1. Mistyping Quasi-Identicals

I've noticed that when people are trying to type someone, that if its narrowed down to a couple of types that oftentimes the two remaining types make a quasi-identical pair. Like LII vs. ILI; EIE vs. IEE, etc.

But why would this be the case when the two types have opposite quadra values? Take LII and ILI. LII is alpha and values Si, Ne, Fe, and Ti. ILI is gamma and values Se, Ni, Fi, and Te. Shouldn't that alone make it easy to tell them apart?

My theory is, initially, that one can mistake a strong function for an ego function. Both LII, and ILI for example have strong Ti, Ni, Te, and Ne. Their positions differ though. If you're looking at dimensionality of functions, LII and ILI share exactly the same relative strengths and weaknesses. Both types have 4D Ti and Ni, 3D Te and Ne, 2D Fi and Si, and 1D Se and Fe.

Any quasi identical pair will share the same dimensionality of functions. And I also think this is why one can easily mistake a conflictor for a dual on the surface. Take ESE and SEE. Both have 4D Fe and Se, 3D Fi and Si, 2D Ne and Te, and 1D Ti and Ni. Yet ESE is the dual for LII and the conflictor for ILI. SEE is the dual for ILI and the conflictor for LII.

Quadra values are obviously key to a good relation but sometimes this isn't as apparent when first meeting someone as one's relative strengths and weaknesses. Has this been your experience? Thoughts?

2. The points about strong functions and dimensionality seem to be the obvious reason. Valuing is a concept not so easy to grasp as strong/weak functions, probably because people are either good or bad at both Xi and Xe elements, so they have problems distinguishing.

I've seen a table like "how useful X is in typing" on Gulenko's site - seems quadras are highly useful in theory and low in practice. Something which agrees perfectly with your observations. My explanation is that people can't completely understand values of other quadras and when reading snippets about them (such as points on Wikisocion), tend to interpret them in their own way. Which makes some people bitch about opposite quadra even if they're mistyped and it's actually their own. Clubs, on the other hand, seem to work most of the time (unless you're trying to be what you aren't).

3. I agree with the premise. Likewise I've struggled with the LII-ILI typing even though my initial hunch had to be ILI because of strong favors in those dichotomies, distaste towards LII thoughts, and resonating with some ILIs and ILI descriptions. So personal investigation has led be to more easily decifer the major differences between quasi-identicals, and whenever someone has narrowed it down to both quasi-identicals, my first reaction is "they obviously have some more thinking to do."

4. I think it's just that quasi-identicals can appear very similar from the outside.

5. As pointed out above me, the problem with typing by quadra values is that they're theoretical; they don't guarantee a specific behavior. Clubs are much easier to figure in this respect.

And, of course, there's the famous LII/ILI quasi pair, one often seen here likely because of the sheer number of both types being present. One often uses their demonstrative IM extensively in private, so ascertaining a leading IM through introspection isn't a sure-fire route. I've trod the line of that quasi pair myself many times, although I've maintained LII as my self-typing since first being introduced to Socionics. Values are more easily exposed in the weak IMs, which are normally avoided in favor of strong IMs, especially those in the ego block.

In my experience, interactions with others usually breaks the quasi pair. It's simply easier to figure quadra values when trying to find common ground with others(especially of the opposite club) and seeing if the interaction is subconsciously satisfying or not.

6. I think quadra values to me aren't really theoretical, but probably the most real and obvious thing out of all of these socionics terms, which is why I don't run into this quasi-identity typing problem much anymore. I mean, it's still a popular question amongst initial impressions, but it seems almost pathetic to me to not be able to tell after knowing simple apparent things about a person. It appears to me that people just need to get a hold of these on a realistic level, and don't just assume they'll always be some theoretical clouds floating in space.

7. Removed at User Request

8. Originally Posted by polikujm
I think quadra values to me aren't really theoretical, but probably the most real and obvious thing out of all of these socionics terms, which is why I don't run into this quasi-identiy typing problem much anymore. I mean, it's still a popular question amongst initial impressions, but it seems almost pathetic to me to not be able to tell after knowing simple apparent things about a person. It appears to me that people just need to get a hold of these on a realistic level, and don't just assume they'll always be some theoretical clouds floating in space.
Haven't you typed yourself as every quadra at one point or another?

9. What's your point? That's like asking the president "oh but haven't you failed in your past? didn't you get bad grades?" You have to speak from experience. ILI has always been my main type, I've said this tons of times, in tons of ways, and yet people will always look for more ways to disrupt that. War is inevitable. I happen to be a go with the flow character in theory, so naturally I look at myself in various perspectives.

10. Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
I've noticed that when people are trying to type someone, that if its narrowed down to a couple of types that oftentimes the two remaining types make a quasi-identical pair. Like LII vs. ILI; EIE vs. IEE, etc.
It's usually because of MBTI influences (and I know I parrot this often enough for it to seem like I'm crying wolf, but I honestly think its true). It makes a lot more sense to be confused with your extinguishment because you actually share the same IE blocks. But in MBTI conversions, quasi-identicals share all the letters than come over to Socionics easily, so the exception is the J/P. Seeing that J/P is generally ambiguous as a conversion to Socionics, people flip back and forth. I always used to wonder this myself, and that's how I've reached my conclusion, because if you were typing by IEs and functions, there's no way you could be deciding between quasi-identicals.

11. Originally Posted by polikujm
What's your point? That's like asking the president "oh but haven't you failed in your past? didn't you get bad grades?" You have to speak from experience. ILI has always been my main type, I've said this tons of times, in tons of ways, and yet people will always look for more ways to disrupt that. War is inevitable. I happen to be a go with the flow character in theory, so naturally I look at myself in various perspectives.
And that's my point.

Or, perhaps, I'll elaborate. It's not an attack on your typing skills, as you've pointed out that ILI has always been a "main type." Rather, your case is one of the most easily available to use as evidence that the less objectively qualifiable factors of a person's personality are the hardest to accurately assess. For whatever reason, than hasn't been taken as obvious by some. A person's "skill" using a particular IM is simply easier to judge than their preference for it. There's good reason for initial analyses narrowing a typing down to a quasi pair, or for two independent typings to collectively indicate a quasi pair. (Barack Obama, for instance)

12. Well, if two separate people are typing two opposite quadras, but basically have the same "club," that's not much of a case on either of them not knowing what they're talking about. It's fine to have doubts and see various perspectives, but it's pathetic if you can't seem to place someone you have researched between two types of opposite value. I see different versions of Socionics, but I would no longer settle on a typing that says either alpha or gamma in the same theory. That just sounds ignorant of the basics of the construct and meaning of any socionics interpretation, and it makes socionics meaningless.

Sure I would agree that Socionics seems favorably focused somewhat around some concept of clubs, and then people type in disagreement with opposite quadras because of it, but intertype relations and the IMs usually are able to determine the real type. They're what make the theory work at the end of it all. I don't see how two separate people wouldn't not agree in a multitude of ways aside from club correspondence, it's all subjective to everyone.

13. If you're looking at dimensionality of functions, LII and ILI share exactly the same relative strengths and weaknesses. Both types have 4D Ti and Ni, 3D Te and Ne, 2D Fi and Si, and 1D Se and Fe.
The dimensional numbers are very likely established from the fact that quasi-identicals are similar, such that if you use them to prove the fact that they are similar, you engage in tautological circularity reasoning.

14. I almost never have trouble recognizing the differences between ILI and LII now a days. Or ILE and LIE.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•