What is Introverted Socionics?

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-21-2011, 08:11 AM

Title says all.

**Capitalist Pig** · 03-21-2011, 08:23 AM

I don't get it. The title hardly answers the question. Is this supposed to be some sort of joke?

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-21-2011, 08:30 AM

http://socioniko.net/ru/1.begin/introsoc.html

The bad translation distorts the context.

**Capitalist Pig** · 03-21-2011, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

http://socioniko.net/ru/1.begin/introsoc.html

The bad translation distorts the context.

I'm sorry, we appear to be suffering from some sort of miscommunication here. I'm going to assume the role of the tourist, and you shall assume the role of the native who doesn't understand me.

I DON'T SPEAK POLLACK. DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH? I AM TRYING TO FIND THE TRAIN STATION. WHERE IS THE WATER CLOSET?

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-21-2011, 09:33 AM

Me: Reads a Russian article on Introverted Socionics. Is confused.
Me: Comes to the16types thinking they know what's what
Me: Makes a thread asking "What is Introverted Socionics?"
You: Confusion due to sparsity.
Me: Posts the link from which I gained the awareness of Introverted Socionics
You: More confusion
Me: Reply with this post in this manner:

1/0

**Absurd** · 03-21-2011, 10:06 AM

It's made for introverts.

**Capitalist Pig** · 03-21-2011, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Me: Reads a Russian article on Introverted Socionics. Is confused.
Me: Comes to the16types thinking they know what's what
Me: Makes a thread asking "What is Introverted Socionics?"
You: Confusion due to sparsity.
Me: Posts the link from which I gained the awareness of Introverted Socionics
You: More confusion
Me: Reply with this post in this manner:

Aha, I see.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Me: Reads a Russian article on Introverted Socionics. Is confused.
Me: Comes to the16types thinking they know what's what
Me: Makes a thread asking "What is Introverted Socionics?"
You: Confusion due to sparsity.
Me: Posts the link from which I gained the awareness of Introverted Socionics
You: More confusion
Me: Reply with this post in this manner:

Aha, I see.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Me: Reads a Russian article on Introverted Socionics. Is confused.
Me: Comes to the16types thinking they know what's what
Me: Makes a thread asking "What is Introverted Socionics?"
You: Confusion due to sparsity.
Me: Posts the link from which I gained the awareness of Introverted Socionics
You: More confusion
Me: Reply with this post in this manner:

Aha, I see.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Me: Reads a Russian article on Introverted Socionics. Is confused.
Me: Comes to the16types thinking they know what's what
Me: Makes a thread asking "What is Introverted Socionics?"
You: Confusion due to sparsity.
Me: Posts the link from which I gained the awareness of Introverted Socionics
You: More confusion
Me: Reply with this post in this manner:

Aha, ic.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

1/0

**717495** · 03-21-2011, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Marie84

Force my hand's description is a good read http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...9&postcount=14

That's kind of interesting.

**The Ineffable** · 03-21-2011, 05:00 PM

To be strict, "Introverted" does not exist in Socionics, not related to Model A or the functions. We use "Introverted" for convenience to address Bodies information and Extratim types, Aushra did that, too. However, Socionics Extratim/Introtim differ from extroverted/introverted in several aspects:
- introversion is a continuum, an attitude, people may be ambiverted when it's not possible to tell apart the degree of reservedness. In Socionics there's no such thing as "degree of extroversion", as a sociotype can be led by an either Bodies (objects, bodies, stimuli, instances) or Fields function (rules, relations, classes, qualities).
- extroversion/introversion are related to the self, to the subject vs the external world. From Wikipedia: introverted person: "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self"; extroverted person: "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life". This is not valid in Socionics, where the perception of reality is based on the type of information the functions deal with, regardless of the subject - relationships can be perceived between separate external things, subjects or concepts with no notion/awareness/interest in self - take Ti-Base as an example of a most impersonal Introtim manifestation.

In Socionics, the type attitude is described over both subjects and objects, each when applicable, for example subjects come in when we talk about their social views - society, people, values, etc. Aushra wrote:

[Extroverts:] Propensity to change the outer world in favor of the subject. Tendency to worry about the subjects and objects, changing their relationship. In contrast, the introvert tendency to change subjects and objects for the sake or benefit of the relations between them. In an extrovert relationships between people in relation to the people themselves - secondary: the relationship must be such that what people need. In the introvert, on the contrary, no relationship should be adapted to people, and people or their behavior to the relationship: if there were contradictions, should change people, not relationships.

We can say that for the extrovert constant in the external world are the subjects and objects. For an introvert this constant is the relationship between subjects and objects, and these relationships evoke.

---

As a rule of thumb, to differentiate classical/Jungian meaning from Socionics:
- classical E/I: object(s)/subject(s)
- Socionics E/I: objects,subjects/relationships.

**krieger** · 03-21-2011, 05:07 PM

Introversion means the P function is Focal whereas the J function is Diffuse. Extroversion means the opposite. There is no need for the postulation of a Object/Field dichotomy in relation to functions rather than types.

Focal P means the person understands states better than transitions. An analogy that i like to use is that of driving a car: the introvert thinks in terms of "going 60Mph is good", whereas the extrovert thinks in terms of "stepping on the gas is good". The first leads to a stable behavioral mode that tries to lock down a certain state at the risk of stagnating, whereas the latter leads to a dynamic mode that keeps moving from one state to another at a risk of overshooting its mark.

**xerx** · 03-21-2011, 06:09 PM

IIRC,

They came up with it in Kiev in the early-mid 1990s. In "Introverted" Socionics every relationship is given an integral type starting with ILE as the basis. So:

identical = ILE
dual = SEI
mirror = LII
conflictor = ESI
etc..

The article I read says that the assignment of types to relationships isn't arbitrary. Identity is always ILE because, according to the theory's proponents, ILEs understand everything that goes on around them -- likewise, identity is a relationship of maximum understanding between partners.

Duality is always SEI because this is the most good-natured and friendly type -- likewise, duality is the best and most friendly relationship.

I don't know if there are other systems of assigning integral types based on differing interpretations of the types, or if there is a system of introverted socionics based on arbitrary assignments of types to relationships, or that uses a basis different from ILE.

One corollary that can be drawn that should arise in practice:

Imagine some contact between an ILI, LIE and an IEI. Instead of a linear supervision of the IEI by the LIE, the IEI would find that he has the advantage over the ILI - LIE relationship in so far as these two constitute a pair. That is because the integral type of their mirror relationship is LII, for whom the IEI is benefactor.

**krieger** · 03-21-2011, 06:12 PM

bizarre. that sounds like something i really don't want to be supporting.

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-21-2011, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bolt

To be strict, "Introverted" does not exist in Socionics, not related to Model A or the functions. We use "Introverted" for convenience to address Bodies information and Extratim types, Aushra did that, too. However, Socionics Extratim/Introtim differ from extroverted/introverted in several aspects:
- introversion is a continuum, an attitude, people may be ambiverted when it's not possible to tell apart the degree of reservedness. In Socionics there's no such thing as "degree of extroversion", as a sociotype can be led by an either Bodies (objects, bodies, stimuli, instances) or Fields function (rules, relations, classes, qualities).
- extroversion/introversion are related to the self, to the subject vs the external world. From Wikipedia: introverted person: "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self"; extroverted person: "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life". This is not valid in Socionics, where the perception of reality is based on the type of information the functions deal with, regardless of the subject - relationships can be perceived between separate external things, subjects or concepts with no notion/awareness/interest in self - take Ti-Base as an example of a most impersonal Introtim manifestation.

In Socionics, the type attitude is described over both subjects and objects, each when applicable, for example subjects come in when we talk about their social views - society, people, values, etc. Aushra wrote:

---

As a rule of thumb, to differentiate classical/Jungian meaning from Socionics:
- classical E/I: object(s)/subject(s)
- Socionics E/I: objects,subjects/relationships.

Originally Posted by Marie84

Force my hand's description is a good read http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...9&postcount=14

Originally Posted by labcoat

Introversion means the P function is Focal whereas the J function is Diffuse. Extroversion means the opposite. There is no need for the postulation of a Object/Field dichotomy in relation to functions rather than types.

Focal P means the person understands states better than transitions. An analogy that i like to use is that of driving a car: the introvert thinks in terms of "going 60Mph is good", whereas the extrovert thinks in terms of "stepping on the gas is good". The first leads to a stable behavioral mode that tries to lock down a certain state at the risk of stagnating, whereas the latter leads to a dynamic mode that keeps moving from one state to another at a risk of overshooting its mark.

Originally Posted by jxrtes

IIRC,

They came up with it in Kiev in the early-mid 1990s. In "Introverted" Socionics every relationship is given an integral type starting with ILE as the basis. So:

identical = ILE
dual = SEI
mirror = LII
conflictor = ESI
etc..

The article I read says that the assignment of types to relationships isn't arbitrary. Identity is always ILE because, according to the theory's proponents, ILEs understand everything that goes on around them -- likewise, identity is a relationship of maximum understanding between partners.

Duality is always SEI because this is the most good-natured and friendly type -- likewise, duality is the best and most friendly relationship.

I don't know if there are other systems of assigning integral types based on differing interpretations of the types, or if there is a system of introverted socionics based on arbitrary assignments of types to relationships, or that uses a basis different from ILE.

One corollary that can be drawn that should arise in practice:

Imagine some contact between an ILI, LIE and an IEI. Instead of a linear supervision of the IEI by the LIE, the IEI would find that he has the advantage over the ILI - LIE relationship in so far as these two constitute a pair. That is because the integral type of their mirror relationship is LII, for whom the IEI is benefactor.

Thanks, this is what I was looking for.

Ffs, you guys don't give me much credit do you?

Thanks anyway.

**Marie84** · 03-22-2011, 05:14 AM

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I read the title as Introverted Sensing *stupiddyslexia*

**Beautiful sky** · 03-22-2011, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Ffs, you guys don't give me much credit do you?

Thanks anyway.

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-22-2011, 06:18 AM

Also related:

http://socionics.us/philosophy/ethics.shtml

Socionics has an extraverted ethical system; the qualities of individuals are seen as determining the relationships between them, and not vice-versa.

Obviously. But I thought it was interesting because Socionics has a

(/

) perspective, yet

/

still permeates the system. We have 16 types and 16 relationships, but we still cannot predict all the activity that goes on.

It also takes

/

for people to willingly come together and form bonds (implied relationships).

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/college_guide/images/Credit-cards.jpg

Cold hard cash > Cards.

That's how they get you.

/Gamma Economics 101

**Beautiful sky** · 03-22-2011, 06:21 AM

Yeah, but even in implied relationships like the ones I build are hard without the willing and conscious participation of those involved (in reality).

Since I don't like force, that's never an option for me. What's the best option, benevolent leader.

Creepy-male · 03-22-2011, 07:13 AM

Actually, that's interesting. It explains why I've seen so many Gamma SFs with the attitude of "I can change this person". Also perhaps Delta NFs and waiting out for people to change for the better?

Te/Fi is the qualities of the relationship are fixed, but the qualities of the individuals are not.

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-22-2011, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by The Egbert Human

Actually, that's interesting. It explains why I've seen so many Gamma SFs with the attitude of "I can change this person". Also perhaps Delta NFs and waiting out for people to change for the better?

Te/Fi is the qualities of the relationship are fixed, but the qualities of the individuals are not.

Right. Use this format to make your own analogies:

This is what I mean by Communism/Socialism being

/

and Capitalism being

/

. The former has clearly defined commands that allow for a more conscious efficient use of resources, unlike the latter that has unclear and undefined expectations that the economy conforms to.

Creepy-male · 03-22-2011, 12:51 PM

Communism is inherently Ti, I'm sorry.

Before I begin, think of history. The Cold War was LIE America trying to enforce its Te ideals of free market capitalism on various Beta regimes that went to Communism. Also of note is the various disagreements amongst nations following Communism as to what it is and how to apply it. Think Maoism vs Stalinism. This is a really common

thing, and has happened in the past with Christianity, and is even visible happening today within Socionics. (Which from a

perspective is utterly ridiculous, Rick noted that Socionics has largely degenerated into a back-and-forth of defining and redefining and bickering over definitions and meanings of largely really useless terms, to paraphrase.)

Also, free market capitalism is Te. It assumes that the market is dynamic and largely just takes care of itself by its own internal forces. Planned economies instead impose a defined plan (ohai

) for everyone to do. "Explicit plan" should sound very obviously External Statics of Fields.

**krieger** · 03-22-2011, 04:00 PM

i come across tons of Te/Fi valuing people with an attraction to socialist ideas. the socialist party in my country in particular seems to be absolutely swarming with ISTps.

Their latest two leaders:

both dead-obvious ISTps as per my estimation.

**Gilly** · 03-22-2011, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by The Egbert Human

"Explicit plan" should sound very obviously external Statics of Fields.

fiks

**Gilly** · 03-22-2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

It also takes

/

for people to willingly come together and form bonds (implied relationships).

Ummm, sorry but what the fuck?

Creepy-male · 03-22-2011, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Gilly

fiks

Heh, whoops. Cheers for the catch.

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-22-2011, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ashton

LOL U R WRONG

Originally Posted by Gilly

Ummm, sorry but what the fuck?

Think of

as necessary relationships and

as willing relationships.
Your skeleton needs structure to hold your body up. But you don't "need" a partner to hold you up.

Originally Posted by The Egbert Human

Communism is inherently Ti, I'm sorry.

Before I begin, think of history. The Cold War was LIE America trying to enforce its Te ideals of free market capitalism on various Beta regimes that went to Communism. Also of note is the various disagreements amongst nations following Communism as to what it is and how to apply it. Think Maoism vs Stalinism. This is a really common

thing, and has happened in the past with Christianity, and is even visible happening today within Socionics. (Which from a

perspective is utterly ridiculous, Rick noted that Socionics has largely degenerated into a back-and-forth of defining and redefining and bickering over definitions and meanings of largely really useless terms, to paraphrase.)

This is thinking in terms of content and the way it the systems are applied. Notice how you diverged from my economic focus?

The approach that the officials / governments took in the Communist states in the 20th century were definitely Beta, specifically ISTj. And I don't disagree that Capitalism applied in America amounts to

/

ideals, but the economy itself..it's an Alpha program.

Also, free market capitalism is Te. It assumes that the market is dynamic and largely just takes care of itself by its own internal forces. Planned economies instead impose a defined plan (ohai

) for everyone to do. "Explicit plan" should sound very obviously External Statics of Fields.

In Laissez faire Capitalism, there is no ruling party dictating explicitly WHAT and HOW MUCH will be produced. The economy is implicitly driven by internal factors(mood, temporary needs, wants, curiosity, materialism, consumerism etc). You know those scenes of fictional business moguls, where they have a meeting an discuss what the public wants and then they plan to accommodate the public's expectations by coming up with new products? That's

/

. If you want to make money, "you gotta give the people what they want". The activity of Capitalism's economy is undefined and reactive. This makes it

.

Communism has an

/

economic program. There is a ruling party dictating WHAT and HOW MUCH will be produced. The economy is driven by external factors(the demands of the government). The government doesn't give a damn about the individual wants of the people, it focuses on their combined needs(or it should). The activity of Communism's economy is defined and active. This makes it

.

The middle road is that they are both Beta/Gamma(Decisiveness).

**The Ineffable** · 03-22-2011, 09:58 PM

EyeSeeCold: independently of what others have said, I disagree with you. Not only that, but you're wrong, it's the other way around. Obviously, these things are not strictly related to Ti vs Te, however overall it's the opposite of what you say: regulations, design are Ti, needs, interest and profit over what actually *is* is Te. Te as information itself excludes anything related to how things "ought be".

You're totally wrong and there's no other way around that but to seek and correct what you misunderstood or something, somewhere in your reasoning there's a speculation that I don't even try to look for, as the result it's anyway wrong (might be helpful, though). Make a revision or something, I'd say - but first at least accept the possibility that you may have it upside-down.

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-22-2011, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Bolt

EyeSeeCold: independently of what others have said, I disagree with you. Not only that, but you're wrong, it's the other way around. Obviously, these things are not strictly related to Ti vs Te, however overall it's the opposite of what you say: regulations, design are Ti, needs, interest and profit over what actually *is* is Te. Te as information itself excludes anything related to how things "ought be".

But see, I know profit is under

, but profit is not what I'm focusing on. Yes, the capitalists ends may be profit, but the means are

/

. The economy is still reactively conformist and undefined. And people who want to make a profit have to work around this.

You're totally wrong and there's no other way around that but to seek and correct what you misunderstood or something, somewhere in your reasoning there's a speculation that I don't even try to look for, as the result it's anyway wrong (might be helpful, though). Make a revision or something, I'd say - but first at least accept the possibility that you may have it upside-down.

I'm not wrong. The way I'm looking at it is different. I'm working at an archetypal level not a structural level.

I acknowledge my own ignorance, but it is because I understand why I'm thinking the way I am and why you guys think I'm wrong. This higher dimension of understanding permits me to dismiss outside claims of being incorrect. Furthermore I'm not trying to impose an absolute. It's just the perspective I prefer, it's just another way I see the patterns of life.

**Creepy-** · 03-22-2011, 10:14 PM

x/0 does not equal infinity, I don't think.

**krieger** · 03-22-2011, 10:17 PM

i agree that capitalism involves far more Fe than people typically imply. the capitalist "game" is all about marketing products (Fe) and designing (Ti) them in attunement to people's wishes and drives. Te is just the arbitrage intermediate to the process.

capitalism also relies on things like property laws to function in anything like the successful capacity it is observed in in modern times.

that being said, i wouldn't support the notion that capitalism is "typically" Ti/Fe either. its something much richer and diverse than any single function axis encompasses.

**EyeSeeCold** · 03-22-2011, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by nil

Today, 03:14 PM

x/0 does not equal infinity, I don't think.

System crash.

**Creepy-** · 03-23-2011, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

System crash.

How sad. Mine says 6:14.

**Exodus** · 03-25-2011, 11:06 PM

In introverted socionics you associate each type T with a different relationship R_T in such a way that R_S(T) = S*R_T for any relationship S and type T. Gulenko somehow had the idea that duality is an SEI relationship because it's comfortable and whatnot. But of course you could associate duality with any of the other 16 types and have 15 additional versions of Introverted socionics. It's kind of a cute idea.

**krieger** · 03-25-2011, 11:10 PM

the whole thing becomes a joke when they start talking about types supervising intertype relations...

**Nexus** · 03-25-2011, 11:16 PM

introverted socionics is obviously socionics that you do when you are not on the 16types.info and are so embarrassed to discuss other people's egos in front of them

**Exodus** · 03-25-2011, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ashton

And the point of it would be… ?

lol

Are you seriously asking this question? This is socionics, lol.

Creepy-male · 03-25-2011, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Are you seriously asking this question? This is socionics, lol.

Ashton has a quota of demonstrating how obviously LIE he is that he has to fill each day.

That's my theory anyway.

Creepy-male · 03-26-2011, 12:44 AM

Have you ever actually contributed anything to a thread that isn't you spouting some canned Te attitude that has nothing to do with anything being discussed?

Creepy-male · 03-26-2011, 02:14 AM

One of life's unsolvable mysteries, perhaps.

Let's put it to the panel and see if they can figure it out.

Thread: What is Introverted Socionics?

Thread Tools

Display

What is Introverted Socionics?

Posting Permissions