what you need through just the bond between you and others, and expressing your emotions isn't getting you anywhere, you're probably on your way to being Fi-ego. And then of course, the more you use something, the stronger it gets (this bit is ripped from David Kiersey, who I think is right at least about this part), and so you find that there is a smaller and smaller cost-benefit ratio for some ways of interacting with the world, and a larger and larger cost-benefit ratio for others.

My hypothesis, which is absolutely untestable, is that type begins as an inward inclination---which may or may not be genetic, I prefer to think it's not, and even if it were, it would be highly multifactorial, to the point of utter diffuseness---but is ultimately shaped by prenatal conditions and early, early life, such that type is usually set and extremely difficult to change (because it exists at such a basic level of your habits/thoughts) at a very young age (maybe even before birth, I suppose).

I'm not 100% sold on tcaud's dual type theory, but to the extent that I am, it would be an interesting hypothesis to posit that EM type is the "inward and inborn inclination," and IM type is the type you "learn to be" by finding the strategies that work for life and employing them.

So I guess my answer to the question of continuum or exactly 16 types is that there are exactly 16 types, because specialization is such a natural and unavoidable process in early childhood.

[redbaron]

But, something I mentioned recently, I know an ESTp and an ESTj. Normally I get on quite well with ESTj's but this particular ESTj I am referring to has what seems to be best described as control freak tendencies (can look up on internet), and he's quite tiring to be around, so although the ESTp I find a bit unsubtle in a way for my tastes, he's reasonably healthy as people go and would rather be around him for some purposes.

I thought they all had that. lol j/k

[Jarno]

Here we go again....

hehe yeah.

it's a neat categorized thing but I wonder if the reality is that people fall somewhere on a continuum rather than being one specific type.

This whole debate touches philosophical issues which have to be resolved first.

think of types as the psychological counterpart of something that already exists in a physical variant: Gender.

Can you be both woman and man at the same time?

Example: when a woman drinks beer, wears pants, burps and gets involved in a barfight, does that make her more manly or is she still 100% female?

If you have an answer to that, we can discuss things further.

[redbaron]

hehe yeah.

@ redbaron, think of types as the psychological counterpart of something that already exists in a physical variant: Gender.

Can you be both woman and man at the same time...

No but...

when a woman drinks beer, wears pants, burps and gets involved in a barfight, does that make her a man? Think about that. You have the same situation as your dad's type...

yeah I know that's what socionics says. I'm just questioning whether that's reality or just the theory. I'm questioning the strength of the lines between the types. Are the lines ever blurred in some people? That's my issue, I suppose. Maybe the answer is no, or maybe... there are transsexual types out there.

[Jarno]

yeah I know that's what socionics says. I'm just questioning whether that's reality or just the theory. I'm questioning the strength of the lines between the types. Are the lines ever blurred in some people? That's my issue, I suppose. Maybe the answer is no, or maybe... there are transsexual types out there.

no they aren't blurred. Though subtypes sometimes make things a bit difficult.

I've never seen a jungian dichotomy blurred.

[thePirate]

She's got a point. And btw, I think she's better at socionics than you are.

your own understanding is questionable, forgive me if I dont take this too seriously.

oh & redbaron I dont know if I came off mean or anything, Im too used talking in a certain way here. If it was, I didnt mean it to be so. I heart you woman

but yeah, I just happen to disagree at this point in time. its very possible that you are just further along than me and I have yet to see these things. who knows, maybe further along I will perceive what you do or vice versa

[silverchris9]

awesome post

Basically +1000 for all of this, and some points in particular:

1) I 100% see the bit about becoming more like your type around your quadra. When I hang out with my main alpha-delta friend group, I sort of clean up the Fe (to make it more gentle and alpha-y), and I stay far away from the typical beta Se status seeking. But if I'm hanging out with betas (and like you said, especially IEIs and SLEs), I feel a lot more free to be honest. I do seek out status, a place in the pecking order, all that. While I have to sort of deal with my alpha and delta friends devaluing that (especially since they pretty much have culture on their side, especially academic culture), it is something that I prefer not to deal with. Actually, this is vaguely close to being some sort of psychotherapy/analysis breakthrough for me. Yuck. I hate it when socionics actually helps people. (I prefer it as an intellectual masturbation sex toy).

2) I was more in touch with other IMs when I was younger too. I'm not sure how much I believe this, but I honestly want to believe that I was closer to being ILI when I was little. I'm not saying that I actively made myself into an ethical type, but... eh. Actually, looking at videos of me, I feel like I was always a little IEI (that is, a little kid who is IEI, not IEI to a moderate degree).

3) Yeah, the theory definitely plays out even if you don't consciously express a lot of type traits, because the implications of type go so far down into the core of who you are (not all the way down, but pretty far down) that a lot of socionics predictions will work, in the long term, just based on how fundamental information metabolism and function complementarity is to personality.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

My view:

Socionics is a personality theory that deals with subjective feelings and thoughts between a relationship of two or more people.

Why do some people zoom ahead in the game of life why others are at the bottom? Are they lazy, irresponsible, etc. NO. Not necessarily. It's just 'who you know and who you blow.' Entire societies are constructed based on types, as well as enneagram, there are codes of conduct and rules to follow that if you don't follow, no matter how 'fake' they are to you, you hurt your success at everything. Because people just don't understand you, so they fear you, so they won't do anything to help you. They think you're a crazy person that needs to be locked up!

But the truth is, you're probably just weird and they should be more open minded.

Socionics attempts to align you with people who subjectively care about your insides enough (who you are as a person , not what you do or what hoops they can get you to jump through as the outside world systems), to root for you so you can handle life's challenges easier. They actually do give a shit about what happens to you, internally, and this is very inspiring and motivating, and it allows you to simply live your life, and to accomplish those external straight man-y things. Because you're just understood.

They don't necessarily have to be your friends, they just have to understand you enough to get to a point where they aren't standing in your way.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Furthermore, we aren't all the same of course. We're all so frighteningly unique and are stimulated by such a unique palette of colors in the universe, that when we mesh with somebody who is incompatible with us, it's equivalent to mixing spices together in a dish that is not agreeable, like spinach and ice cream. You just get a recipe for disaster.

So you try to be objective and to get along with this person for the 'greater good' but you just can't do it, because the *taste* or the subjective spice isn't compatible. After all, when it boils down to it, the purest objectivity thing in the universe is a period. Just a dot. But it's like what does that accomplish? A period. A dot. Nothing really much.

Can you imagine me trying to do a project with a right-wing, republican homophobic ESTj businessman? What sort of sick sociopath enjoys this? some things are better off not mixing , and I think that's what socionics advocates for. Nobody really wants diversity. I mean you just get uncomfortable when you're around somebody you don't understand. That's not the type of 'liberalism' that people want. You have a place, and you're better suited HERE and probably shouldn't try to do something that isn't internally compatible to who you are.

Socionics is about finding what suits you, internally. And how you can best compromise who you are to the outside world, which is everybody else's 'stuff' you have to tolerate, to not go insane on a killing spree. Ever wore a shirt that looked really good on you? That just brought the YOU out of you, if you catch my drift. What do people say 'Wow Sam that color really suits you' On somebody else, it could look like throw-up. Maybe you have a certain neurotic phobia about something that other people just don't get, but your dual does because they naturally cover it up for you, so you romanticize them easily because of this, they are your savior.

That's the entire point. Am I making myself clear?

Socionics is a socialist/communist perspective so people with money and power do not abuse other people too much. It is a way to bring raw power back to the people, for it's own social sake, that goes beyond class and money. Oscar Wilde, artists, all gay male writers, this is why they enjoy socionics. As well as strong, independent-minded feminists and straight boys who take too much drugs. The truth. This is what socionics is attempting to do, as a system.

[redbaron]

yes, B&D I totally agree. I just feel like there are some many variants on types. Individuals are so... individual. makes me wonder if we really can put everyone into one of 16 types accurately. Like that while some people totally fit, there are others who don't quite. But I really like what aixelsyd said.

[tcaudilllg]

Two ways to type:

• rules
• descriptions

You can only understand a personality trait by its rules. The specific ways in which it is said to differ from an opposing trait. Descriptions can never be 100% spot on, because they are applications of the rules. When people write descriptions they invariably get lazy because there comes a point where belaboring the point gets pedantic. Like I did all those descriptions of personality types in the political type thread... I tried to give a general impression. Sometimes I made those descriptions with traits in mind that I understood were incarnations of political traits in the context of a specific socionics type, to try to give an example of the character variant created by the trait. Type descriptions in general are very bad for this. Bottom line, if you do not understand the rules and apply them to the process of GENERATING a character portrait, you will never be able to type yourself with full confidence. The only way to be sure of a typing is to generate a character via the rules and compare it on a best-fit basis with the descriptions provided.

[redbaron]

your own understanding is questionable, forgive me if I dont take this too seriously.

oh & redbaron I dont know if I came off mean or anything, Im too used talking in a certain way here. If it was, I didnt mean it to be so. I heart you woman

but yeah, I just happen to disagree at this point in time. its very possible that you are just further along than me and I have yet to see these things. who knows, maybe further along I will perceive what you do or vice versa

awww... you're fine.