# Thread: Why only 16 types?

1. ## Why only 16 types?

I don't know very much about Socionics,
but what I do know is that there are supposedly 8 functions,
thus there are 8 ways to order the 8 functions.
Thus, why are there not 64 types?

Types are determined by the leading function and the creative function,
but for a given leading function there are only 2 possible corresponding types. Why?

For a given leading function and creative function there exist 1 type.
Thus for someone with their first two functions as NiTe,
there is only one possible order of the remaining functions?
Namely, Ni Te Si Fe Se Fi Ti Ne. Why is, Ni Te Se Fi Ti Ne Si Fe, not possible?

Also, why is it not possible to have a leading function of Ni and a creative function of Ne?

I think I am going to stick to physics.

Ryan---------

2. Socionic Model of the Psyche

Scroll down a bit.

3. There are 40320 possible orderings of 8 information elements, but only 16 of these are viable socionic types. Why? Here are the basic logical rules for constructing a type model:
each and every information element must appear in the model once

the mental and vital tracks (loops) consist of either all static elements (, , , ) or all dynamic elements (, , , )
Why?
the accepting and producing functions contain either all rational (, , , ) or all irrational elements (, , , )
each block consists of one extraverted (, , , ) and one introverted (, , , ) elements
Again why?
the vital track is a mirror image of the mental track, but with elements of the opposite "vertness" (i.e. the Super-id mirrors the Super-ego, and the Id mirrors the Ego)
I understand that according to Socionics the order of the functions is determined by a set of rules, what I don't understand is why or how this set of rules is valid.

4. Welcome Ryan.

To understand why there are only 16 types in socionics, you have to understand what constitutes a type, and how certain functions can only be paired with other specific functions, as well as with specific temperaments.

What I mean by "paired with other specific functions" is that IEs can only be valued in opposite pairs, the opposites being determined by the information aspects that comprise them. For example, when it comes to irrational functions Ni can only be valued along with Se, because they take in completely different kinds of information and as such provide a much more in depth view of the world when used together. Specifically, Ni is comprised of Internal Field Dynamics, whereas Se is External Object Statics. If you want more information about information aspects, search through older threads around in General Discussion. There are some pretty good ones that should be easy to find.

Secondly, what goes into the Ego block can only be one irrational function and one rational function. Both an irrational and rational function are necessary because humans are capable of both information input and output, and were someone to only receive information input then there wouldn't be any real cognition because there's no means of outputting it.

Thirdly, the blocking of functions has to coincide with the static/dynamic dichotomy as determined by the temperament. A static temperament can't have dynamic functions (Ni, Si, Te, or Fe) as their ego functions because they go against the very nature of "static" perceptions of the world, and vice versa for dynamic temperaments with static functions.

To answer your more specific questions, you can't have a leading and a creative function both be Ni and Ne for two reasons. First, both are irrational functions, and there can only be one irrational function in an ego block to make room for the rational function. Secondly, Ni and Ne aren't compatible types of information: in terms of being valued, Ni can only be paired with Se, whereas Ne can only be paired with Si.

As for the INTp example you described, there can only be one order of proceeding functions because of the simple nature of how Socionics is constructed: static/dynamic, valued/unvalued, weak/strong, etc.

Hope this helps.

5. Secondly, what goes into the Ego block can only be one irrational function and one rational function. Both an irrational and rational function are necessary because humans are capable of both information input and output,
Ok, so input can either be intuitive or sensing, and output is either ethical or logical? Thus your example of Ni and Se would both be input, Ni being introverted input and Se being extroverted input, right? From that logic Ni can only go with Fe or Te. Given the fact that there is no NiSe type, right?

6. Originally Posted by ryanmat25
Ok, so input can either be intuitive or sensing, and output is either ethical or logical? Thus your example of Ni and Se would both be input, Ni being introverted input and Se being extroverted input, right?
Right right. Make sure you fully understand the meanings of extroverted and introverted though, because extroverted information just means "object" information, and introverted is just "field" information. Again, check the various information aspect threads around here for that information.

7. I think I can go ahead and conclude socionics is complete bs.
Good day

8. Uhm Ti/Fe. They're the exact same thing, on different ends of the scale, etc. So why say someone is both Ti and Te? They're opposites. Only 2 functions (perceiving and judging), and 2 types (introvert and extrovert). The "model A" is pointless to use, its just a theoretical mesh of unnecessarily categorized observations. 16 full types is not enough to need any model, just learn the types in real life.

9. Wait a minute... Model A is pointless? What do you use instead?

10. Originally Posted by ryanmat25
I think I can go ahead and conclude socionics is complete bs.
Good day
bye

11. Originally Posted by ryanmat25
I think I can go ahead and conclude socionics is complete bs.
Good day

12. Originally Posted by ryanmat25
Why?

Again why?

I understand that according to Socionics the order of the functions is determined by a set of rules, what I don't understand is why or how this set of rules is valid.
Socionics was developed by years of observation, discussion and introspection. To confirm those rules you will at least need some months...

Originally Posted by polikujm
The "model A" is pointless to use, its just a theoretical mesh of unnecessarily categorized observations.
More than 4,700 posts full of bullshit. The reason why the credibility of socionics is considered so low in the west are people like polikujm who
- still don't know their own type after many years
- don't understand the basics of socionics
- change their opinions every day
- write about 10 posts every day

13. Originally Posted by Sir Knight
Wait a minute... Model A is pointless? What do you use instead?
You don't need to use a model if there are only 16 types. You need to understand the information elements though, that's what drives every 4 types to have something larger in common. ie. If you grasp with , then thats all you need to grasp those four Gamma types, and you have half of the puzzle for 8 other types.

Originally Posted by JohnDo
Socionics was developed by years of observation, discussion and introspection. To confirm those rules you will at least need some months...

More than 4,700 posts full of bullshit. The reason why the credibility of socionics is considered so low in the west are people like polikujm who
- still don't know their own type after many years
- don't understand the basics of socionics
- change their opinions every day
- write about 10 posts every day
Lol, a lot of your typings are wack so I wouldn't expect you to know about Socionics either. I love how all these closed-minded know-it-alls who still think their same interpretation is right, keep wanting to gain some kind of upper hand every single time they restate their opinion, where it is those who explore the big picture first who'd more likely gain knowledge of all the viable perspectives for optimum selection in the long run--its called perfectionism in objectivism. I personally wouldn't know what is more bullshit, my posts in a Socionics topic where I often explore the situation before hand and try to make a reasonable point, given I could probably spend more time pondering it, or your 640 indecipherably restated judgments. I'm sure many of our posts are about matters I would consider trivial.

14. The "model A" is pointless to use, its just a theoretical mesh of unnecessarily categorized observations.
I agree.

Lol, a lot of your typings are wack so I wouldn't expect you to know about Socionics either.
I agree.

15. Originally Posted by polikujm
You don't need to use a model if there are only 16 types. You need to understand the information elements though, that's what drives every 4 types to have something larger in common. ie. If you grasp with , then thats all you need to grasp those four Gamma types, and you have half of the puzzle for 8 other types.
So, what about valuation/devaluation? Functional strength and weakness? Is that all still accounted for even in the absence of a strict framework to place it in?

16. Value/strength, same thing. If something is essential to someone's being and understanding, then they value it. But there's a lot of talk of "you're weak in Fe" "I'm Fi dominant but I'm better at Fe than you" etc. Just kind of nonsensical theoretical talk, don't really think that pans out that way in real life. Most people are strong in their quadra functions, unless they have some kind of deficiency. But IMs aren't like "talents," they're perspectives of viewing things.

17. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the notion that, for example, Fe as your role function means you exhibit such and such behaviors and are not proficient at certain activities is sketchy at best? That trying to attribute certain generalized character traits to one's functional ordering is iffy?

#### Posting Permissions

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