3-letter code / 4-letter code

[JohnDo]

I think it is very confusing for every beginner that there are these two different systems. Some people prefer the 3-letter code, others the 4-letter code, others are indifferent and use both.

In threads on this forum most people seem to answer using the system the thread opener uses. If the title of a thread is "LII or ILI" most people also talk about "LII" and "ILI". But some people don't like the 3-letter code and talk about "INTj" and "INTp" in the same thread. When I started studying socionics I found that very confusing.

At the very beginning I worked with a table: "What the heck is ESI? Let's look it up... Ah, it's ISFj!" Then I thought: "I can't work with this stupid table for all my life." So I started reading the 3-letter code backwards to translate it into the familiar 4-letter code:
1.) ESI backwards = ISE
2.) E=F so ISE=ISF
3.) E or L at the beginning -> last letter = j
---> ESI = ISFj
Of course it is not difficult but it is a pain in the arse...

People who have studied socionics for several months have no problems with translating 3-letter code into 4-letter code: SEI - ISFp, ILI - INTp, LSE - ESTj. I just know because I have several examples of every type in mind.

Nevertheless, for beginners it is confusing. Why can't we come to an agreement? It would make it much easier for beginners to study socionics if only one system was used on this forum.

Benefits of the 3-letter code:
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Jungian dichotomies
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Reinin dichotomies
- can't be confused with MBTI notation
- more traditional

Benefits of the 4-letter code:
- makes it easier to use Jungian dichotomies
- makes it easier to use Reinin dichotomies
- makes it easier to work with clubs and temperaments
- makes it easier to remember intertype relationships
- makes it easier for beginners who are familiar with MBTI

[Absurd]

I don't care. It's all the same.

[krieger]

I like the 4 letter code, because it transmits the most visible characteristics of a type. The letters paint a good picture of what the type "is like". Functions still have a little bit of a mumbo jumbo factor and are represented perfectly fine by the use of Ti, Te, etc and the shape symbols.

[Aiss]

Benefits of the 3-letter code:
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Jungian dichotomies
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Reinin dichotomies
- can't be confused with MBTI notation
- more traditional

Benefits of the 4-letter code:
- makes it easier to use Jungian dichotomies
- makes it easier to use Reinin dichotomies
- makes it easier to work with clubs and temperaments
- makes it easier to remember intertype relationships
- makes it easier for beginners who are familiar with MBTI

Makes it easier for beginners familiar with MBTI to confuse the notations?

[Crispy]

Nothing will be confused as long as they read all 16 socionics type descriptions. They should probably read their MBTI type, followed by types of the same club, etc. Then it will be clear which Most fits them.

[MatthewZ]

Representing the rationality dichotomy with j/p make confusion with MBTI easier. It's the rational/irrational dichotomy, NOT judging/perceiving. Dichotomies are essential to understanding MBTI as dichotomies create the types. In Socionics, however types are created by the Information Elements and these types create dichotomies, not the other way around. That's a lesson much easier to learn if we don't represent the types with four dichotomies.

Anyways, speaking as someone who was a beginner in Socionics but at the time much more familiar with MBTI, I have to disagree that the four-letter code makes learning easier. Anyone familiar with MBTI knows that an IP type leads has Ti or Fi as their dominant function. J/P in MBTI determines the "first" extroverted function, not the dominant function. I find it easier for relationships to see "Oh, LxI is -base and xEE is -creative, thus -PoLR, so it's either a supervision or conflict relationship."

[Aiss]

I find it easier for relationships to see "Oh, LxI is -base and xEI is -creative, thus -PoLR, so it's either a supervision or conflict relationship."

Except xEI is -creative.

I agree with the rest, as I have similar experience.

[717495]

I think the 4 letter notation should eventually be gotten rid of (even though its in my signature :/). 3 letter is more Socionics-y and you don't get confused with MBTI, since they're 2 different things. Dichotomies don't really play a large importance in Socionics, so if we can make a letter system that works better with the IMs, it would be ideal.

Part of me wants to keep the 4 letters because it looks cooler, but I know its wrong.

[MatthewZ]

Except xEI is -creative.

I agree with the rest, as I have similar experience.

'twas a typo. Meant to put xEE.

[JohnDo]

Representing the rationality dichotomy with j/p make confusion with MBTI easier. It's the rational/irrational dichotomy, NOT judging/perceiving.

I disagree. Judging/perceiving is a better name for this dichotomy because "irrational" can be understood as absurd or stupid. The definitions are more or less identical, MBTI just uses a different order of functions...

Dichotomies are essential to understanding MBTI as dichotomies create the types. In Socionics, however types are created by the Information Elements and these types create dichotomies, not the other way around. That's a lesson much easier to learn if we don't represent the types with four dichotomies.

There is no lesson to learn, it is just a matter of taste! Types are types. We can define them by
- functions: NeTi, NiTe etc.
- dichotomies: INTp, INTj etc.
- historical persons: Balzac, Robespierre etc.
- nicknames: Critic, Analyst etc.
- 3-letter code: ILI, LII etc.
Just a matter of taste...

I find it easier for relationships to see "Oh, LxI is -base and xEE is -creative, thus -PoLR, so it's either a supervision or conflict relationship."

IxTj * ExFp = 0000 (conflict) or 0100 (j>p-supervision). I think it is easier this way...

[717495]

No, because the actual relation description defines what the information elements are doing in comparison to each other's functions. It can't be described through the dichotomies. Also, J is judging, but LII isn't a judging type, its a "rational" type, and most importantly LII is always a dominant. There's a difference in the systems, its not MBTI. Just because you're an INTJ in MBTI is not any kind of code for saying that you're also that in Socionics. Especially if you use dichotomies, and don't stick to understanding IMs primarily, you miss the entire point of Socionics.

[Aiss]

I disagree. Judging/perceiving is a better name for this dichotomy because "irrational" can be understood as absurd or stupid. The definitions are more or less identical, MBTI just uses a different order of functions...

There is no lesson to learn, it is just a matter of taste! Types are types. We can define them by
- functions: NeTi, NiTe etc.
- dichotomies: INTp, INTj etc.
- historical persons: Balzac, Robespierre etc.
- nicknames: Critic, Analyst etc.
- 3-letter code: ILI, LII etc.
Just a matter of taste...

IxTj * ExFp = 0000 (conflict) or 0100 (j>p-supervision). I think it is easier this way...

While J can stand for judgmental.

Information elements >> dichotomies. IMO.

And if you have to do xor, at least use xor notation. Please.

[JohnDo]

No, because the actual relation description defines what the information elements are doing in comparison to each other's functions. It can't be described through the dichotomies.

It can be easier remembered through the dichotomies:

What type of relation is INTj - INTp.

First method:
Dichotomy correspondence 1110
-> quasi-identity

Second method:
INTj = Ti Ne Fi Se Fe Si Te Ni
INTp = Ni Te Si Fe Se Fi Ne Ti
Functions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 reflect on functions 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
-> quasi-identity

Equivalent but the second method is much more complicated.

[Aiss]

It can be more easier remembered through the dichotomies:

INTj - INTp.
First method: Dichotomy correspondence 0001 -> quasi-identity
Second method: Functions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 reflect on functions 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 -> quasi-identity

Equivalent but the second method is more complicated.

You only need to remember to swap the id. Once you grasp model A, it's easy and you never have to remember nearly this much.

Conflict - each base is the other's PoLR
Supervision - supervisor's base is supervisee's PoLR, but not the reverse.

[717495]

The first method is less complicated, so you have room to make things more complicated, like having an INTj. I see your strategy

[MatthewZ]

I disagree. Judging/perceiving is a better name for this dichotomy because "irrational" can be understood as absurd or stupid. The definitions are more or less identical, MBTI just uses a different order of functions...

Sure, some have argued that the dichotomies have a close correlation because they're based on the same area of Jung's work and it's true that the English Translations of Socionics terms transmit a different impression than they do in Russian,(ex: erotic attitudes) but the ordering of information elements are entirely different. The information elements are the basis of forming intertype relationships. Dichotomies are merely extracted from this. It's easier to convince someone familiar with MBTI that their dual has complementary functions to them, rather than to state that their dual is opposite on the N/S dichotomy. A dual and a conflictor can be thought of as "one dichotomy off" or "entirely different ego functions."

There is no lesson to learn, it is just a matter of taste! Types are types. We can define them by
- functions: NeTi, NiTe etc.
- dichotomies: INTp, INTj etc.
- historical persons: Balzac, Robespierre etc.
- nicknames: Critic, Analyst etc.
- 3-letter code: ILI, LII etc.
Just a matter of taste...

Yes, they all express the same type, but they all give different impressions of what each type fundamentally is. The four-letter code gives the impression that types are built from dichotomies and implies that intertype relationships are also built from dichotomies. (making it puzzling how one's conflictor, which has 3 of the jungian dichotomies of one's dual, is generally viewed as a negative relationship)

IxTj * ExFp = 0000 (conflict) or 0100 (j>p-supervision). I think it is easier this way...

Sure, it's an easy algorithm for remembering some relationships,(it requires separate pairs based on j/p for relationships with adjacent quadras, for a total of 24 relationships to memorize) but it doesn't explain why the given relationships are as they are. It's just a shortcut that only provides beginning learners a superficial knowledge of intertype relationships. It's pure wrote memorization than anything, and that doesn't make it more effective than the natural connections gained from genuine understanding.

[Aiss]

The four-letter code gives the impression that types are built from dichotomies and implies that intertype relationships are also built from dichotomies.

Not to mention it makes one think of purely traits-based systems such as Big Five.

[JohnDo]

The first method is less complicated, so then you have room to make things more complicated, like having an INTj. I see your strategy

However the second method makes the traditional socionics understanding easier, because you see the functions that make the relation.

So you are of the opinion that I complicate the trivial things and over-simplify the important ones? That's an indication to believe we are quasi-identicals, indeed...

Subtypes are necessary to describe intratype differences. So I don't think I complicate trivial things there.
Remembering the intertype relations by dichotomies is easier, even though they cannot be explained by them. I don't think I over-simplify important things in this case...

[Aiss]

Subtypes are necessary to describe intratype differences. So I don't think I complicate trivial things there.
Remembering the intertype relations by dichotomies is easier, even though they cannot be explained by them. I don't think I simplify important things in this case...

If you go with functions and use subtypes which focus on strengthening some IEs, you'll be able to speculate on differences they make in relations.

[Blaze]

i used to like the 4 letter because it seemed easier, but when i started using the 3 letter, i found i could figure out the Model A better, which helped drive a better understanding of socionics. i would say it to myself at first: ethical intuitive extravert, EIE. or some such.

[Blaze]

It can be easier remembered through the dichotomies:

What type of relation is INTj - INTp.

First method:
Dichotomy correspondence 1110
-> quasi-identity

Second method:
INTj = Ti Ne Fi Se Fe Si Te Ni
INTp = Ni Te Si Fe Se Fi Ne Ti
Functions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 reflect on functions 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
-> quasi-identity

Equivalent but the second method is much more complicated.

i figure out relations through temperaments and quadras.

like IP's and IJ's are the ring of benefit as are EP's and EJ's. and there's an EP, EJ, IP, & IJ in every quadra. the ring of supervision switches by quadra, EP-IJ and EJ - IP. your superego is the supervisor of your supervisor. your supervisee supervises your superego. kinda like that.

[Beautiful sky]

I should make it a point to use the three letter. I think the reason why I use the four is because the MBTI is well known in the US and I don't want confusions when I speak about Socionics.

[krieger]

One reason I dislike the 3 letter code is that I'm suspicious of the idea that accepting functions are more important than creating function and thus merit being mentioned in the first position of the two functions in the type.

[Logos]

I prefer using the 3-letter-code in my standard nomenclature, though I think that writing the strong ego functions (e.g., NiTe, SiFe, etc.) out is the clearest.

[Krig the Viking]

Personally, I prefer Gulenko's two-letter system, as it more clearly spells out what each information element is about. "R = Relatio/Relationships" is easier to understand than "Fi = Introverted Feeling". I always have a hard time explaining to people unfamiliar with socionics what exactly "Introverted Feeling" means.

Of course, I know it's unlikely that Gulenko's system will ever catch on at this late stage in the game. Failing that, I like the system Logos mentioned: TiNe, SeFi, etc. It makes the link to Model A explicit.

However, I've fallen into the habit of using the three-letter code, and that's probably what I'll stick with.

[Slacker]

Generally I like the 3-letter code, because people come in here with info they've gotten from MBTI and assume the two are the same, or more the same than they are, because the names are the same.

But really I don't care very much at all.

[Mattie]

I've been writing out the ego functions for a while now: NeFi, SiTe, etc. Really, it's the most direct and doesn't imply anything other than what the type is in Socionics. Because one thing a person needs to know with a type is what functions are where, you eventually have to memorize where they all are for all the types. Using NeFi helps people on the way, and all it says is " is in the leading position and is in the creative." And that's not arguable. ENFp places strength on the dichotomies, and was only invented for people familiar with MBTI to check out Socionics as a cousin system. IEE is fine if a person wants to use less letters, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a name for the type rather than saying the type. NeFi implies the rest of its type without the assistance of any other knowledge except for the IEs and function placements which are vital to an understanding of Socionics.

[The Exception]

When I first learned about socionics, I used primarily the 4 letter codes and I found the 3 letter codes confusing. Now that I've been on the forum awhile, I prefer the 3 letter codes and tend to stick to that.

I find the 4 letter codes to be too easily confused with Myers-Briggs. In socionics, the j/p is normally designated as lower-case, which should eliminate some confusion. However, in some Myers-Briggs circles, I've also seen people use lower case letters to designate dichotomies they have a weaker preference for. So if someone says they're INTj is, it is socionics or is it Myers-Briggs with a weaker preference for J?

I also like the symbolic designation. where the first symbol is the base function and the second symbol is the creative function.

[xerx]

Personally, I prefer Gulenko's two-letter system, as it more clearly spells out what each information element is about. "R = Relatio/Relationships" is easier to understand than "Fi = Introverted Feeling". I always have a hard time explaining to people unfamiliar with socionics what exactly "Introverted Feeling" means.

Of course, I know it's unlikely that Gulenko's system will ever catch on at this late stage in the game. Failing that, I like the system Logos mentioned: TiNe, SeFi, etc. It makes the link to Model A explicit.

However, I've fallen into the habit of using the three-letter code, and that's probably what I'll stick with.

Hell yes. 2 letter code is 1 less than the 3 letter code and that speeds up typing.

[717495]

Man's greatest achievement? Perhaps not, but can you afford not to read on when I am about to tell you about 3-letter code? I really, really like 3-letter code. Remarkably 3-letter code is heralded by shopkeepers and investment bankers alike, leading many to state that 3-letter code is not given the credit if deserves for inspiring many of the worlds famous painters. Inevitably feelings run deep amongst the easily lead, who are yet to grow accustomed to its disombobulating nature. Complex though it is I shall now attempt to provide an exaustive report on 3-letter code and its numerous 'industries'. Interweaving social trends form a strong net in which we are all trapped. Back when Vealinger reamarked ‘the power struggle will continue while the great tale of humanity remains untold’ he borrowed much from 3-letter code. Difference among people, race, culture and society is essential on the survival of our world, however 3-letter code is crunchy on the outside but soft in the middle. Special care must be taken when analysing such a delicate subject. On the other hand anyone that disagrees with me is an idiot. It is intrinsically linked to adolescent inner acclimatisation.

The dictionary defines economics as 'the social science concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services'. There are a number of reasons which may be attributed to this unquestionable correlation. Recent studies indicate that inflation world wide are driven entirely by 3-letter code. A sharp down turn in middle class investment may lead to changes in the market. Much of the writings of historians display the conquests of the most powerful nations over less powerful ones. Comparing current political thought with that held just ten years ago is like comparing pre and post war views of 3-letter code. Let us consider the words of that silver tongued orator, the uncompromising Bonaventure B. Adger 'Man's greatest enemy is complacency with regards to personal and political hygiene.' This clearly illustrates the primary concern of those involved with 3-letter code. History tells us that 3-letter code will always be a vote winner, whether we like it, or not. I wait anxiously. What will the next few years bring for 3-letter code?

In conclusion, 3-letter code deserves all of the attention it gets. It brings peace, influences the influencers, and most importantly it perseveres. One final thought from the talented Sigourney Paltrow: 'You win some, you loose some, but 3-letter code wins most often.'

[krieger]

Personally, I prefer Gulenko's two-letter system, as it more clearly spells out what each information element is about. "R = Relatio/Relationships" is easier to understand than "Fi = Introverted Feeling". I always have a hard time explaining to people unfamiliar with socionics what exactly "Introverted Feeling" means.

But: the downside of that approach is that it turns a certain interpretation of a function into a collective standard. If the interpretation is later found to be wrong, it is very difficult to change the faulty standard that had resulted from it.

Of course, the other two notations suffer from a similar problem.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Just some info on all this. As I understand it, Ganin introduced the lower case XXXx because as he saw that, in reality, how long would it take for people to realise there were similarities in socionics and MBTI, and who knows what mess it would be in if the different way of representing the lower case letter wasn't introduced, ie it could be even worse than what it may be today.

Also, he pointed out, Ashura did incorporate a lot of MBTI into socionics when she became aware of it in the 80's, so another way to look at it, is that we are stuck with some MBTI related things regardless.

I'm just working from memory from something I came across some time ago, but as it stands, I guess I can see the point of it.

[Gilly]

The 3-letter code is proper Socionics notation; the perverted 4-letter adaptation (eg. ENFj) was invented purposelessly by Sergei Ganin to accommodate Western familiarity with MBTI notation.

[Jarno]

The russian site socionics.org uses 4 letters.

I think it's very common for socionists to use 4 letters. maybe even more common than 3.

[Gilly]

Only in English letters. It's an unnecessary compromise made in order to appeal to what people are used to.

[JohnDo]

Interesting. I thought of including 2-letter code in the poll but I thought nobody would prefer it because nobody seems to use it.

Profit
Logic
Emotion
Relation
Idea
Time
Force
Sensation

I like it better than the 3-letter code.

[MatthewZ]

Interesting. I thought of including 2-letter code in the poll but I thought nobody would prefer it because nobody seems to use it.

Profit
Logic
Emotion
Relation
Idea
Time
Force
Sensation

I like it better than the 3-letter code.

Is it me, or did anyone else notice that the abbreviations for the Alpha IMs are the same as the letters they are represented by in the 3-letter code? (Extroverted Intuition = I, Extroverted Ethics = E, Introverted Sensing = S, Introverted Logic = L)

[Aiss]

Is it me, or did anyone else notice that the abbreviations for the Alpha IMs are the same as the letters they are represented by in the 3-letter code? (Extroverted Intuition = I, Extroverted Ethics = E, Introverted Sensing = S, Introverted Logic = L)

Of course they are. It's Alpha you're speaking about.

JohnDo - I get it, you don't like 3 letter code. It won't stop people from using it, no matter how "official" you try (and fail, in this case) to make it.

[JohnDo]

JohnDo has a MBTI-like bogus view, if you ask me, based on the four dichotomies, ignoring the quadra values and functions pretty much.

Not at all. I think very much about functions, my V.I. methods for subtypes are based on them and not on dichotomies. But it is clearly a fact that 4-letter code makes it easier to remember intertype relationships, to use Reinin dichotomies and to learn socionics when you are familiar with MBTI. Benefits of the 3-letter code I don't see...

It's normal to avoid the Socionics three-letter code since it violates the "sanctity" of the four obsolete dichotomies. I think few can buy it simply because that's not Socionics.

There is no official authority to define socionics. I often read things like "in socionics it works this and that way", "that's not socionics" and so on. Would be better to say "Socionist X claims it works better this way" or "Socionist Y says he doesn't use this method"...

[Aiss]

Not at all. I think very much about functions, my V.I. methods for subtypes are based on them and not on dichotomies. But it is clearly a fact that 4-letter code makes it easier for me to remember intertype relationships, to use Reinin dichotomies and to learn socionics when you are familiar with MBTI. Benefits of the 3-letter code I don't see...

Fixed.

Seriously, what you've written earlier about remembering function makes little to no sense. You don't need to remember more than two functions for each relation. Reinin dichotomies can also be translated into functions.