Smilexian Socionics 101.2

[Minde]

In case you happen to have a photographic memory, I feel compelled to warn you this may look a little different from the original.

- Minde


Smilexian Socionics 101.2

The Characters
----------------------------
- Teacher (The Smile)
- Student (The Eyes)



[edited because evidently it isn't broken down into lessons]


:
This is the type of stuff that gives me headaches. I have the feeling, though, that what you're writing should be titled "Advanced" whereas I should be looking at concepts more along the lines of "Beginning" or "Intermediate." The problem is, while I don't understand it, I want to because I think it might help me in my overall understanding of socionics. And I'm not sure what questions to ask you other than, "What does it all mean?" Or, maybe I could ask, "What do I need to know to understand it?"

:
Ah, I fully understand anyone who claims a headache because of that thread. I was not as good at this stuff then as I am now. I've left the material as it was for historical purposes. Yet the concepts in that thread are actually about the very basics of the theory, the things that are behind the types.

The most basic thing to start with would, in my opinion, be the difference between judging and perceiving functions.

The second would be to understand the difference between externalized (well-defined) functions and information and internalized (not-well defined) functions and information. These two issues are the most important in socionics. I would like to clarify these and other issues to you, if you're ok with this. Though, it might not be fast going, since the issues are by their nature difficult.

:
Yes, please. That's why I wrote you. I love clarification, and I don't mind slow goings. Where shall we start?

:
Okay. Before we start I need to point out once more that my views on socionics aren't identical to those of mainstream socionists. It's not far from it, mostly it's a case of slightly different terminology, but there are few differences. And I can only talk about what my own view is. I only know what's giving me good results...

:
Understood. When you depart from the mainstream, could you let me know? And perhaps not only when, but what is different, and why?

:
I'll do as much as I can. The main difference of point of view is that socionists have tried to create a connection to some of Freud's work and have a mainly theoretical psychological background. What psychological experience I have is of practical psychology and my view point of socionics is focused on the life strategy aspect of socionics. I can not accurately describe all aspects of Freudian/ Jungian theory that motivate mainstream socionics, but when I can describe the differences I will.

:
Thank you. That's just what I want.

:
Now, I work much better when I'm given questions that I can answer instead of trying to explain everything that I know or think I know. But I suggested a matter to start with, so I'm going to say something about it, then it's your turn. And that's how we go until we both are confident about you understanding my point on the subject. Then we move to the next bit. Ok?

The most basic and fundamental block would be judging vs. perceiving. The two concepts are linked together. It's not a dichotomy in the sense of one being the opposite of the other. It's about two processes that act in tandem and the real question at any given point is, which of these two processes is pulling the strings.

For practical purposes I will be using old material when I can...

Previously, I said the following about perceiving and judging functions:

Perceiving function:
It relates to a natural state of things, observation of events such as they are. It doesn't involve agreements, ethics or sociality, it doesn't involve purpose. It's just things as they are. It requires judging functions to supply it with purpose and humanity and it supports judging functions by turning their hopes, beliefs and decisions into reality. By its actions changes the focus of a situation from the 'aristocratic' to the 'democratic' ie. enables one to concentrate on the situation that is instead of a principle, communal agreement or prevailing idea.

Judging function:
It relates to an artificial state of things, observation of the way things could be and how they should be. It consists of agreed upon and decided information, ethics, norms, sociality, purpose, infrastructure, social bonds, honor, beliefs, plans, abstractions and hierarchies. It's what we make of the world, it's our humanity. It requires perceiving functions to anchor it into what's actually happening around it and to enable it to create something with its intentions. By its actions it turns 'democratic' into 'aristocratic' ie. it institutionalizes information and structures human activity, creates social roles and groups out of individuals that used to interact with an environment out of their own interests.

Now I would expect that you should generally see our discussion here relating to a judging function and also that this would be the form of the function that you are most using. This is what I call the dominant function. A dominant judging function serves as a bridge between two states of perceiving functions and a dominant perceiving function serves as a bridge between two states of judging functions. The whole of socionics is about a strategy. A strategy has a starting point, the strategy itself which is the tool, and a goal. Your social strategy is a way to solve a certain kind of problem that is existing in your environment. In this sense your Fi, your dominant judging function is a tool that you use to bypass problems of the perceiving kind.

As an example, you would recognize that you have some practical skills with which you can directly affect your environment (in a way defined as a perceptive function use) but you spend most of your energy not with those skills but your judging function concept of how to use those skills in the best way for your environment, which you use in a social way you call puttering. You recognize that this puttering does in fact create another kind of situation but you are not yet at the end of that path, hence you continue to putter. But you do know that at the end of that path there is another situation and another lesson of the perceptive kind. Yes?

:
So, let's see if I can rephrase this. There's the real world around me. There's a certain set of skills I have to interact with that world. But instead of just using those skills, I'm occupying more of my time and effort figuring out why to use those skills. And then I'll end up with something that a perceiving function has to work with. ??

:
Just about so. But I underline that this is an example of a way that your judging and perceiving functions can work together, not the only way to define the same issue. You could also use the same judging function to a) force the use of your practical skills over an issue that you theoretically have insufficient control over b) talk people into giving you opportunities to use those skills c) create a theoretical definition of your skills d) systemize your skills e) create a religious explanation of your skills or a number of other things. The issue is about what meaning you give and how do you present your real capability. In your case accepting Fi would generally relate to keeping a hold of some things (often people) that have proven to be important to you. I would expect a sort of maintenance of the surrounding situation, in whatever way you can.

:
Or, let me try this way:

What I can do to interact with the world - Perceiving
Spending time and effort on the "why" and "how best" - Judging
The end result that I now have to deal with - Perceiving

When I put it like that, I can see how the judging would be a "bridge."

:
Mostly agreed. Though seeing 'the best path' is perceiving. Deciding that what you saw really is 'the best path' is judging. But again, those are only one form that the sequence can take. I'll offer you another example.

For me in my current state it's closer to:

Perceiving: What I know to be good and beneficial in the environment. (Ni)
Judging: What is my role in the environment. (Te)
Perceiving: How I can fulfill the role I have. (Si)

Another ESTj could have another formulation of this same issue.

:
Why are you putting the actual functions in there? How do they relate? Or should I not focus on that?

:
I hoped they would help somehow. I usually believe that giving out information helps. Sometimes like apparently here it just confuses, sorry.

:
And I generally like having extra information. Sometimes I just need clarification of what's extra and what's essential. So don't be sorry.

But what would dominant perceiving look like? How would that "bridge"?

:
Ok, while I was using mainly Ni, my idea of what I was doing was:

Judging: What do people want and like? (Fe)
Perception: Of the things that people don't compete and fight for, what matters actually have uses that people ignore? (Ni)
Judging: Is there an opportunity available for me to do something important? (Te)

Again, there are alternate formulations for the same matter. Not every ENTj would recognize Fe as 'What do people want and like?'. Someone might say it's 'What's virtuous?' or 'Who are my friends?' or something else.

You could say that the perceiving function is the bridge that turns a decision (judging function) into action (perceiving function) in the hope of a meaningful end result (another judging function). Or again, you might formulate that in another way e.g. hypothesis (judging function) -> observation and reflection (perceiving function) -> truthful knowledge (another judging function).

(Differences: Jung seems to have understood the connection between judging and perceiving functions. Socionists and MBTI people often treat judging vs. perceiving rather as two entirely separate issues that are totally incompatible. Most socionists also treat functions as pieces of information, not as processes. They seem to be unable to actually define any of that information though and hence unable to relate it to actual behaviour or its purpose.)

:
I thought I was getting it, but then it slipped away again after reading that. Sorry, no specific questions, just general confusion.

:
I'm not surprised at all. This is the really difficult point about socionics. Thing is, socionics terminology can not be defined with any simple phrases of standard English. The reason is that the terminology is absolutely defined by the socionic system and the system itself has not been part of the English vocabulary. For example the word judging... the idea that is close to socionics judging is the idea of issuing, accepting and understanding verdicts, statements. On the other hand judging has a connotation of using judgment, and actually perceiving functions may be argued to have a closer link to this use of the word on the basis that judgment can be understood to be capability of approximation.

Let me try to put this in another way... There is an idea of the socioc term 'judging,' and there are many definitions of this idea that are serviceable but not identical to the actual idea. One can say that judging is 'making and committing to plans' and that's not entirely incorrect, but 'making and committing to plans' is not the same thing as judging. To say that judging is 'creating social bonds' is also close to correct, as is saying that judging is 'creating a theory'. All of those definitions and others of their kind form a cluster of ideas around the actual concept of judging. What is important is to be able to recognize issues that have this property of judging, issues that have the property of perception, and issues that more or less share characteristics of both...

e.g.
Driving a car ... the manual task of operating the wheel, gear shift and pedals is perceptive, as is the approximation of distances to other vehicles, knowing your orientation and place on a city grid, in what direction you should be moving, and how long will it take to get there.

On the other hand, knowing the traffic rules and deciding whether to stop at a yellow light, whether to give way to pedestrians or whether to drive recklessly caring only about getting to the end point quickly, these are judging issues.

Thus one can not say that driving a car is totally 'judging' or 'perceptive'.

:
So... Perceiving is more like "what is" and judging is more like "what one thinks/feels/decides about what is"?

:
Very much so. Yes, you are making progress.

More examples:
Sowing a button - entirely a perceiving task.
Acting as a translator between english and french - entirely a judging task.
Writing a poem - almost impossible to define on the level of judging vs. perceiving.

The clearest manifestations of perceiving can be seen in the function Se. A person using Se notices that something is doable and then does it. This is perceiving at its simplest.

Likewise judging is most easy to observe in Te. A Te person can say: "We must try to lose some weight." The commitment to a task, the message, the position is exceedingly clear, but there is in the statement little hint of what method is to be used. It's in many ways a social message. A clarification of the relation between the I and the concept in question.

:
Let me try an example. Cooking... knowing what ingredients are available, knowing their properties and how they interact with each other, the acts of putting them together, adjusting temperature, approximating how much will be needed and consumed, these are perceiving. Deciding what to cook, what ingredients to use and how much of each, how much effort should go into the dish, and whether to serve it nicely or just plop it on the table, these are judging.

How was that? Close?

:
Very good! In most cases it would be just so. Let's look at an advanced example around the subject of cooking... Let's say that a person is supposed to decide when to take the cake from the oven. The judging person could look at what it says in the recipe, or ask for advice, or have a premade rule of thumb about the subject. The perceptive person would look at the cake and decide whether it looks ready, or take it from the oven when he has time, or when it smells good or something similar.

:
So, if you take it out when the recipe says so, that's judging? And if you take it out 'cause it looks done, that's perceiving? What if you take it out because someone's taught you what it looks like when it's done? Has that gained a judging element (since there's now a previously defined expectation/standard)?

:
I'd say that's a bit of a borderline case, and there are many many such. It would depend on the point of view of the person doing the decision I suppose. One might say that it would seem to be mostly perceiving but including - as you put it - a judging element. The gray area between the judging and the perceiving is rather large.

And more....

Let's say someone says:
"Girls are better students than boys." This can be a matter of perception. The person in question may have seen that girls around him get better grades than boys and is just telling what he sees. OR it can be an issue of judging. The person may have looked at some statistics and noticed the same trend, then the person proceeds to make a statement of it and decides that girls are better students than boys. For the perceptive any single girl is not by definition a better student than a boy, but for the judging person a girl would henceforth be by definition a better student than a boy.

The perceptive function relates to a thing itself and the judging function relates to matters that 'are decidedly known about the thing'. Judging information has to go through a kind of level of abstraction.

:
And this is confusing...

Oh, well. Two steps forward, one step back. At least we're making progress.

:
Yes, we are. Let me rephrase this issue... The perceptive person would really be saying in his own opinion "I have noticed that girls seem to be better students than boys." whereas the judging person is really trying to say "It's a well known issue that girls just are better students than boys." There is a level of abstraction from the immediate observation in the judging function. In this sense truth is a claim that is supposed to correspond to how things are. The value of knowing something is true is that one does not have to check the fact every time by observation. Sometimes this truth is contrary to immediate observation. E.g. a patient does not seem ill, yet a doctor may know due to some lab results that he in fact is very ill. Hence, it can be true that he is ill, though he does not seem like it or feel like it. OTOH a stubborn person can claim e.g. for social reasons that something is true even if s/he has ironclad evidence right in front of him/her that the matter is not as s/he claims. Sometimes truths work better than observation, sometimes not so. Judging could be understood as personally accepted facts.

:
How is "observation" different from "truthful knowledge"? Oh, and it's making more sense again. I think.

:
The concept of truth is meaningless from the perceptive point of view. Perception says 'things just are as they are'. Judging function makes the approximation of what is true and what is not. Look at the above example of girl/boy students. It's the same issue.

:
Wait, I thought perceiving was about making approximations. And isn't "truth" the same as "what is"?

:
Quite so. Thing is, you never know by making an observation the actual true nature of a thing as your capacity to measure and understand what you see and hear is limited. So every observation is an approximation as well. What you observe becomes true only when you decide that you have observed something significant correctly. (Or that some other source is capable of giving you 'true' information.)

:
Okay, I think I got it. There's the actual truth (perceiving) and then what you decide is truth (judging). Yes?

:
Well, yes, essentially so. Though one shouldn't disregard the number of cases in which the perceiving information is easily misleading ... think on the lines of 'the earth is clearly flat, not round'.

:
Earlier you said that this discussion itself was judging. How is that? Or is that not what you're saying?

:
Two answers. First of all, you are using a judging function and I'm using a judging function, hence communication is by default on a level of judging function (mainly).

:
What judging function is that?

:
Accepting Te on my part and accepting Fi on your part.

Secondly, the matters I'm saying, I'm mainly 'teaching by rote' here. There is no aspect of benefit involved. I talk about a matter you want to know about. The focus is on the social opportunity. You can also note that we are both using our accepting (therefore judging functions) by the fact that neither one of us is trying to use control or tricks over the others, there is no pressure.

:
Now you've thrown "accepting" into the mix. How does accepting equal judging?

:
It doesn't equal judging. For all xxxj -types as in INFj, ESTj, ENFj etc. their judging functions are also accepting functions. For xxxp types as in ESFp, ISTp, ENTp etc. their judging functions are creative functions and their perceptive functions are accepting functions. Hence what I meant was that since we both are xxxj-types, for us, judging functions are also accepting functions. But let's return to that also, later.

:
Is perceiving v. judging similar to objective v. subjective?

:
No. In socionics parlance, both 'objective' and 'subjective' are characteristics of judging functions. Perceptive functions can't belong to either cathegory. Matters corresponding to a judging function can be important either because they are something you uphold yourself, or they can be important because they are accepted generally. This differentiates whether they are objective or subjective. But let's return to that dichotomy later. We're still essentially in judging vs. perceiving. (Perceiving functions can also be personal or general in a sense. Si and Ne are personal whereas Ni and Se are more general. But again, we should return to this later. )

Some choices that are perceiving:
a) Do strawberries taste better than cloudberries?
b) Is a bicycle faster than a pair of rollerskates?

Some choices that are judging:
c) Will I forgive a crime?
d) Do I wear a safety belt in the car?

In a sense, a and c could be called subjective whereas b and d could be called objective. There is 'correct information' regarding b and d whereas a and c depend mainly on the person making the choice. You may also notice that perceiving decisions are more about making an approximation whereas judging are more about making a decision.

:
So there actually is a reason why they're called "judging" and "perceiving"? I think I'm getting this part, at least.

:
I also think that you're starting to have this issue pretty well in hand. If you're feeling confident yourself we can move on to the issue of introversion vs. extroversion...

:
Sounds good to me.

:
Okay, wonderful!

[Smilingeyes]

Thank you, dear friend.

In the name of public interest I'll continue for a bit. Take over at any point if you feel like it.

---------

:
Okay, wonderful!

This will immediately get confusing

:

Excellent.

:

Hilarious

There are a number of definitions of introversion vs. extroversion within the system and they conflict at any number of points.
The four most important uses of the words are...

1. In relation to the temperament, as in EP or EJ versus IP or IJ.

2. In relation to a function, as in Se versus Fi.

3. In relation to the external (well defined) vs. internal (not well defined) quality of judging and perceiving functions (in which T and S are 'external' and N & F are 'internal')

4. In relation to the classical, social definition of introversion vs. extroversion, in which S & F are extrovert and N & T are introvert.

In this sense the Se of ESFp and ESTp is extrovert in all of the above meanings and the Ni of INFp and INTp is introvert in all of the above meanings. All other functions of all other types have in some ways an aspect of both the introvert and the extrovert.

I will start discussing the matter unintuitively from the third point as it is the most fundamental and ties the best with the previous matter of judging vs. perceiving.

So... of judging, there are two versions, the external (well-defined) T or thinking aka logical and the internal (not well-defined) F or feeling aka ethical.
Likewise for perceiving ... Sensory is external (well-defined) and Intuition is internal (not well-defined).

The fundamental idea is that the well-defined functions try to concentrate on the aspects of an issue that are the most clear and defined, they try to tackle an issue head on and solve it directly for whatever outcome. The not well-defined functions try to skirt an issue, avoid confrontation, pick the desired aspects of an issue while avoiding the not desired in whatever subject matter. The well-defined functions tend to cause change in an environment, concentrate on 'hard facts', situationally critical issues, trivia data and such. The not well-defined functions tend to care more about universal principles, unavoidable truths, general guidelines and not easily definable characteristics such as the soul, the meaning, the nature of a subject... they also tend to cause status quo to continue.

For this reason sensorics are often connected to such issues as ... physicality, power, violence, colour, distance, space, physical tools, physical skills, taking charge of a situation, immediate action, physical comfort, health...

whereas intuitives are often connected to such issues as ...
time, dreams, ideas, pontification, mental skills, wishes, projections, profitability, opportunity, inner structures, connections between issues, importance, guesswork...

Thinking is often connected to ... logic, maps, theories, rules, plans, guidelines, decisions, dogmas...

Feeling is often connected to ... opinions, character, principle, nature, empathy, faith, ethics...

How do you feel about this?

:
Quite good. Where was the confusing part supposed to come in again? So far it's nothing compared to what we just went through with perceiving and judging.

And I'm assuming we'll get to numbers 1, 2, and 4 soon enough, so I won't ask about those yet (though if I were to be confused about anything, it would be number 4).

:

We'll get to number 4 in just a moment, but first I'll add a few notes about the previous subject. It's rather important to note that people have a habit of making wrongful claims about the well-defined vs. not well-defined aspect of information and messages they give. A wild assumption on a matter that is very fuzzy can be passed on as a matter of utmost clarity while another person can be very vague about even the most trivial and simple details. What is most important on the matter is the point of view of the person talking about the subject. What the information represents to him. This can be very difficult to ascertain.

And now on to the issue of social extroversion...

Social extroversion is generally seen as the plentitude of social contact. Sensorics is called a socially extrovert function in opposition to intuition being a socially introvert function due to the directness of contact in action. The sensorics are associated with 'dominating physical space'. It is easy to see what they are doing, what their intentions are. They are direct. This increases the amount of meaningful interaction they have with other people.

On the other hand if we think about thinking vs. feeling... Thinking has very definite intentions, but ones the reasons for which are not immediately perceivable (since it's not related to perceiving traits). Instead it is commanding and conflict-oriented. Thus, in social contact Thinking people can seem disagreeable, rough. In opposition to this the Feeling people have a softer touch in social contact. Their actions relate to more general needs which are easier to emphatise with. They also allow more latitude to people since their needs and opinions are not well-defined. This allows them to interact with people easier, to occupy the 'center-space' of human relations.

The previous draws heavily on the well-defined vs. not well-defined that we already covered.

If we look at the combinations of these we get:
NT = People who have very firm opinions but are vague in the interaction. They may seem commanding, yet secretive. They may seem like fringe-seeking grouches or as capable leaders. They are have very specific intentions but act towards them in a roundabout, sort of general way. Their social interaction is very difficult to understand and / or control. Seem like above or beyond normal human interaction.


ST = A rough, direct, confrontational way of interaction. Can seem trustworthy due to the lack of concealing issues. Yet can also seem violent, harmful, dangerous, due to the lack of compromising in their actions. Often seen as more simple people than they really are.

:


:
I have often heard an NT or an SF, even sometimes an NF talk about the crudity of these practical types. It is oft mistaken for lack of intellect. And this of course is something that, at least some STs prefer to use to their advantage. Some other STs of course are able to avoid this brand. It is a stereotype sprung from the apparent lack of depth in our character. Some people on the other hand see that plain speaking and clarity of purpose are not always a sign of shallowness.

:
Clarity can indicate shallowness, but it can also bespeak of richness and purity. Near where I live there's a lake on the top of a tall mountain. Rarely is such cold, clear, pure water found in nature. Many come to visit simply for it's intense, mesmerizing reflections of the sky above. This lake also happens to be the deepest in the US and the seventh deepest in the world. Let that be a lesson to NTs, SFs, and even NFs.

SF = Energetic, active, occupied, taking charge in action but willing to interact with anyone. A soft yet noticeable touch in relations.

:
Just to clarify, this is how SFs interact with people, not how much, right? Can you still have a reclusive SF?

:
Oh yes, quite so.

NF = People who 'putter' Are roundabout in action and soft/general/universal in their purposes. Seem to be present in a non-harmful way but their effects aren't easily seen. Often seen as benign but inefficient.

If we look at the same characteristics in relation to the earlier notation for defined information we have:

NT = well-defined judging, not well-defined perception
ST = well-defined judging, well-defined perception
SF = not well-defined judging, well-defined perception
NF = not well-defined judging, not well-defined perception

And these form a cycle of progression. Every aspect of judging is a bridge between two forms of perception and every aspect of perception is a bridge between two forms of judging. Hence, a cycle.

:
It was all making sense up until here. I'm not seeing the cycle or the bridges. Especially the bridges.

:
First, may I suggest the creation of a visual aid. If you please, draw the face of a clock. On number 12 write N. On number 3 write T. On number 6 write S and on number 9 write F. Now between the numbers 1 and 2 one may write 'socially closed' and between the numbers 7 and 8 one may write 'socially open'. Between the numbers 4 and 5 one may write 'well-defined' and between the numbers 10 and 11 one may write 'not well-defined'.

This is how it is. Now to the reasons why...

Let us look at a judging person. Let us say that this person is trying to excercise the ability of judging in a matter of writing a thesis on physics. Once she has to his happiness written in a perfect way everything that she knows about physics, what can she do? She can go back to perception of generalities and make more observations so that she can go on writing, yes? But she can also be content and say that her task is complete and that she will do no more. She now has the perfect theory of everything and she can put this theory to practice and be forever succesful, yes? This is one way how Thinking bridges the gap between abstract observations and practice.

Now let us claim that this same person goes on to find every possible use that the theory has in practice. Now she must do with a situation in which she has a multitude of practical experience and skill but her knowledge of theory ceases to matter. What is left is situations which no skill can alter, generalities and universal purposes, matters of faith and ethics, unalterable humanity. And this is how our person enters the sphere of Feeling. This is one way how sensorics bridges the gap between Thinking and Feeling. One might remind that these ephemeral matters are at this point the persons own creations, the fruit of her practical labours, a product of the person's own humanity.

:
Let's see if I got this. The "everything she knows about physics" is Intuition, right? The decision to go back and look at more or to say she's done and move on is Thinking? Practicing her theories is Sensing? (1 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock...)

:
Close, but no cigar. I meant to describe options. The everything she knows about physics is Thinking. Once she's done with thinking, she can try to restart the thinking with new material (to go back to Intuition for the sole purpose of being able to come as quickly as possible back to Thinking. To observe so as to gain more knowledge to write down. [Knowledge is usually a 'code-word' for a judging property. It's information abstracted from the actual state of things.]) Practicing her theories and knowledge is Sensing, yes.

These are just examples and not complete definitions, as always. Also, the completing of a task need not be as universal as I portrayed. Now modern day societies thrive on division of labour, but let us say that we are looking at a lonely farmer. He wants a windmill. First he must get the abstract idea of building one and to see its worth (Intuition), then he must design the construct (Thinking), then he must build it (Sensorics) and then he must accept and appreciate the work when it's finished and give it meaning (Feeling). Each task in life has multiple phases. It is just that we are so concentrated on certains specific tasks in our life that we scarcely appreciate the phases of the trivial ones and hence perceive ourselves to be stuck in a work phase of our most major pursuit. One may try the excercise of trying to part a simple task into these steps, for example the matter of washing one's teeth. May it bring one new understanding

:
*sigh* I'm afraid this is another one of those "please rephrase" moments.

: Okay, let's put it another way. Let's go back to the lonely man and the windmill. The man uses his practical skills to build a windmill. Fine, now he has a windmill. Can he continue building windmills? Yes, but it makes no sense since he only has need for the one. Hence he needs to move forward and do something else. But does the man forget the windmill? No, it was built for a purpose. He still has a relation to the windmill, but one that can't be defined by Thinking (as the man has few concrete decisions to make in relation to something that is finished and working perfectly) and neither can he use Sensorics (as the work of building is done and the mill doesn't need care every minute), so what does the person do? He owns the mill. He cares about it. He appreciates it. He watches over it. -> Feeling function properties.

:
Also, can you only start the cycle at Intuition? Or can you start something at, say, Feeling?

:
One can imagine oneself starting there to be sure, or at any other point, but it's a trick question. Where does life begin? It's a cycle. Where do thoughts come from? From other thoughts. One can not remember one's first thoughts or what was the first function one used in the womb. From then on everything we do is experienced in reference to earlier experiences. There are no true cut-off points in the cycle. Hence no real starts and no real endings.

:
Oh. So, what would cause him to move from Feeling back up to Intuition? Or would that not happen since the windmill is complete?

:
Many things could cause the change, but this process is the epitome of not well-definedness so yes, it's difficult to describe what and how this happens. I'd call it 'getting the feel of something'. Once you've formed a personal connection with something, you start to look at it with deeper interest and then you will start to notice things that are at first unconnected but you will start to see patterns there, and when you find those patterns it becomes easier and easier to notice them. The man taking care of the windmill might start noticing patterns of windchange, or certain parts that need to be fixed more often than others and start pondering about mechanic stress in the machinery or something else. He would familiarize himself with the hidden workings of the windmill. One must notice here that though the man designed the windmill and hence understands the way the mill is 'supposed to work' it is a different function that he must use to get a feel of how it actually does work.

:
Go ahead and explain introversion/extroversion definitions 1 and 2, if that's what you were planning on doing before. Just pretend that I don't know anything.

:
I think we should first handle these two other uses of the word. I wish to underline that they are separate entities, not attempts of defining the same entity. In the example of the clock-face the well-defined vs. not well-defined is the 3rd explanation of extrovert vs. introvert. The socially open vs. socially closed is related to the 4th explanation of the extrovert vs. introvert. The 1st and the 2nd explanation are altogether different entities and have at this point no representation in the picture of the clock-face.

Socionic definitions are a terrible jumble, I'm sorry to say.

:
You should be sorry. Because, of course, it's all your fault.

:
Oh my, you're giving me undue credit. I've only been around mucking things up for a very short while. It wasn't my idea to name four different properties after introversion/extroversion. I'm trying to clean the mess up here

:
Example:

So, earlier today, I realized that my shoelaces were untied (Intuition?). I decided that they needed tying (Thinking?). So I deftly tied my shoes (Sensing?). I then was satisfied that my shoes would not fall off as I traversed that day's mud-puddles (Feeling?).

:


Now let us return for yet a while to the clock face. The matter that socionics describes is supposed to move in the direction that the pointers of the clock do. Success and completion of a task always happen clock-wise. Movement in the cycle of functions only happens anti-clockwise when there is doubt and failure in one's attempts or when one wishes to repeat a certain effort for other reasons. For example one may rethink a plan, but if the plan works there is no need to rethink it and one may move on and forget about plans. This movement from one part of the clock-face to another, when it goes to the natural direction of succesful action, is what is called quadra progression.

:
Wait, don't tell me... There's more than one way to use the word "quadra"?

:
Well, I guess if you include all the wrong uses of the word But no, it only has one really correct use. Quadra is essentially the exact point of the clock-face at which a person stands and the group of people who are in a corresponding place in their own clock-face. (This relation of correspondence though is not as simple as that, but we'll get back to that later).

:
If it makes you feel better, though, I think I finally understand what you mean by cycling and bridging when going from NT to ST to SF to NF. When looking at the clock, NTs are partially well-defined (T), partially not well-defined (N) and socially closed (N & T). Similarly, STs are partially socially closed (T), partially socially open (S), and well-defined (T & S). And so on.

:
Yes, excellent. That is a big part of it

Now that we have the clock-face metaphor working I'll add the final bits of terminology that relates to moving on the clock-face. Question: Where does intuition start and not intuition begin? We see intuition reading at 12 o'clock. So, if we stand there, we're using intuition. How about one over 12? How about one second over 12? It's already something different from the absolute of intuition. True pure intuition is only at the undefinably small point of exactly 12 o'clock. So, what's 12:01? We'll need to add a definition. It's something that is close to intuition. I support the use of the word 'Concrete' to refer to something that is to the clockwise direction of a particular entity on the clock-face and 'Abstract' for something that is to the anti-clockwise direction. The idea is that when one is at the point of 11:59 one is trying to reach the perfect point of absolute intuition, but one can not have a complete understanding of something that one has not reached. Hence one's conception of the item that one is trying to reach is abstract. On the other hand at 12:01 o'clock one has a concrete memory of the characteristic of perfect absolute intuition, since one has passed it and experienced it. One can use the term 'concrete intuition' to at least the part from 12:00 to 1:30. From then on it's better to talk about abstract thinking. So at 1:30, the point of absolute 'social closedness' there also exists the border between intuition and thinking. No area of the clock-face is by itself abstract or concrete, the definitions are only in reference to something else. While the area between 12:00 to 1:30 can be called concrete intuition, it would not be incorrect to also call the same thing 'abstract social closedness'.

:
So, wait, remember you said that "truthful knowledge" is judging. Therefore, knowledge can't be Ne, abstract or concrete. Yet, concreteness is about being sure of something. How does this work?

:
Okay, let's see... Let's say that you are looking at a page of a book and the page on the page of the book is the number 34. You can look at it and be certain that yes, there is the number 34 there even without abstracting this issue into 'knowledge'. If later on during the day someone asked you what the number was, you might not be aware of ever having looked at it or have any idea what the number was. If someone said the number 34 to you, it might not have any meaning to you. Yet at the point that you look at it you can still be certain that yes, the number is 34. The same way a more difficultly definable issue can be perceived with certitude through Ne without the issue becoming 'knowledge'. Let's take an example that's close to you, like your father. You can probably sometimes see something about his mood or health or something else that is difficult to define, but is unmistakably there when you see it. Perhaps some half-hidden feeling of his or a general mood. Or perhaps even more familiarly a quality in yourself, particularly when you notice someone that is in contrast to the familiar, something surprising.

:
That there makes it sound like "knowledge" is what's important, or, rather, what you decide is important. It's what makes it through the filter, kind of like what the brain unconsciously does all the time to the massive amounts of information that constantly bombards one's senses. Except, this is more conscious. Whereas concrete N is more what you realize but don't necessarily pay attention to.

:
Well, often this is so, especially for us rationals. But it's not as if we can't pay attention to perceiving functions, or appreciate them. Or be obsessed by them.

:
I understood all of that, I think. If I were approaching a stop sign, one could say that I was "abstract stop sign" since I had not yet experienced stopping at the sign. But once I started going through the intersection, I could be considered "concrete stop sign," right? Not that you can really apply that to such a situation, but that's the general idea, yes?

:
Very good.

:
So, is recognizing patterns "abstract Intuition"?

:
Again, it's a bit more difficult than that. Other functions can also notice certain kinds of patterns, but intuition is sort of the best at it. Also it's difficult to point out what else intuition does, since it doesn't, almost by definition, ever actually achieve anything by itself. As for the word 'recognizing', it sort of implies that one has already cognized something, which implies further that it relates to a concrete aspect of a thing. I'd usually call the abstract aspect of anything 'looking for' something or 'trying to perfect or understand' something or something of that ilk.

We come now to another version of introversion / extroversion... the difference between an introvert function like Fi or Ti and their extrovert counterparts Fe, Te, Se and Ne.

I introduced the words well-defined and socially open earlier as substitutes for what other people call extroversion. Here, instead I use the extrovert / introvert notation myself. People also use the following terms:

Extrovert function = the objects relating to a function
Introvert function = the fields relating to a function

The issue here is whether information relates to a specific case and has a specific form (extroversion) or whether we're dealing with a systemized understanding of the rules of how a thing works generally in any situation and in all cases (introversion). The importance here is that you can show people and transmit extrovert information, but introvert information can never be fully described. This is actually in some ways an extension of the well-defined / not well-defined, but it's not identical. After all, we have for example the functions Ne and Fe which are 'not well-defined', yet they are extrovert, relating to specific instances.

In a social strategy sense, extrovert functions are forcible. If a person targets you with an extrovert function, the message is generally distinct, forceful and the content of it more or less easily understandable.

Some examples that I've heard this week:

Ne: I wouldn't want to become a mother.
Fe: You should act a bit more nice.
Se: I want this tumour operated.
Te: I need you to log how many hours of work you do each day.

This is the direct approach. You say what you want or need to say and that's it.

Introvert functions try to avoid direct statements and all of the above extrovert qualities. They try to remain sort of covert. If extrovert functions are like direct karate blows, introvert functions work on judo principles of getting out of others way and using their force for good effect. In matter of control extrovert functions are crude and have little control of even their own actions, their needs and wants are very specific and there's little enough room for negotiations left. An introvert function adapts to the situation, and can measure it's forcefulness well. It'll give the smallest needed prod at right places to reach the result it wants in conjunction with a specific circumstance. In this sense introvert functions manage and control people whereas extrovert functions command and push people around.

Some ways to turn the messages above into introvert function versions
Ni: If I had children I'd have to hire a nanny or take time off work.
Fi: Usually people are happy if you're happy with them.
Si: I have this pressure in my thigh and it sort of itches around the tumour.
Ti: There's a tool for logging your time-schedule under the hour-glass icon in the patient-data program.

Usually one has to sort of try to figure out oneself what's the issue that the introvert function of another person is trying to point out. Vice versa it is common that people try to find some deep hidden message within what people communicate through extrovert functions but it is in many instances useless as many of these people communicate directly and forcefully even their surfaceal opinions of which they don't have very deep convictions. Usually a person will tend to use one of these communication methods and use the other only as a backup, when its needed.

:
From how you're putting it, it sounds a little like introverted functions are rather similar to abstractness, and extroverted functions are similar to concreteness. Could you explain that distinction a little more?

:
Well, they aren't really. But maybe they seem so due to some fault in my explanations. Around this point we start to have already so many definitions that they'll easily get mixed up.

The introvert version of a function is about the flow, the movement, the rules of a matter. The extrovert function is about a very specific situation. An abstract extrovert function would look for a meaningful specific situation while a concrete extrovert function would act in the memory of one. An abstract introvert function would tend to look for rules of a situation while a concrete introvert function would tend to act in confidence of knowing them.

An introvert function rarely cares about the details of a situation as long as the situation works as its supposed to from its perspective. An extrovert function has a specific view of how a matter is supposed to seem, but has little deeper understanding of its content or function.

Now if I may quote myself again:

Introvert function:
It is a systematic function, interested in cause and effect, understanding the rules of the things to which it is used. It is interested more in the questions of how and why rather than who and what. It is information about fields, graphs, maps rather than particular objects. By the actions of this function a questioning, erratic, case by case 'taciturn' action turns into an ordered, uninterrupted flow of 'narrative' information. Introvert functions require the support of extravert ones to yield them raw material for the perfection of their inner models, a base to which the model can be grounded and which it can serve.


Extrovert function:
It involves individual objects rather than systems and rules. It is interested more in the questions of who and what than in the questions of how and why. Its fixation on particular objects allows it to examine them thoroughly, from many point of view and to find new characteristics in them. By the actions of this function an ordered flow of 'narrative' information turns into a disassembled, erratic, questioning 'taciturn' discussion, or playing with concepts. Extrovert functions are supported by the introvert ones by letting them avoid repeating mistakes and guiding their actions.

:
...

:

Let's say that you're struggling in the understanding of a certain phrase and you don't think you have a particularly good grasp of it. Essentially at that point your relation to it is abstract-Ne (your definition of which function to use). But sometimes you have a revelation of what it actually means, yes? Sometimes you become so certain of that meaning that you feel competent in teaching this meaning to others. At that point your relation to the sentence has changed. It is this nature of grasping, striving, pursuing of the abstract qualities vs. the contentment, confidence and assuredness of the concrete function that is significant. If you perceive the clock-face as a journey, there is always a place that is nearest to you behind you, your concrete base of operations and there is the place that you're going to, your abstract destination. Try imagining it as if you were walking. Your weight can be on the leg that is behind you in which case you can reach anywhere you want with the leg in your front, that is as if you were using a concrete function, you are assured of where you stand and you have no troubles. When you use your abstract function it is as if you were taking a step without knowing for certain what will happen when you put your weight on the leg on your front and release the leg on which you had been standing. You may find yourself on unstable ground and find the need to quickly pull back to where you were, or you may be able to take a step forward. That's what using an abstract function feels like.

The definition is important in many ways. If a person is strongly defined by a single function, it can be difficult to approximate whether s/he is using which accompanying function. Sometimes it can be easier to see whether s/he is using an abstract or a concrete function and that will simultaneously define whether s/he is closer and 'stronger in' the function that is to the clock-wise direction or the one that is to the the anti-clockwise direction. 3:01 is concrete thinking, 2:59 is abstract thinking. In relation to how far these two are from 12:00 or from 6:00 there is little enough difference. But in relation to the time 3:00 the difference is significant. This is the importance of abstract vs. concrete. Their difference is the smallest possible difference dividing one personality type from another. 3:00:01 is already an ST type. 2:59:59 is an NT type. Yet the strength of the sensory and the intuition in these two situation is essentially the same. S' this good for you?

:
Could we maybe go over the functions again? You know, N, T, S, and F, and maybe merge that with how they are introverted and extroverted?

:
So now we have eight functions.

Se = perceptive, well-defined, extrovert
Si = perceptive, well-defined, introvert
Ne = perceptive, not well-defined, extrovert
Ni = perceptive, not well-defined, introvert
Te = judging, well-defined, extrovert
Ti = judging, well-defined, introvert
Fe = judging, not well-defined, extrovert
Fi = judging, not well-defined, introvert

Let us take the matter of a doctor and his relation to the taking of a blood test.

Perceptive would care about what happens in the event of taking a blood-test.
Judging would care about what is meant to happen in the event of taking a blood-test.

Not well-defined would care about the most general information about taking blood-tests and the nature of the event.
Well-defined would care about the technical details of exactly what happens.

Extrovert would care about a specific blood-test under question.
Introvert would care about the system of taking blood-tests.

Now when I use Te I care about the fact that I know that a specific patient needs to get his or her blood analyzed for a specific reason.
When I use Si, I will know that if I write my name to a specific form that I know of and click certain icons in a certain program and give the patient the instructions to meet a nurse called Sara in the health care center at a certain time this process will result in me getting the results of the patient's lab tests at some point.
When I use Fe, I will care about the general importance of a patient having his or her blood tested.
When I use Ni, I will get the idea that in general my role is to notify a nurse about which patient's need to be tested for what. And that it's expedient to handle this process by sending a nurse information through a computer program.

For natural reasons it's more difficult for me to make examples of the four other functions as I don't conciously have them.

But I'll try...
Ne would have an idea of what could be or could not be in the patient's blood and would like the matter verified.
Ti would know of what kind of a message it would have to send to the nurse to get the nurse to do the particular blood test.
Se would care about seeing particular numbers or findings in front of it and do what it could to make them better. It would also see the patient sitting there, looking at the doctor, seemingly expecting something.
Fi would care about the patient's distress and see that through taking the blood test s/he'll be able to alleviate the patient's troubles.

Though all of these functions might catch some other part of the process also, but the processes mentioned above are descriptive.

Here we start having very different focuses for different functions. Very different viewpoints as well. Can you see the definite vs. non-definite, the what is vs. what should be and the system vs. the specific situation?

:
So, what would abstract Ne (or N) look like in this case?

:
Well... I think that sentence was an example of it. In this case a request to show the essence of a thing. Abstract Ni seems to often be a sort of half-vacant watching of a process, trying to get the feel of how a system flows. Trying to look at areas of major traffic and focus points in a system.


Heh, this is difficult for me as well. Ne is a strange function, in my opinion the strangest In my understanding it's like catching a glimpse of 'the essence' of a thing. It requires a very personal relation with the subject matter to really work yet its quite willing to create opinions of anything. Maybe it would be easiest to understand it in contrast to Se. Se focuses on the matters that one can immediately change in a situation. Ne is the opposite of that. It focuses on what's universally applicable. But! This universal applicability is only from the point of view of the person addressing the issue.

:
So, you could say that abstract Ne is trying to find the essence of a thing, whereas abstract Ni is trying to find the essence of a system. And, concrete Ne and Ni is understanding those essences, respectively.

:
Yes, but Fe can be defined the same way as Ne in this sense and Fi is equal to Ni in this sense. The difference being that Fe/Fi do this as a judging function and Ne/Ni do this as a perceiving function. The essence is a nod to the characteristic 'not well-defined'.

Ne works like this... From person 1. pov of view statement x is true and universally applicable. From person 2. pov of view statement y is true and universally applicable. X and y can still contradict each other and neither person has 'failed' in the use of their function. Therefore what seems universally applicable really isn't. And still the person can act as if it was without 'failing'. The gist is that Ne has the ability to directly describe the essence of a person's pov.

:
You said that extroversion and introversion as they relate to the functions don't fit that well into the clock example - is there another way to visually explain it?

:
There are altogether four of these clock-faces. In two of there should read extroversion at 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock and introversion at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock. In the two others it's vice versa. ...

The first two clock-faces are 'static' and the second two are 'dynamic'.
Of the first two, one is 'rational' and one is 'irrational'. Likewise for the second two.

As far as my current understanding goes, people can try to understand all of these four clock-faces, but they live their own life in only one of them.

There is as far as I know no path from the events that happen in the system of one clock-face to the system mapped by another.

Your clock-face is the one that is static-rational. Mine is the one that is dynamic-rational. They are completely separate and have no points of direct contact. They don't cross over.

Somehow, I'm feeling that this was my most confusing post as of yet.

:I'm trusting you will explain this to me.

:
The essence is that there is only natural movement in the clockwise and anticlockwise directions in the clock-face. But how could this movement ever take one from Fi to Si? It can't. There's no Si in a clock-face with Fi. Now look at the middle point between S and F. You'll note that social openness is, as are social closedness, well-definedness and not well-definedness neither extrovert nor introvert in the same way that the function states are. They're halfway between. So it's easy to mistake the social openness of one clock-face for that for the other along these lines. This is just one of the multitude of traps that are easy to fall in in the system.

So are the points of for example social openness in different clock-faces identical? No. In one the natural direction of movement is towards ascending introversion, in the other, it is towards ascending extroversion. And this quality is also noticeable. To one, being socially open means to learn the system behind the specific cases, to the other it means to show specific interest according to the system one knows.

:
o.O What in the world are you talking about? It seems that you're seeing more on those clock-faces than I am. Should I have put specific functions on them?

:
Well... intuition is 12 o'clock, thinking is 3, sensory is 6 and feeling is 9. That in connection with the introversion/extroversion gives us that in static clock-faces there is Ne on top, Ti on the right, Se on the bottom and Fi on the left. In the dynamic clock-faces there is Ni on top, Te on the right, Si on the bottom and Fe on the left. Mmkay? We'll be using these same clock-faces a lot and just continuously adding stuff and notations to the rim.

:
While were at it, how would you define the term "function"?

:
Function is actually a term with little enough significance. It refers to the specified four cardinal points in the clock-faces. It is an attempt to extract the easily noticeable and definable part of a person's interaction and discourse along the aforementioned particular lines of judging vs. perceiving, extroversion vs. introversion and well-defined vs. not well-defined. For practical reasons most socionic conversation handles these comparatively easily understood abstractions. There's very little that we can say about for example the point that is 13:04 in the clock-face. In most situations and in most sentences in which the word 'function' is used, it can be completely ignored and the meaning of the sentence understood regardless.

:
It's along the lines of how you relate to something, right?

:
This is very close to the issue of the function. Yet your actual relation to something is not necessarily easily determined by a single or even a couple of functions. It would be best to understand the 'how you relate to something' as the point in the clock-face that you are in that situation. Sometimes this can be expressed easily through the definition of a function, sometimes you can get close. Sometimes not. The matter of how you relate to something, what is your social role and strategy, what is your 'purpose' is essentially behind all of socionics.


:
Ok, I have another question. It seems that Se is a very physical function, very in tune with its environment. I've also been told it's a "weak" function of mine.

:
For a function to be "weak" it only needs to be relatively weaker than its counterpart. You are a very Fi person. So in the clock-face you'd be quite close to 9o'clock. This also means that you are rather equidistant from 12:00 and 6:00. So measuring weakness or strength is difficult. It is even more difficult on the basis of Se being on the concrete side for you and Ne on the abstract side. Which means that counterintuitively even though your Se is the weaker function, you'd often have more self-confidence when using it. Ne on the other hand would be something which you may find yourself struggling due to the abstract property but something with which you'd spend time with a lot nevertheless.

:
How is it, then, that I enjoy art so much?

:
I wouldn't say that Se is art. It might often be the practical skill through which art comes to exist but Ne is far closer to the artistic quality of an issue, the meaning of art.

:
I'm really quite awful when it comes to noticing things that I probably should. But I love immersing myself in what is beautiful. Like today, walking back to my car, I savored just the pure sensations of, for example, the shades of colored sky behind the lacy, empty branches. (In fact, I forgot what I was doing and almost walked into a car. ) I like hearing music simply for the sounds of it. When at the potter's wheel, sometimes I'll let the wet clay spin under my hands for a few moments, just to feel it slip by and through my fingers, blocking out all other sensations. What I'm describing is definitely a physical type of thing, and very specific. How does it fit? Am I not really INFj?

:
Most socionists would say that this is a Si quality as it's related to feelings of comfort and quality. When saying this they actually refer to the connection that Ne has with Si, so it's actually a passive quality of Ne. They call this the hidden agenda, the sixth function. But there's no definite basis for this extension to Si. They might be correct, but it's also a needless complication of the simpler and more fitting idea that Ne is essentially interested in the same kind of environmental qualities that Si is but perceives them in its own way. A difficult matter to understand fully, to be sure.

We will get back to this later.

:
So, looking at the clock faces, Ti could then actually be my "weakest" function? Or, put another way, the area where I'm least confident and capable (not counting, of course, the other four functions that aren't on my clock face).

:
Exactly so.

:
Ah. So this is another point where you and mainstream socionists may differ?

:
At least some socionists. Not all of them accept the Model A. I don't want to completely abandon the idea of the PoLR though. I do believe it has significance but such that is rooted in it being a creative function as opposed to the role function that is an accepting function. But again I'll get back to that later.

Okay... So far the issues have been rather easy to define if perhaps sometimes difficult to completely understand. In the case of 'Hot' vs. 'Cold' the issue is even difficult to define. This version of introversion vs. extroversion is what defines the first letter in the four-letter shorthand that defines you as INFj. The way most socionists mean this the I is directly related to the introversion of the strongest/accepting function. Unfortunately experience has shown that there are lots and lots of people for whom the strongest function is not an accepting function so there's a difference between the introversion and another property which defines the first letter of the shorthand. (We will come back to the definition of accepting vs. creating later).

Now we look at the four clock-faces again and we may write the characteristic 'Hot' over the dynamic-rational and the static-irrational clock-faces and 'Cold' over the dynamic-irrational and the static-rational clock-faces. These three words cold vs. hot, dynamic vs. static and rational vs. irrational define and separate the properties of the clock-face itself and are the most important distinction of one person from the next in the socionics system. So your clock-face is now labeled static-cold-rational.

The names cold and hot are my own. I picked them from the temperamental definitions of antiquity. They refer to a 'hot temper' or a 'cold temper'.

I have previously written of this characteristic as follows.

Cold function:
It relates to a system of thought in which goals are personal.

vs.

Hot function:
It relates to a system of thought in which there are important goals that are common to all people.

The people who are 'Hot' have a tendency to make much of events affecting them and to spend energy. They may seem more powerful but on the other hand somehow more commonplace than 'Cold' people. These people also have a tendency to spend too much energy.
The people who are 'Cold' have a tendency to perceive events as uniquely affecting them. They may seem weaker but somehow strange or 'special' in comparison with 'Hot' people. These people also have a tendency to conserve energy.

This temperamental effect is very general though and there are many ways in which a person can show hir relation to this quality.

:
Um, I wasn't going to say anything, but you've done it twice now, so I'm not sure if it's accidental or intentional. Likely accidental, but I like to be sure... What does "hir" mean?

Wait, does it mean "his/her"?

:
Yes, I've seen it randomly in use here and there in that meaning. I randomly change how I address the issue of gender pronouns.

:
About the Hot v. Cold. I understand that. I can see that; it makes sense to me. Now, how did you get there. What, specifically, makes someone Hot or Cold?

:
There is no definition, as of yet, that is as good or complete as those I've given you for other cathegories. The one definition that is closest to being the best is to say that 'cold' people are energy-conserving and 'hot' people are energy-spending. But this is a difficult matter as it's further modified by quadra and focus on an introvert vs. an extrovert function. This is one of the matters in which type-spotting has importance as a method to bypass the difficulties of definitions.

The most systematic answer to the issue on the other hand is that given a situation in which a 'cold' person sets values and makes all the choices of a system, s/he tends to do this from a completely personal point of view whereas a 'hot' person will try to do the same from a more general or communal perspective. This is a way to say that the 'cold' person is 'strategic' when 'judicious' while the 'hot' person is 'strategic' when 'resolute'. This is an important way to define issues that we will be using a lot in the future.

[Smilingeyes]

:
I just realized (after having brought up yet another irrelevant topic), that there's nothing much of socionic substance at all in here today. How did that happen? I'm thinking, teacher Smilex, that you ought to be more strict.


I wanted to underline the importance of the following message by leaving it without things that complicated the message.
The thing I try to introduce is that socionics terminology is in many cases self-referential and circularly defined. And from a purely logical perspective this property makes it unreasonable, yet simultaneously strict and easy to use.

Some examples...
Static can be defined as a union of rationality and cold. Either, the presence or the absence of both of those properties. But we do not know which of these is the causative property and which is the derived. Hence we can also say that rationality is defined by the union of static and cold or that cold is defined as the union of static and rationality. So we have three properties, two of which strictly define the third but none of which themselves are strictly defined!
Also ... within your clock-face there is a similar union twixt perceiving and extroversion. Perceiving defines extroversion and extroversion defines perceiving. Again, one doesn't know which is causative and which is derivative. They are in a sense the same property in relation to that clock-face yet in the larger context of the whole system they also have a different definition. This causes the following...
Let's say that the position of 12:01 in the static-cold clock-face gives a preference of x/y for extroversion over introversion. The preference of perceiving over judging must also be x/y for the static-cold person at the point 12:01 of the clock-face. Also... the preference of creative over judging must be the same x/y at the point 12:01 of the clock-face. And if the static-cold person tries to become more accepting s/he will automatically become also more accepting and more introvert for these properties do not exist as separate entities for that person. Also, if we skip to another clock-face, say the dynamic-cold and check the point 12:01 we'll have the same representative number x/y that defines that person's valuation of one property over another, but the properties valuated are introversion over extroversion, perceiving over judging and accepting over creative. Thus we find that for some properties to change in the system there must also always be a corresponding change in a number of other properties.
Also the clock-face is symmetric and cyclical. Hence in the static-cold clock face at the point 2:59 the preference of judging over perceiving is again the same value x/y. And so is the preference of introversion over extroversion and accepting over creating.
Understanding this systemacy of socionics is of the utmost importance.

[Smilingeyes]

:
When are you going to explain accepting v. creative to me? Not to mention static, dynamic, rational, and irrational.

:
Now.

Static and dynamic essentially refer to whether a person's perceiving functions are extrovert or introvert. Static simply means that a person directly perceives extrovert, object-like or 'static' qualities in the environment which tends to relate causative reason for change to individual people, their opinions, purposes and actions. Static types tend to overestimate the power of opinion and of people, theirs as well as that of others. They tend to have easily objectifiable goals and be firm and constant in their pursuit thereof.
Dynamic types tend to directly perceive opportunities, changes, movement , systems and flow in their environment. In relation to this decisions, ideas and theories are situationally bound and change naturally along with the situation and to work against the requirements of the situation is either foolish or an ethical choice. Dynamic types tend to seem easy to bend, opportunistic, they also tend to underestimate the effect they have on an environment.

Accepting function is a name for things that a person does without particularly valuing or necessarily noticing them. Socionists tend to call this the strongest function due to the ease with which people approach tasks that they handle with accepting functions. For a cold type the accepting function is introvertand for a hot type it's extrovert. For a rational type the accepting function is judging and for an irrational the accepting function is perceiving. Accepting function defines matters that seem, to a person, so normal that they're not really worth mentioning. When people are contradicted in affairs relating to an accepting function, the matter seems trivial.

A creative function is something that people value overmuch when they engage in it. Using this function doesn't seem trivial but is a strain, something exciting to a person. More care is taken and more energy spent to achieve success with this function. Socionists tend to ignore the fact that this additional energy spent tends to cause matters people handle with their creative functions to often be superior to those that people who have the same function as an accepting version are able to create. Also they ignore the fact that people who use the creative version of a function supervise those who use the accepting version of the same function. Creative functions matter more to people and this caring is the inherent weakness that creates the particular weakness that is the PoLR.

I have previously written of these in such a way:

Accepting function:
This what one does without thinking. This is the function through which one focuses actions towards a single goal. This is not the same as being a focussed function by itself. This function turns the various interests of the 'result' group into the 'process' group and the 'process' group is the one that is focussed. The importance of this function is rather that it accepts a multitude of base resources, ideas and tasks. It is mobile and can be used in many situations which contrasts the creative functions that can only be used for very particular tasks. This does NOT mean that one is automatically weaker than the other as succesfull use of creative functions tends to create groundbreaking breakthroughs which are very important despite their relative rarity. The accepting functions are balanced rather than supported by the creating functions.

Creating function:
This is what you concentrate on and are impressed by. This is a mile-stone, a worthy goal, a personal horizon and limit. Through success in the use of this function a great set of new personal possibilities arise. This function turns the focused action of the 'process' group into the multi-tasking hassle that is the 'result' group. The importance of this function is that it often reflects a person's greatest accomplishments, the result of all his efforts. It is generally concentrated for long periods on very particular tasks. The creating functions are balanced rather than supported by the accepting ones.

:
How does that work? The PoLR isn't accepting or creating, is it? If I'm understanding you right, accepting and creating apply only to the first two functions. So how does the PoLR fit in with what creating functions do?

:
Role function is accepting and PoLR is creative. Even model A agrees with me on this. One just tends to refer to the first and second functions with these names of accepting and creative function so one also tends to ignore the point that these are not their 'full identifying names'. Again, as I reject model A I prefer to not use the terms Role function and PoLR at all. I tend to simply think of them as the non-preferred accepting and creative functions as opposed to the preferred accepting and creative functions. One might also include the term 'concious function' as a reference to these functions being in the same clock-face as the 'preferred' functions. Anyway, since function strengths aren't really easy to quantify, I actually like a certain amount of freedom and laxity in the terminology in this area.

Today I'll give you rational vs. irrational... and another piece that'll eventually take us to something good

I've previously written of them in such terms:
Irrational function:
It relates to a system of thought in which people establish general rules only when they are found necessary.

Rational function:
It relates to a system of thought in which rules are created as a tool and followed until it's proven they need to be discarded.

Let's pick rational first...

It's... accepting when it's judging. Therefore it tends to take up 'certain knowledge' even without really noticing it and approach things from firmly decided standpoints. On the other hand its creative when it's perceptive. Therefore it tends to glorify the ability to rise above social conventions and to personally solve problems and issues. It's also static when cold. Therefore it tends to think that it's alone with its responsibilities and goals and anything it creates is directly related to its own capabilities and intentions. A sort of self-made man, or do-it-yourself type. It's also dynamic when hot. Therefore it tends to easily take up other people's causes and ideas when the situation seems opportunate but in such a way that they force the ideas to adapt to the situation. This is a person of zeitgeist, working to find the best opportunities.

:
Zeitgeist?
Oh... someone who goes with the flow? Trendy? Impacted by surroundings? Culturally in-tune? ...?

:
Yes, all of that. Yet these same people tend to be... fixated in only a part of the events of their times and to overdo it. They tend to be the extreme examples of their times. Not people who carefully slip through fashion and time unnoticed, part of the crowd. That's the irrational-dynamics.

Irrational on the other hand is accepting when it's perceiving. It tends to just do as it wants and pleases without noticing that there might be alternate opinions and options. It tends to do things easily and without thinking. On the other hand it's creating when it's judging. Therefore it tends to glorify a good plan, a succesful relationship, a social consensus. It's also static when hot. Therefore it tends to measure its worth on its amount of clout and personal effect in the world and in the lives of others. It'll easily ignore situational effects that help or hinder it and tends to overstate the importance of its decisions, making it something of a playful juggernaut. It's also dynamic when cold. This is a person who looks for the most opportunate moments, uses the softest touch to slightly twist things to the direction it wants them to go. S/he feels s/he's alone and at the mercy of things beyond its control and therefore s/he'll tend to wait and watch for the right time to pounce. This is often a diplomatic sneak.

:
A sneak? The person is a sneak? Or their behavior is sneaky? I'm unclear as to the subject of the sentence.

:
This person is a sneak. Yes. By that I mean that he naturally does careful plotting and hides parts of itself. When the person reveals something of itself it'll prefer to do it in grandiose style for maximum effect. This may often surprise people who don't see it coming.

Now...

You'll note that there's plenty of stuff written at the main four points of the clock-face and one word in the middle-point of each arc connecting these points. We've introduced the idea that the system is self-referential and cyclical. The only reason one point of the cycle is more important than another is because we've decided to focus on that point. There is no reason why the function-points would be more important than the middle-points between them. Let's focus on those for a change!

In your static-rational clock-face there's the characteristic 'socially closed' at the point of 1:30. There's some other information we have about this point though. At that point there's a change from the extrovert to the introvert in the clockwise direction. We'll call this a new property which exists in all points in which extroversion is turning into introversion. We'll also name it 'taciturn'. In your clock-face this property exists at the points 1:30 and 7:30. Areas immediately preceding them are abstract taciturn and areas immediately after them are concrete taciturn.

The opposite of this property we will call 'narrator'. These two properties exist also in other clock-faces. In the other static clock-face they exist on the same corresponding spots, but in the dynamic clock-faces they exist a quarter-turn of the clock away at the spots of 4:30 and 10:30.

Now if you look at your clock-face again and imagine that the black colour stands for creative instead of extroversion and the white accepting instead of introversion, you'll note that again, the same spots of 1:30, 4:30, 7:30 and 10:30 define a place of change between these two characteristics. We'll say that a 1:30 is in your clock-face a spot with the characteristic of 'result' because at that point the creative changes to the accepting. The opposite of this function we will call 'process'. Again these same properties exist in other clock-faces as well, this time in identical spots in the other rational clock-face. In the irrational clock-faces there's a difference of a quarter turn of the clock.

Let's do this same exercise a third time. This time we'll say that the colour black in your static-rational clock-face stands for perceiving and that the colour white stands for judging. We'll again note the change occurring at the same point. This time we'll call the point at which perceiving changes to judging 'democratic' and its opposite we'll call 'aristocratic'. Now this time we'll also note that these characteristics exist in all clock-faces at the same spots.

Now we'll note that the spot 1:30 is always democratic. It's 'result' if rational and it's 'taciturn' if static. But what's the word for this spot in relation to being 'cold'? We will call this property 'negative' and we'll call the opposite of this property 'positive'.

A whole new set of terms and we'll get right back to them soon

:
Originally, I didn't know that a whole lot more information was going to be added to the clock-faces, so I didn't plan for it. It helps to know about these things ahead of time when designing.

So, for my purposes, are we going to be adding all of the dichotomies to the rims of these faces? How many additional things (not counting the functions, cold/hot, rational/irrational, static/dynamic, not well-defined/well-defined, and socially open/closed) will we be adding? So far, I've got judging/perceiving (which I want to portray visually, as it is foundational, but haven't quite figured out how), accepting/creating (which isn't a dichotomy, either, is it?), taciturn/narrator, result/process, democratic/aristocratic, and positive/negative. Is there anything else we'll be adding?

:
Okay, let's add all the rest at this point and then we'll do definitions later.
The titles of each clock-face are ready.

1. The quadra titles.
In Static clock-faces there should read Alpha at 1:30 and in dynamic ones at 7:30.
In Static clock-faces there should read Beta at 4:30 and in dynamic ones at 10:30.
In Dynamic clock-faces there should read Gamma at 1:30 and in static ones at 7:30.
In Dynamic clock-faces there should read Delta at 4:30 and in static ones at 10:30.

2.
Limiting vs. Enabling
In your clock-face and the other 'cold' clock-face there needs be 'Limiting' at 12:00 and 6:00 and 'Enabling' at 3:00 and 9:00. The opposite for

3.
Strategic vs. Tactics
In your clock-face and the other 'rational' clock-face there should read 'strategy' at 12:00 and 'tactics' at 6:00.
The opposite for irrational ones.

4.
In your clock-face and the other 'rational' clock-face there should read 'emotion-creating' at 3:00 and 'creation-creating' at 9:00.
The opposite for irrational ones.

5.
In your clock-face and the other 'static' clock-face there should read 'judicious' at 12:00 and 'resolute' at 6:00.
The opposite for dynamic ones.

6.
In your clock-face and the other 'static' clock-face there should read 'subjective' at 3:00 and 'objective' at 9:00.
The opposite for dynamic ones.

7.
In your clock-face and the other 'cold' clock-face there should read 'calculating' at 12:00 and 'carefree' at 6:00.
The opposite for 'hot' ones.

8. In your clock-face and the other 'cold' clock-face there should read 'obstinate' at 3:00 and 'compliant' at 9:00.
The opposite for 'hot' ones.

At this point you might notice that there are still some definitions missing. As far as I know, nobody, not even I have opened them up as of yet! So they don't exist until someone decides to notice them. Can you solve the two puzzles? What i'm talking about, and how to make all of that fit into a clock-face?

:
If I know the categories of where everything goes, that helps, too. What is more important and what is less important? How do you group them when you think about them?

:
Each has their own meaning. The importance is task-related. Anything is important only if it applies to the matter at hand. They're all derived from each other anyway so in many ways they're all the same thing, just from different points of view. Can't be categorized through importance.

:

Okay, so maybe "importance" wasn't the right word. I meant more along the lines of how when we started, you decided that judging/perceiving was foundational to a good understanding of the rest of what we were going to talk about. After that, the various definitions of extroversion/introversion. You were putting the terms and their definitions into logical groupings. When designing a visual display of some kind (like a diagram, in this case) with a lot of information in it, categorizing that information into distinct groups (though those groups can demonstrate interrelation) makes it easier to read that information. Otherwise, everything looks the same, and the visual display becomes hard to understand.

:
Ah, yes, I get you now. Ok, I'll give some categories
1. There's the primary properties of the clock-face. This includes judging vs. perceiving, well-defined vs. not well-defined, socially open vs. socially closed, aristocratic vs. democratic and abstract vs. concrete.

2. There's the properties that define different clock-faces. This includes hot vs. cold, rational vs. irrational and static vs. dynamic.

3. There's stuff that can be arrived at by combining the definitions of some of the previous categories. (the rest)
This category is further divided into two subsets the first of which consists of 'small cycles' that repeat twice in each clock-face and consists of extroversion vs. introversion, narrator vs. taciturn, accepting vs. creative, process vs. strategy, positive vs. negative and limiting vs. enabling.
The second subset consists of qualities that have unique representations in the clock-face (the rest)

:
Why must there be a corresponding quality at every point?

:
Because its a cycle. Everything that exists at one spot of it connects to something similar in the next adjacent spot. Properties that exist at one spot do not cease to exist at any other spot, they only change.

I'll give you democratic vs. aristocratic this time.
I've previously written of them as follows:

Democratic
It is inclined to bring together concrete issues, materials and people that all tend to find things in common with each other and create new ideas, theories, social bonds, duties, agreements and such. It turns concrete wealth into social resources. By itself it's weak, it tries to increase the interdependence of people.

Aristocratic
It is inclined to test theories and systems of morality in action, and thereby twist them until they break. By its actions it changes the 'judging' to the 'perceiving'. It tends to understand rules, theories, systems, feelings and social relations in a definite, binding way and do what they make it do. But the activity that it is pushed to, makes it question the original idea that made it act.


Democratic exists maximally as a quality at 1:30 and 7:30 in all clock-faces. It signifies the evolving of perception into judgement. Democracy, as a quality is balanced between well-defined and not well-defined. It can be socially open or socially closed.

Vice versa aristocracy exists maximally as a quality at 4:30 and 10:30 in all clock-faces. It signifies the evolving of judgement into perception. Aristocracy, as a quality is balanced between socially open and socially closed. It is either well-defined or not well-defined.

As a sidenote I might mention that socionists tend to say that people who are particularly representative of one of the qualities of not well-defined, well-defined, socially closed and socially open belong to a 'club'. These clubs in corresponding order are humanists, pragmatists, intellectuals and socials.

:
Could you explain these a little further? What makes it this way?

:
Ok I'll try.
Smilingeyes wrote:
Democratic
It is inclined to bring together concrete issues, materials and people that all tend to find things in common with each other and create new ideas, theories, social bonds, duties, agreements and such. It turns concrete wealth into social resources. By itself it's weak, it tries to increase the interdependence of people.


Well, you remember how perceiving is about 'what is' and judging is about 'what I know it to be'. Well, then 'democracy' is about turning 'what is' into 'what I know it to be'. This can be accomplished by oneself or this can be accomplished in company. But usually 'what is known' is easier to communicate than 'what is'. Social conventions, morals and such are invariably centered on judging functions. Hence what creates judging, also tends to be proponing the creation of social groups. Yet 'democracy' is also 'concrete perceiving' and 'abstract judging'. Therefore the building of new social groupings is not actually in itself tied to social conventions. It expects that such only apply when they are expressly agreed upon. This point of view heavily underlines the power of the individual to enter contracts and make decisions of the person's own volition and interest. As a political process this is representative of democracy, so that's what its called in socionics. The name is rather convoluted though for a property that is by itself so basic. Yet I'm not sure what would be a better word for this process, and besides, the name has already established itself.

Aristocratic
It is inclined to test theories and systems of morality in action, and thereby twist them until they break. By its actions it changes the 'judging' to the 'perceiving'. It tends to understand rules, theories, systems, feelings and social relations in a definite, binding way and do what they make it do. But the activity that it is pushed to, makes it question the original idea that made it act. [/quote]

And this is the opposite process. It starts with 'what is known', it starts with trivial certainties, what is agreed on, what is the social convention. It is 'concrete judging' and it is 'abstract perceiving'. Then it goes off and tries to find a way to apply this, turn this into reality. But the fit is never perfect, so the person will have to make-do, adapt, do what s/he's able to in relation to the original idea. This testing and execution is called 'aristocratic' because this is action and a state of mind which starts from the pov of the social convention, from a person's role. In this pov people are not 'just people' but what they represent. The political correlation is to a hierarchical, aristocratic system in which people do what is required of them, and hence the name, again simultaneously a brilliant name in my opinion, but a needlessly complex one.

:
I put aristocratic/democratic with the rest of the dichotomies (i.e. narrator/taciturn, process/strategy, etc.). I know that it stays in the same place regardless of clock-face, but it seemed to fit better there with the others. Is that okay? Or, maybe you could explain to me why you see it as a primary property.

:
Its of primary importance in the sense that temperament doesn't affect it. It's directly related to judging and perceiving which themselves are of primary importance and forms a cycle with them.
judging->aristocratic-perceiving->democratic.


I'm feeling I should probably add something, and the something I should add is limiting/empowering. (I sometimes mix up the word 'empowering' with 'enabling' but using these two I mean the same thing.)

This is a strange issue... First of all, this characteristic is as basic as extroversion/introversion and accepting/creating. Second of all, socionists aren't even cognisant of its existence. As far as I know, no one else but me accepts the existence of this dichotomy. So, there is very little I can use to back myself here... But anyway, its existence is a mathematical certainty, only its nature is what is under question.

I'll do a minor recap at this point... Extroversion can be seen as union of 'static temperament' and 'perceiving'. Creating can be seen as union of 'rational temperament' and 'perceiving'. But if we look at your clock-face, its also representative of 'cold temperament'. What do we get when we unite that with perceiving? ... We call this 'limiting'.

So...

Previously written...

Limiting function:
It is a function that reduces your field of interest, it pushes you away from frivolous, dangerous, off-limits interests towards the things that you need to focus in. It changes the 'positivism' cathegory into 'negativism'. It is not a subdued function despite this. Rather, it signifies seeking your limits and finally finding them, testing what you wish is true. When it finds its own limits it helps others cross theirs and thus supports the 'empowering' functions.

Empowering function:
It is a function that widens your area of interest, it's use creates great confidence in a person's ability. It changes the 'negativism' dichotomy' into 'positivism'. It signifies the crossing of personal limits, embarking on a personal adventure, looking for and finding self-confidence. It supports the limiting functions by taking responsibility away from them, making limits elsewhere easier to accept.

If we look at this systematically, we will get more properties...

'Limiting' is perceiving when 'cold'. Therefore we are talking about a relation a person with a lonely task has to the environment or 'what is'. This is the feeling of a small person faced with a very big world. 'Limiting' is also judging when 'hot'. This is the relation of a person who easily relates to his surroundings when faced with 'certain knowledge' it is as if some collective agreement was putting the person to a tiny box.

'Empowering' is judging when 'cold'. This is how the person with the big task feels like when s/he is able to create certainty through which the person can sort of limit the task or gain help with it... its as if the person didn't have to do everything by hirself anymore. 'Empowering' is also perceiving when 'hot'. This is how the situation is to the person who easily makes contact when s/he is faced with the numberless options that the world or the 'situation as it is' has to offer, its like the person was given the option of making all the choices by hirself.

:
I'm sort of getting this, but not quite, especially the last part.

:
Ok. As often, when theoretical examples fail, we do concrete ones.

Let's pick two children, one adventurous, spirited and energetic, one cautious, withdrawn, kind of scared.
Now let's say that these two kids are taken to a new place, an orchard somewhere. They are told nothing, they are left to their own devices. One of them will start climbing trees, tasting fruit, running after butterflies and such. S/he is empowered by this new environment. The other one becomes confused about what s/he's supposed to be doing, s/he will search the environment for anything familiar to latch on to, watching and looking for something important to show up and meanwhile doing little or nothing. The first one is empowered by hir own perception, the second one is limited by it.

Now after these two spend a while in the orchard the first child has eaten plenty of fruit and has a full belly but is also full of scratches and got an itch from the leaves of certain plants. The second one is hungry but otherwise quite fine. Now the kids share their information, the first one is annoyed by the fact that there are trees that are unclimbable, whole areas of the orchard surrounded by itchy plants and a number of trees with just bad-tasting fruit. S/he's tried it all and now s/he knows what the environment is like and knows what is good and what is bad and it starts to bore hir. The second child becomes happy as now s/he knows which trees are the good one's and which to avoid. S/he'll climb after the easy fruit and try to help the first kid overcome hir annoyance at the known limits of the situation. The first child is 'hot', enabled by what s/he perceives to be possibilities in hir environment and limited by what s/he knows for certain. The second child is 'cold', limited by hir perception and enabled by what is known for certain.

Now to the positive/negative, which fills the blanks in this cycle.

What I've written before:

Positive
It is inclined to scoff at limits, 'make itself known to the world', 'show itself', inclined to talk mostly about positives and possibilities, concentrates on what it thinks could, should and will happen. By its actions it turns the 'empowering' to the 'limiting'. 'I have the power to do whatever I want', I act of my free choice', 'I'm acting in my own interests'. Being empowered by the environment means being limited only by one's own viewpoint, creativity and motivation.

Negative
It is inclined to accept a restricted sense of identity, 'retreat from the world', 'hide itself', inclined to talk mostly about negatives and restrictions, concentrates on problems and solving them. By its actions it turns the 'limiting' into the 'empowering'. 'Once all the work is done, what remains is free time', 'once all the enemies are done with, what remains is friends', 'once I get rid of my chains, I'm free'. Inclined to make the atmosphere more negative, wary.

Again, the systematic view of these... 'Positive' equals 'concrete empowering', 'abstract limiting', 'hot democratic' and 'cold aristocratic'. I actually have the view that this is somewhat self-explanatory when seen in connection with the previous definition of limiting/empowering. This is the situation one has when one knows one is able to do of one's free volition and capability and with all required support the kind of things that are important to oneself. The concrete memory of capability and the abstract seeking of one's limits. The person willing to spend energy to create consensus, accepted theories and knowledge, to spread new information and show personal capabilities. Also the person who is a sort of guardian of wisdom, the person who is happy with hir role in the hierarchy of things and tries to turn this into an acceptable reality.

The 'Negative', natural opposite of the previous, has 'concrete' memories of hir personal limits and is unable to let go of them. A cautious type who is forced to make a statement, put a stake or take part in something strange or uncertain. Also any adventurous, energetic person who is forced to comply with people's opinions, known certainties and the expectations of others.

It's often supposed that 'positive' equals optimism and 'negative' equals pessimism. There does seem to be a tendency towards such a distribution but it doesn't hold true in some cases. I've tried to hone my understanding of the issue and what I've come up is this... The 'negative' types seem to go through some kind of constant drudgery which nevertheless makes them feel somehow content. The 'positive' types seem to be more inclined to happy outbursts but on the other hand their mood seems to come crashing down easier. I take that this is somehow related to feelings of responsibility, duty and such.

Now to taciturn-narrator. I can't but start with a quote of Slackermom and my answer to her...
Slacker Mom wrote:

OK here's a conversation my husband and I had last night. Introductory info - he bought a new welder recently.

Husband sits down. "My new welder isn't working right." (Implied but not stated question is 'what's wrong with my welder?')

I ask, "what isn't it doing?"

He says something like "It doesn't make enough of an arc." Or something. I know nothing about welders. Something about an arc.

I ask, "What would cause it to not do that? Not enough power? Didn't you say something about this welder being 'dual-power' or something?"

*silence* He goes into the garage. I hear welding sounds.

He comes in looking content and sits down. "It doesn't work as well on 110. It works better on 220."

OK so he doesn't ask a single actual question - although he has implied questions. And I sit and ask question after question. How does this fit with him being taciturn and me being a narrator? I just don't get it. I think I do fit "narrator" generally but not so much with him.

Also, why does he ask for my help about stuff like welders and carburators? He has an NeTi friend who actually knows how to weld.


That's exactly how taciturn people operate. But he's not asking you for help, he's just stating facts. It's you who provides the meaning, the narrative, of what do those facts mean. Taciturn = statement of concrete external issues and wondering their meaning. Narrator = providing a concrete internalized frame of reference and pondering the abstract external facts about how it all applies, how to make the story work.

How I've previously defined these two characteristics:

Taciturn
Has no complete, total system to guide it's life, but a number of selected items and ideas that it tries to fit together as best as it can. It tries to make sense of things, tries to solve inconsistencies. By its actions it turns 'extrovert' into 'introvert', something that is well defined into implications. It's speculative.

Narrator
Has integrated his life into a sensible whole which it adapts into varying circumstances. It's collected and establishes a personal presence. Is willing to create seeming contradictions as long as they make sense to it personally. By its actions it turns 'introvert' into 'extrovert', something that has many possible effects and outcomes.

Taciturn is also 'static democratic' and 'dynamic aristocratic'. It characterizes people who negotiate over what to do to certain circumstances in the environment, often in an informal style, proactive pushers for a better environment. It also describes people who are inclined to immediately start doing their jobs so as to get their part done quickly as they can, repeatedly testing the environment and seemingly doing silly repetitive errors, while they are in fact repeatedly testing the nature of a matter for maximum certainty. A person who is satisfied that he knows the most important things.

Narrator is also 'static aristocratic' and 'dynamic democratic'. A person who is easily sceptical of people's intentons and has a tendency to manipulate groups to have hir own way. Also a person who looks for opportunities in the environment and tries to mobilize hirself and others to take advantage of them. These people often seem complex, knowledgeable, maybe a tad uncertain, rarely overcommitting and being quite good in managing the kind of resources they care about. A person who is satisfied that he knows enough about enough of things.

If you're fine with that, we'll have process/result next time.

:
I have a question, not entirely related to narrator/taciturn. When I think of where someone is on a clock-face, I tend to picture it rather like a clock-hand, pointing to where they are "strongest."

:
That's what I do too. Though I'd prefer that the spot pointed at be called 'the preferred point' or 'the point of concentration' rather than 'the strongest point'.

:
You seem to have indicated that people's clock-hands can move around (i.e. you said people can change types). So, okay, actually I have two questions. 1) You've also said that the clocks are cycles, which indicates to me some sort of movement around them. How does that work in conjunction with the clock-hand idea?

:
I don't see the problem here. Clock-hands move. Or do you mean about how I mentioned that sometimes the movement seems to be to the anticlockwise direction? We'll sometimes metaphors fail Anyway, it's a lot like fixing the time in a clock that is going too fast in those situations, returning the clock to 'the correct time'.

:
2) Say my clock-hand moves from closer to 9:00 to closer to 10:30. Does that mean I become in any sense more "narrating," "positive," and/or "aristocratic" and less "enabling," "construct-creating," and/or "compliant" (or even less "taciturn," "resolute," and/or "democratic")? Or, said in another way, are these qualities that can intensify or lighten as one's clock-hand moves toward or away from them?

:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes in that order.

:

Wait - I'm not quite understanding the concept of how one quality "turns" something into another. The whole "turning into" thing... I'm not getting. Does this have to do with how every task is a cycle around the clock?

:
Well, yes it does. It's easiest to see this change on the matter of abstract vs. concrete. Every point is an extreme representative of characteristics relating to that exact point. Every point leading to that point advances those characteristics and every point after it deteriorates those characteristics. Let's try thinking about something like the characteristic of 'socially open'. Let's say that we have a person who is trying to be as completely open and interactive with people as possible. How long could this person keep up this aspiration as the most important thing in hir life? Potentially forever, but likely not. So how does this person finally experience the fading of this aspiration? We can not know, it is an individual process. S/he might become disappointed in people, be hurt and become wary. S/he might get a job in which s/he was trained to act in another way. S/he might have acted socially open in the first place only to get new friends after having moved to a new city or to catch a spouse. Whatever the original motivation to act in a certain way, will always fade after the motivation has failed or been fulfilled. If a goal's been reached or the situation changes, new patterns emerge and a new way of acting becomes more important.

:
When things go well, does the clock-hand move forward? Is the progression of type connected to how well one completes a social goal (task), in terms of going clock-wise around the clock?

:
That would depend on the definition of 'going well'. One can be quite happy staying in a certain spot on the clock face, for example just doing an 8 to 4 job, growing up kids and playing bridge with friends year after year. The moving of the clock implies moving onwards, succeeding in a task or a matter in life, but its not an objective in itself for if you move enough on the clock-face you'll just get back to where you started. Moving on the clock-face can help adapting to changing circumstances but this is only reasonable if circumstances change. Generally, not having to change, not having to move on the clock-face averts stress. Moving on the clock-face helps learning some things (while hinders others) and grows character. But to answer your question: yes, when, from the point of view of accomplishing things, things going well is accompanied my movement on the clock-face.

:
And, another thing! You said before that asking for clarification was an aspect of abstract Ne. Is this what I'm doing, using my abstract Ne?

:
That comment was a bit light from me, don't take it too seriously. But as a matter of fact I do think you are using abstract Ne at the moment.

:
Does this mean I'm taxing your Si? Because, you said before that Ne and Si kind of... go together. Or something like that. Just like Fi and Te.

:
Well, not too badly. Tis okay.

:
How does that work?

:
I don't think we're ready to focus in functional interactions quite yet. We really should finish the characteristic definitions even though they may seem to get a bit boring/repetitive. Would you like to try to define result/process dichotomy using the techniques I've shown? We could get this done faster

But here's a good example of how progression forks. You've been attentively reading and studying what I'm saying about socionics. You've essentially been using mostly . Now you're getting a feel for certain concepts and you're starting to have very strong hunches about certain issues and you want to suggest/ask for clarification on these particular issues -> increasing use of . Naturally you have a reason to change our interaction, its not because you as a person suddenly became completely different or started hating how you've been acting so far but the situation itself has progressed. Your skills have increased in certain areas and it is no longer completely reasonable for you to be as passive as you were in the beginning. Now look at it from my point of view. I don't really know too much of you yet so I'm only noting the things that appear in this conversation. From my point of view your social activity is changing, your role in our discussion is changing and doing so in a socionically relevant way. To remain relevant to you I need to change my own way of interaction.

:
How? My Fi is both judging and concrete, so wouldn't it be more appropriate for my abstract and perceiving Ne to be the function that's picking all this up, looking for more information?

:
I don't understand why judging or concreteness properties would hinder you in using Fi. We are erecting a framework of definitions. Without the definitions in place you would have nothing to direct your towards. Besides, I'm giving you information so you're having a far easier time catching it all with . comes to play when you sort of get what I'm saying and start to try to find applications for it in your own life.

:
So, passivity is Fi?

:
No, the other way around. Fi is passive. But so is Ni. Those two pretty much compete for the title of the most passive function.


:
How is what you're giving me now different from what you were giving me earlier?

:
You're asking more questions. Therefore I'm answering more questions. You're taking initiative, I'm losing it. There's extroversion/introversion for you. I'm spending more time thinking where you're coming from with your questions and your more aggressive in revealing your own thoughts through your questions.

:
I'm still not completely understanding how you're getting to those definitions. Maybe if you described to me how you're getting there...?

:
Well, the easiest way is to look at other definitions we have already covered and to combine their meanings for new dichotomies. For example in the case of result/process, you'll note that on the clock-face 'result' is identical to being 'concrete creating', 'abstract accepting', 'rational democratic' and 'irrational aristocratic' and 'process' is the opposite of those. So, you have the definition of 'concrete' and you have the definition of 'creating' so you can combine those and you have a definition for 'result'. And so on.

:
But, here, I'll try.

Starting with "process." When it's rational, it is between concrete accepting (judging) and abstract creating (perceiving);

:
Therefore it relates to tending to take up 'certain knowledge' even without really noticing it and approach things from firmly decided standpoints.

:
it is also between socially closed and socially open; and it is aristocratic.

:
Therefore its sort of watchful, looking at things from the pov of how they relate to its purpose, kind of monomanic.

:
When it is irrational, it is between concrete accepting (perceiving) and abstract creating (judging) (i.e. it's the same as rational, but perceiving and judging flip-flop);

:
Therefore ... It tends to just do as it wants and pleases without noticing that there might be alternate opinions and options. It tends to do things easily and without thinking.

:
it is also between well-defined and not well-defined; and it is democratic.

:
Therefore it tends to pick up allies and resources on a basis of whatever's available.

:
When it is cold, it is between concrete introversion and abstract extroversion, and it coincides with narrating.

:
Therefore it represents the person standing apart when s/he is finally moved to try something that is perfectly in conjunction with hir understanding of things, a person with a sort of inner completeness.

:
When it is hot, it is between concrete extroversion and abstract introversion, and it coincides with taciturn.

:
Therefore it also represents a person who is completely acting in relation to an object-like goal, with little understanding of the ramifications of hir actions or their meaning in view of the person's own fortunes. A sort of abandoning of oneself.

Previously I've written of 'process': It is determined, focused, single-minded in action. It is a change-agent. It tries to bring its resources together to succeed in a single task at a time. By its actions it turns the 'accepting' into the creating'. It takes the base for its actions as granted and natural and tries to reach a conclusion.

In all of that there's a sort of jolly sense of rushing... A sense of courage combined with a touch of foolhardiness and this could be seen as the essence of what 'process' is about.

(being process-oriented is also 'negative' when 'dynamic' therefore striving with all its capability to avert the worst possible situations in the environment, a bit like some cornered rat. It's also 'positive' when 'static' a sort of jolly selfish person trying to make the most for hirself with the idea of everyone's looking out for hir own interests.)

:
Now, "result." Similar to process, result is between concrete creating and abstract accepting on all clock-faces.

:
The most important issue. A direct relation to something 'concrete' that the person finds extraordinary. Willingness to go to certain lengths to provide for this special matter. An eye for complexity and unwillingness to accept anything simple or self-explanatory. Also uncertain of even the simplest actions, yet possessing potentially tremendous feelings of self-worth in relation to the concrete obstacles one has faced.

Also I've written of it before like so... It is unfocused, open, multi-tasking in action. It tries to maintain status quo. It spends its resources in anything that seems worthwhile at the moment. By its actions it turns 'creating' into 'accepting'. It takes the base of its actions as situational, labile and tries to make the best of whatever's available.

:
Perceiving and judging switch places, depending on rationality/irrationality. So, when result is rational, it is between concrete creating (perceiving) and abstract accepting (judging); it is also between well-defined and not well-defined; and it is democratic.

:
Therefore it tends to glorify the ability to rise above social conventions and to personally solve problems and issues. It also tends to act sort of shifty, in a non-committal, negotiating way, looking for people who appreciate its abilities, easily ignoring others.

:
When it is irrational, it is between concrete creating (judging) and abstract accepting (perceiving); it is also between socially open and socially closed; and it is aristocratic.

:
Therefore it tends to glorify a good plan, a succesful relationship, a social consensus.

:

When it is cold, it is between concrete extroversion and abstract introversion, and it coincides with taciturn.

:
The person standing for hirself in a situation in which there is something specific of utmost importance to hir interests involved.

:
When it is hot, it is between concrete introversion and abstract extroversion, and it coincides with narrating.

:
Therefore it also represents an empathic person who's sort of reached a holistic view of things through experience.

The most easily seen uniting trait is the view of having reached a somehow special situation, standing to the side of the normal flow of things. Taking a moment and trying to delay progress where it's too fast.

:
However, it still confuses me a little on exactly how you reach those "therefores." I mean, looking at the conclusions, I can see the path backwards to the original definitions. Sort of. It gets foggy in places. But I'm not sure of finding that path myself. I can see myself ending up someplace completely different. Anyway, I'm not sure what questions to ask to fix this dilemma. It may be something I'll just have to get familiar with, and one day have it suddenly become apparent.

:
The "therefores" as you call them, are somewhat open to interpretation. Each original quality was open to interpretation to begin with and the combinations thereof are doubly so. One just has to try to find interpretations that make sense. As with the original terms of judging and perceiving there are many definitions that are close to correct for these other dichotomies. These other dichotomies just haven't been explored as fully as the original ones.

Now we've managed to complete the set of small-cycled dichotomies. So next we'll start on the large one's. I think I'll start with 'strategy' vs. 'tactics'

1. They're always perceiving

Strategy is 'intuitive rational' = 'creative intuition' and 'sensoric irrational' = 'accepting sensorics'.

:
Do you mean here that when it's rational it is creative intuition, and when it is irrational it is accepting sensorics? Why the "="?

:
Well, in a sense rational and creative are defining of the same property in connection with intuition. All creative intuition is rational intuition and vice versa. So I thought = would be ok. And yes, when strategy is irrational it's accepting and sensoric.

...

I've previously written of strategic so:
Strategic function:
It focuses on the bottom line, the thing you want. By it's action it separates the worthy from the unworthy, talented from untalented, the succesful from the unsuccesful. Without a goal, it's useless. It's point is to establish direction. By it's action it turns the 'construct-creating' into the 'emotion-creating'. By this action it turns the focus from the old, the known, into the new, the surprising and starts a new cycle. This is the function that casts off the creations that anchor you and sends you to the unknown. 'Strategic' functions require the support of 'Tactical' functions. A goal will not be reached unless someone does the actual work to get there.


Tactics is 'rational sensorics' = 'creative sensorics' and 'irrational intuition' = 'accepting intuition'.

I've previously written of it so:
Tactical function:
It focuses on what it's doing. Methods are chosen according to personal interest, skill and relevance to task. The outcome is whatever is possible under circumstances and should be accepted as such. Can possess an unattached, mercenary or professional worker attitude. Importance given on talent and skill. By its action it turns the 'emotion-creating' into the 'construct-creating'. By this action it finds a personal sense of accomplishment, reaches a sense of finding it's place in the world which starts the conservative instinct.

But why is it so? What lies beneath these definitions?

First of all, let's mention the obvious, most of the previous dichotomies exist in small double-cycles in the clock-face. Strategy does not. It is a rarer quality.

Let's define the question a bit more... If we have a person who is 'accepting-perceiving-not well-defined' what quality does s/he have that both hir 'creative not well-defined' and hir 'accepting well-defined' fellows lack? Accepting sensorics acts in a natural way of doing what it wants in the environment, it's the simplest most direct form of interaction a person can have with hir environment and the simplest to understand. Creative sensorics has this same direct interaction with the environment but the interaction is more forced, somehow unnatural seeming, exagerrated. It somehow lacks the property of being a representation of the person's wishes in regard to the environment. Creative Sensorics tends to overdo things. Now if we accept this, we will note a strange factor. By definition creative sensorics can not cause a person to reach a personal goal. Why? Because if it did, it would be accepting sensorics!? If you naturally just do what you want, it's not creative sensorics. So what is creative sensorics then? What's the person using creative sensorics doing if not what s/he wants? Usually it seems that the person using creative sensorics doesn't really know hirself... Let me use a metaphor of physics. The more speed and mass a moving object has the more difficult it is to direct or put in another way, the more force you use to create movemeent, the less control you have over it. This relates to the difference between accepting and creating sensorics. The person using creative sensorics doesn't really have particularly good control of hir own actions when s/he's doing whatever she's doing because s/he's using more of hir energy to the task itself than hir accepting counterpart. The task itself is "doing the driving" and the person has more or less lost control. ... This is of course an exagerrated way of seeing this, but there is a difference of somewhat this nature between these two groups.

So let us continue to think about the dilemma of the rational person... If s/he has the tendency of lose sight of the purpose of what s/he's doing when s/he's doing it s/he has to use more energy beforehand in aiming and directing hir actions. To optimize this plan s/he needs more data from the environment than hir fellow irrationals and this gives causes our rational person to have creative intuition as well, a tendency to overdo watching an analyzing the environment, finding what s/he seeks in the environment. Now this causes an interesting situation... The intuitive rational sort of sees the situation that is advantageous to hir with the utmost clarity but is completely unwilling to do anything to reach it because by personally acting s/he would muddle hir vision. In this sense the rational types are sort of imprisoned by their own clarity of vision and power of idealism, unable to reach for what they see is there. In some ways to the rationals this idealistic understanding of the essence of their environment is the same as to the irrational the concrete physical understanding of the situation, it is the ability to see the connection of the personal self with one's objective, the difference being that the rationals' goals are not well-defined and socially-closed (without direct physical expression) and the irrationals' goals are well-defined and socially-open (having a direct physical expression).

So that leaves the irrational intuition, what does that represent? Now I'm certain that an irrational type would be far better equipped to explain this so I will again be forced to be satisfied with the systematic expression of it. It is the natural-seeming detachment of one's direct physical needs, it is reflection and pondering in moderation, it is expressing the easily observable idea of what is happening around the person. It is this quality for which I tend to say that accepting Ni is the embodiment of common sense and for which I tend to say that accepting Ne is the characteristic with the quickest wit. They naturally put into words and definitions the essence of what is around them. But they aren't invested in this activity with the same kind of vigour and energy as their rational counterparts.

Can you see in this how the 'tactical' somehow lacks the connection between personal success and personal gain? Even if the person creates output of good quality s/he is not really acting with the eye of directly advancing hir own interests. The 'strategic' instead has this connection.

:

Extrovert function -> sticking to important objects (such as questions) and losing sight of the big picture. This kind of behaviour is commonly observed in taciturns, though its not really definitive. Narrators very occasionally do it too, and some do it more often.

Sounds like the irrationals are a bit better at accomplishing generally useful things than the rationals... Is this one reason quadras are so nice? You get both the drive and the ability to get things done?

:
Well... it may sound like it but it depends on the circumstances really. In general I'd say that the rational type has a larger upside but needs more support for hir activities. And I guess this kind of harmony is one factor, among many in making quadras important.

:

Well, I think the fact that you put so much effort into explaining it makes it one of the more understandable ones (to me). I don't really know what to ask, though I'm sure I'll think of something later. Except, while you talked about how creating and accepting make differences, there's also the matter of how sensing and intuition are different in how they approach being either strategic or tactical. For example, being rational and strategic means that you're also intuitive. But if you're irrational and strategic, you're sensing. You seemed to touch on it a little, but how does the difference between the two perceiving aspects change or affect anything? Or did you already talk about that and I totally missed it?

:
Well, yes, intuitive strategy is usually more of a long-term, large-scale strategy which is quite a bit fuzzy in the details. Optimally it tries to subcontract the actual work of doing what it wants achieved to others. It's very firm in the need but not very specific in detailing what it wants. It doesn't interact with the environment strongly so it's comparatively stable. It's not well-defined so it can envelop details into its understanding as they emerge.

Sensoric strategy is usually short-term, small-scale, specific but not expansive on details. It does what it wants and doesn't really want any particular help from others. It's quite natural in its needs and not necessarily greedy. It interacts strongly with the environment so it's susceptible to change easily and is quite adaptive. It's well-defined so it can concentrate its efforts easily and achieve what it seeks in short order. It lacks a large-scale pattern so in the long run it tends to cause itself trouble.

Sensoric tactics is also short-term, small-scale and specific. They're industrious, to the point, quick to start tasks and quick to finish them. They're all about getting things done, any kind of things. They're very 'success for its own sake', very 'never say die'. It interacts strongly with the environment but acts in a way I'd call brittle, if something stops it's first intention it needs to take a while to think about its next move. It's also well-defined so it tends to be quite well-directed at least in its intentions, but its not necessarily the best at thinking with its feet. It tends cause additional unintended consequences.

Intuitive tactics is sort of long-term and large-scale in its intentions but it lacks some of the energy and durability that so defines the strategic intuition. It's quick to comment and naturally elegant and gives a quick civilized, mentally capable look to a person. Yet its comments are often light and inconsequential, not really thought out. It's full of ideas and opinions most of which it doesn't itself trust or value that much. In contrast to the sort of brittle quality of the tactical sensoric, tactical intuitive's are most fluid, they usually act to outmaneuver others, quickly switching positions as needed. It's socially closed and thus its hard for others to make sense of what's going on in the person acting this way, even more so since it's also not well-defined meaning the intuitive tactical hirself doesn't really have the whole picture of what s/he's doing.

The other part of this same cycle is emotion-creating vs. creation-creating. The cycle moving as follows:
strategy -> emotion-creating -> tactics -> creation-creating ->

And here's what I wrote before on those:

Emotion-creating function:
It focuses on finding new things, the need to learn, creating an accepting environment, working without preconceptions, checking things out by itself, giving its attention freely, openness. By it's action it changes the 'strategic' into the 'tactical'. It's as if it was looking for a path somewhere. The 'emotion-creating' functions are supported by the 'creation-creating' functions in that they offers ready-made solutions and models that the 'emotion-creating' can try out and in response it is willing to pay them what they ask for the service. Can become disarmed when taken seriously and asked for advice on issues it has yet to analyze.

Creation-creating function:
It focuses on what it already knows, is accustomed to, loves, feels bound by, being busy with little time for new things. It only accepts input that is in a familiar form. By its actions it changes the 'tactical' into the 'strategic'. It wears out ideas till they break and till he finally he gets tired of them. It is as if it was working towards a finish line. It takes routine to its natural conclusion. It can become unsettled and disarmed when forced to face something new, powerful and surprising. The 'emotion-creating' functions are supported by the 'creation-creating' functions in that they offers ready-made solutions and models that the 'emotion-creating' can try out and in response it is willing to pay them what they ask for the service.

Again, first of all, they're always judging...

Emotion-creating is 'accepting thinking' and 'creative feeling'. It's 'concrete strategy' and 'abstract tactics'. This is probably the easiest way to understand it. It's something that knows what it wants but lacks the tools to get there.

Creation-creating is 'accepting feeling' and 'creative thinking'. It, vice versa is 'concrete tactics' and 'abstract strategy'. It's more confident in its abilities but lacks comparatively in motivation. It's forced to consistently spend time in pumping itself up.

...
about emotion-creating...

1.
A person with 'accepting thinking' is interested in matters that are "known for certain. This person is well-defined, and socially-closed. S/he is also acting as comes naturally, no major trying of anything. So this is a person who is definedly separate of the environment and knows this. This often comes out as a politeness of sorts, but of the sort that can easily break down into anger. It's intentions are to make allies while keeping to itself. It seeks to find new things to put through the lens of its knowledge and understanding and thereby to consolidate them as parts of itself. This is a person with a certain quality of wholeness as s/he's 'concrete strategic intuition'. This is a person who feels that there are a certain amount of hardships that s/he's about to face but if s/he's true to hirself and hir goals s/he'll succeed. The separation that this person feels makes hir likely to try to gain contacts and friends but not warm enough to maintain a hold of them.

And now an intermission of creative-creating...

2.
A person with 'creative thinking' is in many ways similar to the above, but where our first example was natural, this person is really striving to define the matters that are known for certain. S/he's not acting in reaction to personal need but from the viewpoint of personal skill. Creative thinking surfaces where the person has reached utmost certainty of hir skills so that s/he can believe in hir knowledge. This is a very important matter to the person as the personal investment is great. So while 'accepting thinking' can often just dismiss opposing views or try to learn from them 'creative thinking' has to conquer by force. It's striving for a sort of monolithic independent, unassailable position.

3.
A person with 'accepting feeling'... Another version of creation-creating. This is a perfect occasion to high-light a property of how feeling is socially-open by being un-defined. The previous examples 1. and 2. were all about excluding opinions and people from their lives and minds, either naturally or through trying. 'Accepting feeling' tries to be inclusive. It relies on 'concrete tactical sensorics' as a skill that gives it power to do whatever, it's confident of its abilities yet lacking purpose. So it tries to look behind things to find deeper meanings in a way that is often characterized as experience or wisdom but also shows an extremely religious tint. Whatever it faces it looks at through a lens of "greater purpose, or greater meaning" and this tends to create a dissociation from what's happening in the environment, as what's happening is seen as trivial, passing, unimportant in comparison with the great truth that the person carries. Anything that happens is identified as a representation of this deep undefinable knowledge.

And now back to emotion-creating...

4. And finally 'creative feeling'... This is a person who turns cluelessness into a virtue. Facing up to not having any definable knowledge and even energetically pushing this point of view let's these people learn with an open mind, study anything and from anyone. Easily victimized by bad sources of information, but also easily attracting good teachers... At first they tend to be interested in learning mainly of things that have immediate practical purpose to what they're interested in but learning and doubting themselves can turn into a habit. The willingness to learn anything can create interesting lateral thinking...

:
And obstinate/compliant is next? (I feel I should be asking more questions.)

:
Yes it is! And here's the lowdown on those:

Obstinate function: ('hot feeling' or 'cold thinking')
It prefers to work with systems that are undiscussable, that are of subjective value rather than objective, purposes, morals, wishes and ideologies rather than tools. It will not care about opposition once it's selected something. By its actions it changes the 'calculating' into the 'carefree'. It gives of itself and uses all of its resources in behalf of what it believes in and when its all out and empty it looks for ways to do more. It is balanced rather

[Smilingeyes]

I just noticed that , and other functions don't copy-paste that well. Some of them might be missing from some sentences. I appreciate if anyone bothers to notify me about sentences that don't seem to make any sense, there's possibly a function-name missing.

[Smilingeyes]

:
I know we're not using model A, but I've noticed that the top half of it, the "conscious" functions, correspond in content to either the static or dynamic temperaments. But what are those "unconscious" functions on the bottom half all about?

:
They're partly a reference to the two other temperaments, partly a reference to Freudian theories. It's not something that I'd think too much about. There are a lot of ideas suggested by one or more socionists that don't really lead anywhere. Model A doesn't really recognise that creating and accepting functions are different, you see. If one was to correct the Model A one would have to fit in 16 functions in to the system that now holds 8. And there's eight functions in that system because it fits with their idea of how Freudian systems and socionics should interact. If they tried to fit 16 functions they'd run out of psyche parts to assign functions to or they'd have to put four functions to each part which doesn't fit the idea of types defined by two functions, that socionics is built upon. Essentially it's just a mistake, nothing to be worried about.

As for intertype-relations...


How about if I mentioned all the relations at first.

Every dichotomy has a relation to every other dichotomy and this relation is usually defined by a third dichotomy. As in the relation between 'static' AND 'rational' is 'hot', meaning everything that is both 'static' and 'rational' is also 'hot'. Okay. Then, we can talk about what the relations of individual points in any clock-face are like with any other point in any other clock-face. It's common to talk about these in regard to the socionic types. Now each type has it's own relations but it's common to classify these relations and say that each type has a relation that corresponds to another relation by another type that has a number of the same characteristics.

Now the classification of relations of types can in parts be used also to classify the relations of functions to each other, but not completely. So there are some relations that are reasonable to discuss as relations between types but not as relations between functions and vice versa. Then there are the relations between a type and a function.

Because of the complexity and number of these relations it has been easier for me to discuss the relationships between basic components of types rather than of individual situations.

And finally there are the interrelations between multiple people, small groups. And while the previous matters were laborous but theoretically possible to handle, the relations between even slightly larger groups become more complicated and impossible to handle in socionics terms very quickly (except by simplification, condensing groups of people into units that are handles as a single entity with a single type, something which is quite commonly done by some socionists).



:

Now the classification of relations of types can in parts be used also to classify the relations of functions to each other, but not completely. So there are some relations that are reasonable to discuss as relations between types but not as relations between functions and vice versa. Then there are the relations between a type and a function.

What would be an example of each of those three situations? For example, what would be a relation that is reasonable to discuss as being between functions but not types? Between types but not functions? Between both functions and types?

:
A relationship between an ESTp and an INTj is a relationship between two types that is called a supervisory relation in which the former partner supervises the latter one. There is no simple corresponding relation between functions.
The relationship between two functions: accepting Fi and accepting Ne has no allotted name.
The relationship between a type and a function is for example the relationship between an ISTj and creative Te and this too has no name.

...
...


My problem this time is that what I would like to say is already easily available in a form written by Rick on his site:
http://www.socionics.us/practice/traits.shtml

What's most important there is the idea of complementary/resonatory traits. (Accepting the possibility that the link might at some point die here's a quick repeat of the definitions: a resonating trait is something that causes a feeling of identity, a complementary trait is something that is something that another person is lacking and needing.) Now the importance of this idea is rather huge. It alludes to the possibility of seeing advantageous vs. disadvantageous traits in people and the possibility of categorizing people according to this principle. This is the heart of all type categories. It is also the reason why the system must be based on dichotomies. The idea of digitalization of information, of reality is inbuilt in socionics. This is the reason why thinking vs feeling or logic vs. ethical are actually rather bad ways to name properties whereas 'well-defined' vs. 'not well-defined' and 'socially open' vs. 'socially closed' are better. It's not clear that everything can be categorized on the axis of logic vs. ethics because it's not clear that these are mutually exclusive, but it's clear that everything can be categorized on the axis of 'well-defined' vs. 'not well-defined'. There is no actual limit to how many complementary or resonatory characteristics could be tracked to form a more elaborate socionical pattern. The simple addition of 'smoking' vs. 'not-smoking' would produce a new simple yet meaningful dimension. The dimensions currently in use are important because they have proven to be applicable in most situations.

Now as for dualism vs. activity partnerships, there is something specific I feel a need to point out. Activity partners are more resonant while dual partners are more complementary. The essence of resonance is to create empathy and a feeling of being on the same side in an issue. The essence of complementary traits is concrete help. Thus dual partnerships, being the most complementary relationships also lack significantly in resonance, the feeling of partnership, they foster dependency and thus feelings of weakness, fear. This can be overcome through the slow building of trust, the existence of numerous other, non-socionical resonating traits and so on, but the 'power' that a dual holds remains disquieting.

On the other hand resonance can create a certain positive atmosphere even between the most fierce competitors who are likely to cause each other nothing but trouble. It is useful to be aware of these trends.

...

So okay, people within the same clock-face are people who you could see yourself being some way. The differences one sees are mainly differences of opinion, differences of circumstance, differences of trivial goals, differences of approximation of the situation. You understand them, which makes it easier to live with them, but on the other hand they still don't agree with you necessarily which can make the relations more poignant, rejection hurts more, there's more competition, that kind of a thing.

...

Relations between temperaments

Hot temperament resonates a measure of empathy with other hot traits, similarly for cold. Hot is complementary with cold.
Rationality both resonates and complements rationality, similarly for irrationality. Rationality has neither positive trait with irrationality so there's a dissonance.
Dynamic temperament resonates with dynamic and similarly for static. Dynamic complements static.


Just to make sure that certain basic ideas are familiar:
Each clock-face defines a group of types that are collectively called 'a temperament'. Thus there's rational-dynamic-hot temperament that can also be called EJ for short (due to the fact that it consists of ESTj, ENTj, ENFj and ESFj). There's rational-static-cold or IJ. There's irrational-dynamic-cold or IP and there's irrational-static-hot or EP.

Each temperament has a certain identifiable relation to it's environment and the people around it.

Diana suggested the following short-hand for the definition of this relationship:

Chart the course : IJ
In charge [as in: in the driver's seat]: EJ
Behind the scenes: IP
Get things going: EP

This is a reasonable way to express the idea behind each temperament but there are others as reasonable.

Now it's fairly easy to see that there are two groups, the hot ones, that generally supply energy and two groups, the cold ones that generally supply control. It's easy to see how these are complementary to each other and resonatory to themselves.

The matter of dynamicism vs. staticism is somewhat similar. Dynamic types tend to approach the environment more as a matter separate from them, something that can only be tried to steer to a good direction. Static types seem to have the idea that what one does oneself is the most important and the environment will sort of follow. The resonation is easy to see but the complementation is more difficult. It becomes easier when one remembers that static also means judging introversion and dynamic also means judging extroversion and that they require each other to supply objects and fields to each other.

Rationality vs. irrationality is the most difficult. It relates to the intensity of functions. Accepting functions are less intense than creative ones. So rationals have intense perceptive functions and sort of naturally working judging functions whereas irrationals have the other way around. So when rationals meet rationals they are either both intense about a subject or both relaxed about it, the same for irrationals. The contact is either very free-flowing and easy, or very intense and memorable. When rationals meet irrationals the contact is always of asymmetric energy level. One is intense while the other is relaxed. This actually helps to temper arguments somewhat as one is always able to let go and give way to the other, but it keeps a constant dissonance and strain in the relationship. There are no moments of complete relaxation. -> They are less fulfilling in every way. Yet they are not necessarily worse in an absolute way, as mentioned they lack disagreements in which both parties are emotionally invested so the fights are less intense. As work relations they tend to keep up a certain energy level which can help one maintain energy and caution in a situation.

...

Now to aid this task of explaining intertypere relations I think I might also spend a moment discussing the small-cycle functions. ...

In regard of the small-cycle functions

An EJ is
1. 'Empowering', 'Introvert' and 'Creating' when s/he is 'Perceiving'
or
2. 'Limiting', 'Extrovert' and 'Accepting' when s/he is 'Judging'

Please note that not only are all these factors factors opposite of each other, but they all fall within the confines of the same type, so if one concentrates on using these characteristics for type-spotting a person is often likely to be an identical partner with the person least similar to hir, just of opposite subtypes! These are also significant to individuals since people are likely to acknowledge most of the states of these cycles in themselves, or at least the habit of actively combating one polar opposite to stay the other way.

An IP is
3. 'Limiting', 'Introvert', 'Accepting' when s/he is 'Perceiving'
or
4. 'Creating', 'Extrovert', 'Empowering' when s/he is 'Judging'.

An IJ is
5. 'Limiting', 'Extrovert', 'Creating' when s/he is 'Perceiving'
or
6. 'Accepting', 'Introvert', 'Empowering' when s/he is 'Judging'

An EP is
7. 'Empowering', 'Extrovert', 'Accepting' when s/he is 'Perceiving'
or
8. 'Limiting', 'Introvert', 'Creating' when s/he is 'Judging'

Okay, that's 28 individual relations (plus identicals) that's something I can handle.

So, if 1. describes a person who is enthusiastically trying to relate to the environment in a way that gives him or her additional possibilities in general.

2. describes a person who is confining oneself humbly to a strict social point of view.

That's a relation of strict avoidance of each other.

3 describes a person who is naturally, submissively accepting the general limits of his or her environment.

1 and 3 can easily have a discussion of the generalities of the environment but 1 is extremely enthousiastic about everything and 3 is sort of pouring cold water on everything, shooting ideas down and so on.

The relationship between 2 and 3 is more interesting. Both are naturally morose/sceptical/dutiful individuals confining themselves to a certain role. A rather ritual-like, strained interaction would be expected, with both disagreeing on the general methodology the other is using, but not wanting to really add to the other party's troubles. From pov of 2, 3 is just a whiner while 2 has actual problems that s/he is trying to solve. From the opposite pov 2 seems more than slightly daft alarmist who is too quick to make conclusions.


Okay, here continues:
4 describes a person who is enthousiastically trying to create or affirm a new social state and balance that would create more possibilities and freedom to him- or herself.

The relation of 1 to 4 is defined by a mutual enthousiastic, challenging strive for new possibilities. But 1 is trying to find this by finding opportunities and loop-holes, new techniques to make use of his or her environment while 2 is trying to create freedom through establishing good and correct structures. Their cooperation is difficult.

The relation of 2 to 4 is defined by a mutual respect of certain social principles, it's a kind of a gentleman's bond. 2 accepts the limits that 4 creates to establish a zone of ordered freedom. By accepting it 2 further enforces it.

The relation of 3 to 4 is that of a person pushed down by the world to one who has made him- or herself into a social pillar of strength, who has taken up the challenge.

Now person 5 is pushy and enthousiastic, driven to do some certain things that he absolutely, definitely has to do and achieve despite what anyone else might think, and this drive is what binds him or her.

The relationship of 1 to 5 is defined by an enthousiasm to succeed and cause something to happen in the environment. 1 is interested in the ability to make things happen in general and a certain harmony with the environment. 5 has a burning need to create something specific.

The relationship of 2 to 5 is defined by being bound to and limited by a certain strict something. 2 is humbly bound to a certain rule, technique or social control while 5 is bound to a certain goal that burns his or her mind. 5 tries to push his or her need to 2 while 2 tries to calm 5 down to allow time to seek the goal "the correct way".

The relationship of 3 to 5 is defined by a shared feeling of weakness, insufficiency under the weight of the world. To 3 this is a generalized weakness while to 5 this is weakness in relation to a certain powerful idea or need. There is a lot of sympathy but not necessarily the ability to help each other in any meaningful way between these two.

The relationship of 4 to 5 is defined by a powerful enthousiastic push for a certain something. To 4 this is a push for a generally accepted situation that more or less balances, equalizes and helps everyone related to the situation. To 5 this is a personal need that has to be answered. There is strain as 4 can't see why 5 doesn't cooperate and 5 is frustrated because 4 doesn't see the power of his or her need.



:

The relation of 1 to 4 is defined by a mutual ... environment while 2 is trying torrect structures. ... Their cooperation is difficult.

Um, don't you mean 4?

:
Yeah, slip of the finger.

:
These could be seen as differences between subtype, not just type, right? Depending on what point the clock-hands are closest to.

:
Sure.

To make this explicit: the reference to 1. applies to sensory ESFj, intuitive ENFj, intuitive ENTj and sensory ESTj. And so on.

Now to continue...

6 describes a person who naturally takes up the role of a conduit of the requirements of the society and by being the person who generally interprets the system/theory/religion whatever is freed by it.

The relationship between the 1 and the 6 is a relation of two people freed by general capability and self-confidence. 1 is more forceful, enthousiastic and proud about his abilities that directly affect the environment. 6 is more naturally confident, but willing to engage in social games to have hir skills accepted. 6 thinks 1 takes too much pride about small accomplishments and would prefer it if 1 just calmed down. 1 thinks 6 doesn't really do any of the things s/he takes credit for and should prove that s/he's not just all talk.

The relationship between 2 and 6 is a relation between two people adapting to the acknowledged social circumstances. 2 is accepting it as a set of specific limitations to hirself. 6 is accepting it as a general situation the rules of which help hir achieve hir purposes. Either way it is easy for them to respect the courtesies of the other.

The relationship between 3 and 6 is a relation between two rather vague people easily accepting general situations and routines. 3 thinks the situation is defined by strict environmental elements that bind him or her down. 6 thinks it's an important but mainly convenient agreement that things happen a certain way. Much smirking and shaking of head at the other person's "follies" is expected.

The relationship between 4 and 6 is a relationship between two people feeling liberated by the acknowledged social circumstances. 4 is enthousiastic about a specific matters that maintain this situation while 6 just naturally accepts the general status quo. While 4 seems a bit pushy to 6 and 6 a bit careless to 4 many occasions of mutual compliments, strutting and nodding of heads is expected.

The relationship between 5 and 6 is a relationship between a person who has a specific all-conquering, burning need and one who generally thinks s/he's lacking little and capable of handling anything s/he needs to. The need of the former is completely lost to the latter and thus likewise the actions.



:
As a side question, how many of these relations have you identified and seen in action?

:
All of them of course. I've been the other partner of 13 of these relations myself, there aren't that many in total, they're common as dust.


7. Is a person who naturally crosses borders in the environment, attempts and accomplishes specific things and feel empowered by this.

The relationship between 1 and 7 is a relationship between two people empowered by the environment. 1 is enthousiastically developing his or her general aptitude in regard to it. 7 is just natually accomplishing specific things that s/he wants to. To 1, 7 might seem a bit of a loser and the 1 might seem a bit of a wannabe to 7 but on the whole they enjoy the possibilities of creative cooperation.

The relationship between 2 and 7 is that of two people naturally relating to and caring about specific issues. 2 is someone who relates to these specific matters "as one is supposed to" and is constrained, relates to them as s/he is able to and is empowered.

The relationship between 3 and 7 is one of two people with a natural affinity to their environment. 3 is the generally careful avoidant sort and 7 is the rambunctious aggressive sort. 7 is able to approach 3 exactly the way 3 needs to be approached and 3 is able to make up for the damage 7 does while doing this.

The relationship between 4 and 7 is one between two people empowered by specific achievements. 7 has a habit of just doing it. 4 has the habit of doing it really forcefully and emphatically so that its acknowledged for certain. There's a certain inclination for competition and attempting to subdue the other one.

The relationship between 5 and 7 is one of two people relating to specific events in their environment. 5 has a habit of being really bothered by some specific matters while 7 has a habit of just playing around with things. 5 supplies the need and understanding and 7 often the ability so they have the capacity to help each other greatly.

The relationship between 6 and 7 is one between two naturally self-confident people. 6 requires the general acceptance of his or her capability, 7 just shows it by specific deeds. They have the capacity to greatly get on each others nerves.

Here's the final piece of the small-cycle relationships

8 is a person who experience generally acknowledged systems deeply, and powerfully constraining.

The relationship between 1 and 8 is defined by a enthousiastic and powerful relationship to generalities and systems. 1 is oriented to using the systems that act in the environment. 8 feels the accepted systems as a bind and variously acts as a rebel against them or as an enforcer of them. 1 tries to show 8 how to enjoy the systems, 8 tries to punish 1 for misusing them.

The relationship between 2 and 8 is defined by being limited by generally acknowledged matters and ideas. 2 feels he's naturally bound by specific issues, 8 feels he's powerfully bound by the general way things are known to happen. They act together as sort of enforcers of society and communal reality.

The relationship between 3 and 8 is defined by being tied down by general systems. 3 feels naturally bound to what is happening in his environment. 8 feels a strong and forced bind to acknowledged systems.

The relationship between 4 and 8 is defined by a forced bond to acknowledged facts. 4 shows 8 how to create freedom through specific matters and 8 is generally bound to enforce this communal idea.

The relationship between 5 and 8 is defined by forceful limitations. 5 is limited by specific matters in the environment. 8 is limited by generally acknowledged matters of the environment. While 5 tries to force cooperation to change matters, 8 is just angered by the way 8 does this. There is much potential for fights.

The relationship between 6 and 8 is defined by the bond to the generally accepted systems. 6 naturally uses these systems to his advantage, 8 feels forcefully chastised by them. There's a natural way to interact without trouble.

The relationship between 7 and 8 is a relation of opposites. 7 acts naturally accomplishing specific issues without giving it a second thought, 8 is constantly making sure it's acting as it's supposed to.

...

So... to functions...
I'll start with the easiest: identity. For example accepting Te has a certain relationship with the environment. Accepting Te is a part of the EJ clock-face so it can be expressed as a form of "being in the driver's seat of events". It's natural that if there are two persons who are both using this function that they both assume that they either are or should be "in charge" of a situation. This helps these people understand each other in every possible way but it makes them competitors as in the end only one person can be ultimately in charge. This situation can be ameliorated if they are in a situation of collaboration, both working to direct a situation to the same direction. OR if they are working with different situations and different tools and they only share guidance and experiences. OR if there's a natural hierarchy or other similar structure that helps the identity partners work without stepping on each other's toes.

If there are two partners that are not completely identical in regarding to a function, as in two different subtypes of ESTj or perhaps a thinking subtype ESTj and a thinking subtype ENTj ... who all have Te but are in a slightly different position on the clock-face nevertheless, there is a certain amount of disagreement and dissonance that one needs to conquer before the two can find a way to see eye to eye about the substance of Te and how it is to be used. The further distant the people on the clock-face the larger this dissonance is.


Okay, next I'll discuss superego.
Superego function is what exists in the same clock-face exactly at the other side, 6 clock hours away.
These are people who could potentially see the same way and act the same way, but in the end their situations are as far from each other as they themselves could conceive the situation to be. By this I mean that as people have significant trouble conceiving how people from a different type they never really understand those distances or what the distance is all about. Furthermore one can also float the idea that since the distance between these two is just about the same one way around the clock-face as it is the other way around the clock-face there seems to be no particular effective way to reach the point of view of the other person. On the other hand this voids the possibility of social pressure to move towards the point of view of the other person and this is pleasant.

The natural competition between people who strive for the same temperamental social role does not easily arise for these people since the methods and chosen environments are very different.

These functions also share the qualities of "the small cycles" of characteristics. If one is judging, the other is judging as well. If one is extrovert or limiting or accepting the other is as well. There is a significant feeling of sameness that arises from this as well as the temperamental role.

The differences arise in the "large cycle" properties. Where other is socially open, the other is closed, where the other is not well-defined the other is well-defined. Where the other is calculating or emotion-creating or judicious or strategic or carefree or grave the other is the opposite of that. There is a significant attraction caused by the complementary aspects arising from this. The problem is that this attraction can not be easily turned into cooperation. What's important to understand is that superego partners could act exactly the same way as the other one does but they choose not to and both of them feel they have compelling reason to do so.

Next time I'll discuss the functions that are in-between these two a quarter of a turn of the cycle to either direction. Please also ask if there's anything you'd like me to clarify about superegos.


:
Let's see if I can phrase the question so it makes sense... Ok, so if you have one person who is at 2:00 on a clock-face and there is another person who is at 7:00 on the same clock-face, would they still be superego even though they're not completely opposite each other?

:
Well, the situation in which two people are exactly on the opposite side of each other on the clock-face would be extremely rare. So we'll either have to ignore everything I said about superegos on the basis of irrelevancy or we'll have to treat many situations, such as this one as approximations of the superego situation. As always, the farther the actual point is of the theoretical point that we talk about when we define properties, the more differences and surprising situations there are likely to exist in relation to it. Sooo that's the best I can offer, 2:00 relates to 7:00 in a sort of superegoish way.

So let's talk about what's the relation between functions that are in the same clock-face about 3 hours apart... Midway between superego functions are two other functions that are themselves superegos to each other. From the point of view of these functions the two originals are both equidistant. There is no theoretical preferrence for either. So what kind of a relation does one have to a point of view that is of the same apparent relevance as it's polar opposite? Let's make an example of the static-irrational cycle. One tries to be balanced, independent, keep a distance. One tries to take from that other point of view whatever one sees as good and mix that with other factors from it's polar opposite.
Let's make an example of the static-irrational cycle. Creating Ti is superego to creating Fi. From the point of view of accepting Se neither of these is preferrable, when forced to choose something relevant to a 'judging' issue the Se person is as likely to prefer Ti as Fi. From the point of view of the Ti person this makes Se unreliable as it would be better if the other person consistently preferred Ti. At the same time Ti is as likely to prefer Ne over Se and so Se can't really rely on Ti either. So there's this constant strain to see where the other one stands in relation to you. If Se asks a question from Ti, the answer won't make sense at all to the recipient since from Se point of view it's going to be a senseless combination of Se and it's opposite. Let's put it in to terminology... Se is strategic and wants to know if the other one is strategic or tactical. Ti answers "Sure, well sometimes I'm strategic but sometimes I'm tactical, I don't think one should have to choose. I like to call this thing that I do creation-creating." So that leaves both of them confused and with mixed feelings. So if we add a Fi person to the mix... Fi comes in and again Se asks: "strategic or tactical?" Fi answers "I'm neither I like to combine the best of strategic and tactics, I'm emotion-creating". Now Se asks: "So you're like this Ti fellow then?" Fi answers: "No way, that person is completely different from me!" Ti pipes in: "What are you doing talking to Fi, I thought you were MY buddy?" And Se answers: "I think you're both crazy, mixing strategy and tactics, that's just silly." And so on. Oh, hey, I managed to describe one of the small groups, the bouquet simultaneously (the bouquet consists of the four types of the same temperament). When one talks about relations between types instead of relations between functions one can talk about look-a-like relations (if the two types share the creative function) or comparative relations (if the two types share the accepting function). It's not self-explanatory how this terminology should be turned around to refer to the relations between functions. Anyway, the point of adjacent functions is that there's not enough attraction there to correct the dissonance and find the feeling of identity.

Hmm... that's a lot of text without pressing 'enter'.

The good parts of the adjacent functions are that there are occasional points of perfect unison in trivial matters. Also there's no real points of social conflict... but conflict through competition can be fierce, the other possessing just enough similar talents that they appear like a scary competitor and being just different enough that they can't be an ally.

Theoretically any such relation is asymmetric. There's always the clockwise partner and the anti-clockwise partner, the latter seeing the former as abstract and the former seeing the latter as concrete. One's concrete partner has a habit of destabilizing and reworking issues that one has grown to rely on, questioning things one takes for granted. One's abstract partner tends to seem overconfident, either really talented or lazy.

One can also think of the relations between adjacent functions simply as something that swings between an identity relation and a superego relation.


:

Theoretically any such relation is asymmetric. There's always the clockwise partner and the anti-clockwise partner, the latter seeing the former as abstract and the former seeing the latter as concrete. One's concrete partner has a habit of destabilizing and reworking issues that one has grown to rely on, questioning things one takes for granted. One's abstract partner tends to seem overconfident, either really talented or lazy.

Wait, what? I'm confused. Put this so I can see it. Take INTj and ISTj. Which one would be the abstract one?

:
Well, abstraction is something to the anti-clockwise direction of a property and concrete is something to the clockwise direction of a property. So… If ISTj is centered on the point 4:30 in the static-rational clock-face , that would mean that for example 3:01 is an abstract ISTj. But this rule is not really broken if you also call 2:59 an even more abstract ISTj. And you could say that every INTj is really just a very very abstract ISTj. And from the INTjs point of view every ISTj is just a very very concrete INTj. Clearly it’s better to say that one is INTj and one is ISTj and they’re just different types and that’s it, but it’s not always clear in a situation where one is actively interacting with people on which side of any given point in the clock-face someone is. Let’s say that four guys meet, they’re respectively at points 2:59, 3:01, 3:30 and 5:50 of the same clock-face. Three of them are identicals in the sense that they’re all ST-types of the same temperament, but really it’s one of the ST-types and the one NT-type that feel the most like the same. The person at 5:50 would pretty much see all the three other people as identicals and himself as the odd one out. He might think that all the others are NT-types or he might think that he’s himself an SF. What he would definitely see was that all the others were ‘abstract’ to him. The person at 3:30 would probably see that the people abstract to him were identicals, then he’d think about himself in relation to them and might think that he was also an identical or maybe that they shared a type but were of different subtypes or something. And then he’d see the guy at 5:50 and notice how much larger the differences were in comparison to him… like there was these two guys who’re different but share something with him, but then there’s this one guy who was REALLY different in comparison, surely they can’t be of the same type, that other guy must be some SF-type. And so on, and so on.


:

Included in the definition of this group are types that are even a complete one-type (or three clock hours) removed from this point of connection.

What? I'm sorry, but that didn't even make grammatical sense.

:
Heh, sorry, I think of type sometimes as a measure of distance of separation. Since the clock-face itself is continuous, but the imagined lines of division between types divide it into four parts... I think that an ISTj is separated from an ISFj by a distance of one-type or 3 clock hours. This same distance separates for example Fi from Ne. On the other hand INFj is separated from ISTj by the distance of 6 clock hours or two types. And again judging is separated from aristocracy by a distance of half a type or one and a half clock hours. But that line of thinking isn't really necessary, I just find it easy. I'll try to avoid using it in discussion though.

...

Soo, here I was talking about mirror partnerships and conflict partnerships... A mirror partnership occurs between people who belong to the same group on the static/dynamic axis and are at the same point on the clock-face and the conflict partnership occurs between people are of the same group on the static/dynamic axis and are 6 hrs removed from each other on the clock-face. I have discussed these partnerships at some length in the thread in the article section labeled "Dichotomic descriptions of types v2.0"

So, mirror relationships.
We’re talking about two corresponding points in either two static or two dynamic clock-faces. They can also be defined as the accepting and the creating version of a function. So, first of all… The creative version and the accepting version of a function are not identical… and that means that to someone with the creative version of a function, the accepting version of that same function is really an unconscious function.

What does this “unconscious function” really mean though? If we look at two spots in different clock-faces we’ll note that there are always some systematic qualities that are different, but also there are always some that are the same. Also, the amount of similarities and the amount of differences is pretty much constant. If we look at accepting Ne and creating Ne they are the same in the characteristics of ‘intuition’, ‘extroversion’, ‘judiciousness’, ‘perceiving’ and this way, if one concentrates on these properties one can spot them as a similar function, an EP can say to an IJ “Hey, I see what you’re doing, you too have Ne, we’re doing the same thing, great!”. Then again if we look at other matters we’ll notice that one is ‘empowering’, ‘tactical’, ‘carefree’ and ‘accepting’ while the other is not. Now if one changes the point of view to concentrate on these characteristics instead of the four previous ones one would say “Hey, we’re completely opposite!” On the other hand if one does not change the focus but only acknowledges the existence of these other factors one would have to claim “Okay, we’re kind of doing the same thing but you’re doing it somehow differently, somehow wrong. It’s like you didn’t really know what the point of Ne was or have good control over it.” Or the same thing can be spinned to the opposite direction and so the other one could say “So even if you’re trying to act the opposite of me, being ‘tactical’ and ‘accepting’ and ‘carefree’ while I’m not, you’re also ‘intuitive’ and ‘extrovert’ like I am, so you’re using similar things like I am despite that you’re trying to be all different, so there must be some unconscious urge in you that you can’t control that makes you still act somewhat the same.

Now it would be more correct to note that all these “unconscious effects” are just illusions of differences in points of view. Creating Ne is not worse or better or more or less conscious than accepting Ne for being ‘strategic instead of ‘tactical’. Neither is creating or accepting Ni an unconscious form of Ne. Nor does anyone with creative Ne or any kind of Ni in his or her clock-face have any use for accepting Ne, either conscious or unconscious. Whether they are similar or different is just a matter of point of view.

Now as to the specifics of the mirror relation. . .

Okay... about mirrors AND conflicts...

Relations between either EJ and IP or IJ and EP.
If people of identical temperament are seen as sort of direct competitors, people of mirror temperament are seen as sort of spoilsports, or bad allies, someone who'se a bit of a weight on you, but still sort of interesting. They take away your opportunities and do not even create the same kind of result you would. They seek the same kind of opportunities you would and they use them in a different way than you think they should be used, which makes it seem a bit like they mishandled the situation, but not completely since they still seemed to get objectively good results.

While people of identical temperament are rather easy to evaluate and then forget, the people of the mirror temperament sort of keep bugging you, there's always something a bit off in them that keeps you wondering. They maintain the most consistent stimulation and irritation of all the temperaments.

Mirror partners share two of the small-cycle traits, both being either judging or perceiving and extrovert or introvert. They also share two large-cycle traits, both being either feeling, thinking, sensing or perceiving and judicious, grave, merry or resolute.

They are opposite in other ways.



Now the small-cycle functions, they're the same for the mirror and the conflict partners. In that regard one can think of them as something that easier defines the temperamental distinctions.

Now the conflict person on the other hand ... when talking about the large-cycle characteristics ... is the same as person of point of view in regard to tactical, strategic, emotion-creating or creation-creating aspects and also in regard to calculating, carefree, obstinate or compliant characteristics. S/he is different in regard to all the other large-cycle characteristics. ...

Now I've previously discussed these two relations as follows:

Mirror:
Not much to say here. The mirror partner is the one whose opinion you should generally listen to, when you find yourself lost. His suggestions might not seem the best possible in all situations but generally he has a point, he's just concentrating on another aspect of the problem than you are. Primary use in learning but can also be an excellent friend. Still good to avoid in situations where self-confidence is critical.

Relation of clubs: Identical
Use similar phrases, have affinity to similar fields of study, use similar tools. Learn to deal with similar problems. No natural division of labour, competition for resources and status. Professional learning. Appraisal of quality.

Relation of quadra: Identical
Sharing the idea of what creates a hospitable social environment. Mutually supporting values and ways to uphold them. A natural alliance. Danger of an echo chamber effect.

Relation of strategy: Opposite
Where one partner takes things as they come, the other one is determined to change things. Where one partner is curious, the other is cautious. The other person is not seen as a threat and division of roles is easy.

Relation of calculation: Opposite
What is difficult and worrying to one partner is like a game to the other. Where one partner is courageous, the other is wary, where one partner seeks assurances, the other has had enough. The partners are likely to cause some scares to each other, tread on each other's values and see the other one as a less moral person. Different ideas on what's negotiable and what is not.

Relation of temperament: Sharing the static or dynamic POV
Ease of communication between partners. Easy to make guesses as to where the other is coming from, even too many assumptions. Correcting and holding the other back. Different life rhytms and different motivations. Natural opposition on the same playing field. Communication is likely to show weaknesses in the arguments of one or both partners. Relevant criticism that is important especially in the early stages of a project.

And as to conflict relations:
A person who is best understood as your personal heel, someone who you are uniquely vulnerable to and who is uniquely vulnerable to you. Yet for all the prancing around each other's PoLR there's little incentive to attack it. A relationship that makes you careful. Nemesis is not a misplaced word when describing this relation for it has a tendency to push you off your pedestal. The relationship succeeding depends on giving each other recognition and more space than you would give to anyone else. Mutual projects will never completely satisfy both and if undertaken, must be done in a modular way. If the nature of the relation is not grasped early enough, can lead to very painful experiences.

Relation: Conflict

Relation of clubs: Opposite
What is clear and simple to one partner is complex to the other partner. The information and talents of the other are impressive to both partners and this creates ideas of cooperation. A division of labour occurs naturally.

Relation of quadra: Opposite
The idea of the environment and the situation is directly opposite. One partner wants to go all out, one wants to take it easy, one wants to advance personal, one general causes, one thinks in the long general term, one is all about now. A unified plan of action can only occur through misunderstanding or accident. The style and tempo are opposite. The other partner is seen as trying to take control of and waste your resources. Only trivial mutual goals can be reached.

Relation of strategy: Identical
The relationship in regard to perceived personal capability and experience is similar. The other is easy to respect and discuss with and appears to be of similar talents in this sense. Hierarchy must be settled in other ways, hence good grounds for a rivalry or a trusted professional friendship. Good grounds for mutual long-term personal personal development.

Relation of calculation: Identical
Similar level of appreciation of resources and values. The other seems capable and sensible in these matters. There can be mutual goals or competition. A sense of the other doing business in a way you understand.

Relation of temperament: Sharing the static or dynamic POV
Ease of communication between partners. Easy to make guesses as to where the other is coming from, even too many assumptions. Correcting and holding the other back. Different life rhytms and different motivations. Natural opposition on the same playing field. Communication is likely to show weaknesses in the arguments of one or both partners. Relevant criticism that is important especially in the early stages of a project.

Now that's kind of heavily loaning stuff from the "dichotomic descriptions" thread but I'm not really too sure about how to discuss this matter better.




















Now would be a good time to start talking about the systematic small groups that have been found if not always analyzed within socionics...

I'll start with the least reputable and work my way up.
Quote:

25 ~ (-11)
ENTpESTpISFjENFp

ISFpINFpENTjESTj

ESFjENFjINTpISTp

INTjISTjESFpENFp

Defining traits:
dynamic/static
obstinate/compliant

(and creation-creating/emotion-creating)...
The intersection of two type traits always defines a third one.

These are groups that are formed around two poles, for example the point of 9:00 in the IP(dynamic-irrational) clock-face and the point 3:00 in the EJ(dynamic-rational) clock-face. Included in the definition of this group are types that are a even a complete one-type (or three clock hours) removed from this point of connection. This causes there to be more variance in the level of comfort available in people forming such groups. The idea behind the definition of this group is that there is a defining conflict relationship between these two points in clock-faces but if all the people in the group happened to be of perceiving subtypes we would have a situation defined by a pair of close-to mirror relations and this fracturing into subgroups might actually be the most comfortable way for people in this kind of a group to handle an issue. Of some significance may be that the point over which there is conflict is of 'creative' nature to the irrationals and 'accepting' nature' to the rationals whereas the potential mirror partnerships would occur over the 'creative' functions of the rationals.


Furthermore social situations have a tendency to cause clustering around certain ways of behaviour. People have a tendency to drag others in on their chosen mode of social conduct.

That should be enough that we can continue with the small group.

So, let's pick one of these groups, like the ISTp/INTp/ESFj/ENFj group.

There are problems in defining what the actual relations are between these types because of the amount of variance that is available in the clock-face of these types. An extreme thinking ISTp and an extreme thinking INTp are practically identical in most situations. An extreme sensory ISTp and an extreme intuitive INTp are at the opposite ends of their own spectrum personal spectrum of difference, what's called super-ego partners. But on the average and on the long duration these people are called look-a-like partners because they share the creative function but differ on the accepting one.

The ESFj is in a similar variable situation regarding the ENFj except that they are united in the accepting, not the creating function and hence are called comparative partners.
The ESFj is usually the supervisor of the ISTp and the conflict partner to the INTp. But if both the ESFj and the ISTp are sensory subtypes they are essentially mirror partners. Either way the creative function tends to dominate the accepting function in social relations so the ESFj is in a slightly superior position vis-a-vis the ISTp.

More about group dynamics...

Everyone in this group is dynamic, creation-creating and obstinate.
By definition this kind of activity is expecting a situation to change, maintaining the idea that one's own knowledge is meaningful and certain and not allowing oneself be budged from protecting one's chosen interests. Essentially, a gathering of fanatics of whom everyone is certain that they are and must be right and are unwilling to listen to others. This is naturally a bad situation unless coincidence allows each of them to be exactly of the same opinion about everything (very unlikely) and even then they lack complementary traits that would allow them to have meaningful interaction. Clearly it's best for these people to avoid each other. Yet from a distance they can recognise these factors in each other as resonant traits and respect each other. Of some significance may be that the point of focus, the judging function is to the IxxP-types a creative-enabling while it is accepting-limiting to the ExxJ-types.

[Smilingeyes]

:
The Dynamic-Calculating-tactical INFp-INTp-ESTj-ESFj group
These would be people seeking perfect control of a situation, either on the level of the idea or on a more mechanical level. There's a very gamesmanship-like quality to these interactions. What's important here is in comparison with the previously handled, judging-function-centered type-states the environment and the situation has more relevance for the workings of this group. While this group's members strive to outdo each other as much as the previous ones there's actually a way for them to solve the issue through competition without degenerating everything into a simple pissing contest.

:
"Type-states" being in this context a verb? I ask because that sentence is a little confusing, particularly the middle part.

:

No, a noun. I left the word 'that' out after "What's important here is", does that help any? "Judging function centered type-states" is a single concept, by that I meant that dichotomies such as obstinacy/compliancy and creation-creating/emotion-creating are essentially always about judging functions. I can't call the groups judging subtype groups (though I'd like to) because by definition participants do not have to be judging subtypes. The rest of the sentence is a reference to how judging functions have a more directly social purpose. Thus the judging-function related issues tend to more often degenerate into avoiding the issues at hand for the benefit of a social issue. The relations are often more binding.

Anyway, the next group is pretty much only about supervision, more to the point it's the ring of supervision...

Dynamic-Process-Negative ESTj-ISFp-ENFj-INTp
Dynamic-Result-Positive ISTp-ENTj-INFp-ESFj
Static-Process-Positive INFj-ENTp-ISTj-ESFp
Static-Result-Negative ENFp-ISFj-ESTp-INTj

ESTj supervises ISFp who supervises ENFj who supervises INTp who supervises ESTj. ISFp is superego to INTp and ENFj is superego to ESTj. Easy? Ok, process/result and negative/positive are small-cycle states, just small-cycle states of types, not functions. Anyway, when I was talking about small-function cycles and their interactions I implied that for example creating Te and creating Ni don't really go that well together. There's a similar kind of dissonance between the states of these types. More importantly, while the function states were symmetrically dissonant, these aren't. The creative function is able to push around the accepting version. Thus for example INTp can forcefully communicate hir opinions to an ESTj in a form which makes an impression on the ESTj. In turn the creative Si of the ESTj doesn't really make that much of an impression on the accepting Ni of the INTp, because it's a conflict function, not a mirror function.

Now the dynamic-negative process, this would in its essence be a sort of feverish push towards a finish line of some sort. A sort of let's get this thing over with, now. The criticism of the INTps, the onslaught-like quality of ESTjs, the lonely reaching out of the ISFps and the martyrdom of ENFjs are all manifestations of this same need to escape the situation quickly as possible. Now let's imagine for a while how this pressure cooker works. Each individual is looking to change the situation, needs to change situation but is frustrated by one's supervisor pushing one to a different direction, to take care of his or her pressing needs first. What does one do then? Maybe passes the buck and exerts one's own influence on one's supervisee.

It's hard to say whether a full circle of supervision works worse or better than a broken one. On an individual level of course the one who was only a supervisor in the chain would probably feel less stress, on the other hand the one who was only a supervisee would probably feel more.

The dynamic-positive-result group on the other hand... if the previous group was all about emergency-mobilization, this is the opposite. This is the group of playful, controlled, "on-top of things" kind of people. They're inclined to scatter resources, test new things and generally cause trouble. Now let's imagine how someone generally feels in a situation in which one feels like one's having a grand old time and suddenly someone starts meddling in it? And everyone in the group is feeling this way. Another not too happy group.

The static-negative-result group would be a group of people who are for some reason or another in a situation that is beyond their control and they already naturally feel picked upon. "Things are bad" is the general sentiment of this group, but these people aren't really able to create any significant action that would change the situation, moping around, procrastinating, feeling really bad about themselves. Now the individuals that are able to actually get moving after feeling like this have a sort of grim determination, not really expecting any change but acting nevertheless.

The static-positive-process group would be the situation of being immersed in some meaningful activity, being able to create meaningful events through personal effort. The supervisor seems like a person who tries to get such a person sidetracked, as a part of someone else's project instead of their own. This can be disturbing.

Now the next would be the bouquet, but we kind of handled that one already...


Type relations
Relation: Supervision

Relation of clubs: 1/4 cycle difference, Mirror of one function, Conflict of the other.

Relation of quadra: 1/4 cycle difference

Relation of strategy: 3/4 cycle difference

Relation of calculation: 3/4 cycle difference

Relation of temperament: Sharing the static or dynamic POV
Ease of communication between partners. Easy to make guesses as to where the other is coming from, even too many assumptions. Correcting and holding the other back. Different life rhytms and different motivations. Natural opposition on the same playing field. Communication is likely to show weaknesses in the arguments of one or both partners. Relevant criticism that is important especially in the early stages of a project.

Dominance: Supervisor dominates
This domination is actually somewhat cosmetic. The supervisor has a goal to which the supervisee naturally reacts. Yet the supervisee has his own goals that do not support those of the supervisor. The supervisee is thus in a position to subvert the supervisor's instructions and actions in such a way that he gets his own goals accomplished. The supervisor will not understand what is happening, he will only see that his supervisee is not acting fully according to his wishes -> needs more 'guidance'.

Variation: Can turn into mirror or conflict relations depending on individual and situational variation.

Mutual groups: Cycle of supervision

These are relations which socionists model essentially on the fact that the creative form of a function tends to dominate the accepting one (because of the enthousiasm, power and inflexibility of the creative partner and because of the natural flexibility of the accepting one) and the situation of meaningful quadra difference ( so that there's enough dissonance that it can't be considered a harmonious mirror relation). These are the two issues needed to create an annoying and asymmetric relation.

Now just as an aside comment I might mention that though there's four partners in each of the defined small groups we're going to handle, actually three people are enough to define such a group. The group is recognisable with just three people but the symmetry tends to be broken and the situation more fluid, the possibility to settle the situation sort of greater, the tension smaller (in situations of unfavourable relations).

So, anyway, the group I was supposed to discuss had four forms:

Dynamic-emotioncreating-compliant
Dynamic-creationcreating-obstinate
Static-creationcrating-compliant
Static-emotioncreating-obstinate

Now the problem with these groups arises from the fact that emotion-creating/creationcreating is a dichotomy that is not favourable for interactions between partners in the same cathegory. I usually talk about this dichotomy as the master-student dichotomy.
For example by definition the dynamic-creationcreating-obstinate group is formed of four types that are the firmest, most non-budging know-it-alls... now it's possible that such a group agrees on everything by accident but far more probable is that each of them will start acting expert on the other ones, causing much annoyance. The way for these people to get by is essentially to fight this urge, keep a certain distance and use their perceptive functions at which point they become a couple of Ni-types and a couple of Si-types who have mirror relations with each other. These "couples" can then potentially at least discuss matters if possibly not really agree on anything. The other possible split axis is according to temperaments, but that split would probably be more complete, essentially destroying the group completely.
Now the dynamic-emotion-creating form of this group on the other hand is the collective of the most accommodating people possible. In all of their politeness and accommodation there's not really any point when there's no one to accommodate.

Static-emotion-creators... I don't really know how to describe this group the best... The most obvious thing to me tends to be their quality of freaking out about the strangest things, picking the oddest matters and getting really fanatical and worked up about it. I shudder to think what a meeting of this group would be like.

Static creation-creating people, they seem usually like political realists in social matters, this would be a very cold and formal gathering of sort of godfatherish figures.

Anyway, these are essentially competitive roles, so most people in such groups would really like the idea of leaving as quick as humanly possible. Making real-life observances of these would be difficult, though I've participated in a couple of such gatherings, painful.


Next one

Dynamic-Calculating-tactical INFp-INTp-ESTj-ESFj
Dynamic-Carefree-Strategic ISTp-ISFp-ENFj-ENTj
Static-Carefree-Tactical ENTp-ISTj-ISFj-ENFp
Static-Calculating-Strategic INTj-ESTp-ESFp-INFj

'kay, these groups are very much like the previous ones. There's two types that supervise other two types and are comparative partner's to each other. While in the last groups the supervisors were the rationals in the group, this time the irrationals are the supervisors.

This time the focus of these groups is the perceptive functions. Again these are contentious groups that have the option of trying to avoid the focus point of trouble by concentrating on their alternative, this time judging, functions, and split into mirror partner couples. This time though this splitting up is not perhaps equally necessary. Why? Let's see...

The Dynamic-Calculating-tactical INFp-INTp-ESTj-ESFj group
These would be people seeking perfect control of a situation, either on the level of the idea or on a more mechanical level. There's a very gamesmanship-like quality to these interactions. What's important here is in comparison with the previously handled, judging-function-centered type-states the environment and the situation has more relevance for the workings of this group. While this group's members strive to outdo each other as much as the previous ones there's actually a way for them to solve the issue through competition without degenerating everything into a simple pissing contest.

Dynamic-Carefree-Strategic ISTp-ISFp-ENFj-ENTj
This would be the most lofty and distant group in it's relations to the environment, with a sort of "this doesn't apply to me, I'll find a way around this, just a momentary setback" - feel. Can you imagine how a group of whom everyone is just above it all, interacts? Apparently not a lot.

Static-Carefree-Tactical ENTp-ISTj-ISFj-ENFp
This would be the group of "Hey, I didn't do anything, I just threw a rock, what are you blaming me for?" A union of very unconventional ideas and very conflict-oriented solutions. Very prone to explosions.

Static-Calculating-Strategic INTj-ESTp-ESFp-INFj
The other gamesmanship-group but with tendency to optimise game strategy according to personal motivation, not situational control. Particularly recognizable for their ability to maintain control over their personal territory.


----------

:
But, perhaps you could answer a wondering of mine. Why is it called a boquet? When I think of that word, I think of something pretty, colorful, that smells nice, and that everybody likes (except those with allergies and maybe the occasional Scrooge). It sounds like there's not much of that happening in a socionics boquet.

:
I'm afraid I can't answer that, because I don't know. My guess is that the name was given by either Augusta or Reynin, but their reasons are slightly mysterious. From those days there are many terms in socionics that don't make sense, at least as translations. Perhaps the word bouquet has some connotation in Russian that we are unaware of.

Likewise I do not know the purpose for which the next groups are called Labyrinths. I have a guess though, which I'll introduce shortly.

Dynamic-Aristocratic-Taciturn INFp-ENFj-ISTp-ESTj

A group of people who try to find explanations and uses for a selection of communally accepted facts, theories or similar. Each finding the particular accepted facts as important and something to wonder, they are essentially lost, without explanations, as if being in a labyrinth, none having the courage to lead them away from the situation. These are sort of the resentful servants of the group or community. But since in this group there's no one to be the servant of, they're not too likely to get anything done.

The group consists of two mirror pairs who make up the superego of and the conflict partners of the opposing pair. While a single such mirror couple might make for a delightful discussion, having the conflict and superego partners present turns the situation into an argument between the two couples.

Dynamic-Democratic-Narrator ESFj-ISFp-INTp-ENTj

If the former group lacked explanations, this group of narrators have them galore. Their explanations on the other hand, lacking in concrete detail and often contradicting each other would form another kind of a labyrinth of twisting explanations and paths of reasoning. Each individual full of solutions but none willing to carry them out, answers to unasked questions. A group of coffee table know-it-alls.

Static-Aristocratic-Narrator ESTp-INFj-ISTj-ENFp
In opposition to the other narrator group, this one is more clear about personally important information and accepted explanations. They're not exactly the servants of groups, more like wary and capable members. The mirror pairs' disagreements would generally center around beta versus delta values ( to be further determined later, and also discussed in various other places).

Static-Democratic-Taciturn ENTp-ESFp-INTj-ISFj
The final group consists of people who are moved by individual issues of the environment and trying to turn this into their social role. They need people who accept them and give them credit for this. These are people who sort of say: "This is what I am, what are you going to do about it?"


:
Hmm, this is interesting to me... As you describe these groups, I'm beginning to see that they are not just descriptions of what would happen if four random different types got together (which is the way it seemed at first), but that you're grouping them by qualities they all have in common. Taking those commonalities into account and adding in their major differences leads to the description of group behavior.

:
Yes. Very good.

We are slowly approaching groups that are almost tolerable...

Tactical-Process-Thinking ENTp-ISTj-INTp-ESTj
Strategic-Process-Feeling ISFp-ENFj-ESFp-INFj
Tactical-Result-Feeling ESFj-ENFp-ISFj-INFp
Strategic-Result-Thinking INTj-ISTp-ENTj-ESTp

This group introduces us to the relationships of Benefaction and Contrary.

Type relations

Relation: Benefaction

Relation of clubs: 3/4 cycle difference, superego of one function, activity of the other.

Relation of quadra: 1/4 cycle difference

Relation of strategy: 1/4 cycle difference

Relation of calculation: 3/4 cycle difference


Relation of temperament: Relation of temperament: Sharing the hot or cold POV
Your relation to your peers is superficially similar. You want, on some level, similar things from other people. Ease of finding problems in the thoughts and methods of the other but this resulting as a misunderstanding of what the other is actually doing and attempting to cause by his words and actions. Different idea of the relations of person and the environment. Different ways to measure the truth and validity of a matter. Making each other more certain about being correct, more forceful and intractable in one's views, making each other push harder for their own goals. Since the other does not seem to be capable, he is rarely seen as a threat. This along with partners preferring slightly different tools causes there to be remarkably few conflicts. Conflicts are generally fought through surrogates and creations than directly. When tools and interests are not competitive, they may compete in the support of the other instead.


Dominance: Benefactor dominates
This domination is actually somewhat cosmetic. The benefactor has a goal to which the beneficee naturally reacts. Yet the beneficee has his own goals that do not support those of the benefactor. The beneficee is thus in a position to subvert the benefactor's instructions and actions in such a way that he gets his own goals accomplished. The benefactor will not understand what is happening, he will only see that his beneficee is not acting fully according to his wishes -> needs more 'guidance'.

Variation: Can turn into activity or superego relations depending on individual and situational variation.

Mutual groups: Cycle of benefaction

This is very similar to supervision, except that the supervision is not interpreted as harmful, pushy, direct or hugely annoying, but more as a sort of friendly guidance. This is the other asymmetric relation in standard socionics.

Relation: Contrary

Relation of clubs: Identical
Use similar phrases, have affinity to similar fields of study, use similar tools. Learn to deal with similar problems. No natural division of labour, competition for resources and status. Professional learning. Appraisal of quality.

Relation of quadra: Opposite
The idea of the environment and the situation is directly opposite. One partner wants to go all out, one wants to take it easy, one wants to advance personal, one general causes, one thinks in the long general term, one is all about now. A unified plan of action can only occur through misunderstanding or accident. The style and tempo are opposite. The other partner is seen as trying to take control of and waste your resources. Only trivial mutual goals can be reached.

Relation of strategy: Identical
The relationship in regard to perceived personal capability and experience is similar. The other is easy to respect and discuss with and appears to be of similar talents in this sense. Hierarchy must be settled in other ways, hence good grounds for a rivalry or a trusted professional friendship. Good grounds for mutual long-term personal personal development.

Relation of calculation: Opposite
What is difficult and worrying to one partner is like a game to the other. Where one partner is courageous, the other is wary, where one partner seeks assurances, the other has had enough. The partners are likely to cause some scares to each other, tread on each other's values and see the other one as a less moral person. Different ideas on what's negotiable and what is not.

Relation of temperament: Sharing the rational or irrational POV
Similar life rhytms. Similar areas of comfort and areas of pursuit. Similar relation to the matter of intention vs. result. Different but not competing or naturally rivalling objectives. Difficulty of understanding. Different idea of the relations of person and the environment. Different ways to measure the truth and validity of a matter.

The partners are trying to push alternate forms of the same point in a similar way. Where dual partners can learn to adjust their mutual misunderstandings into productive cooperation, contrary partners don't have supporting but competing skills. They produce materials which the other will find impressive but somehow wrong. These partners try to occupy the same place with different things, they compete for opportunities. The opposition of the calculation cycle causes a situation in which one partner will try to negotiate and fix things that are the nonnegotiable basis for the action of the other. Partners are not a threat to each other. The opinions of the other partner are generally best left ignored. Trivial cooperation in professional circumstances can occur out of common courtesy.

That's what I've written of them before.

Beneficiary relations appear between EP AND EJ or IP AND IJ temperaments. The relations between these temperaments in general feel in my experience the most distant. One can't really get close enough to the other person. The energy management in them is sort of bad. One tends to appreciate the efforts of the other party but the effort itself seems badly directed. This of course is because it's not directed to you but to their dual temperament. They leave one somehow wanting more, something slightly different. There's a bit of competition between these temperaments, but not as much as identicals.

My first idea on how to metaphorize these relations was to call them "two ships passing in the night" but that's quite wrong. One notices the people of activity temperament, one just tends to shrug them off quickly. The encounter is a bit more like two people meeting in a passage, both trying to pass each other from the same side, then dodging to the other side and the other until they collide. Then they get mutually embarrassed and try to put it behind them. The functions they have are sort of complementary but the fine tuning is not what one is looking for. Here's another metaphor: after meeting in a bar the couple goes back to the man's apartment. At some point during the night or at least the next day he starts wondering if it was a good idea after all and how he could miss the adam's apple. Activity temperaments can give the same sort of signals as the dual temperaments but there's a difference that just can't be corrected no matter how hard one tries.

Contrary partners on the other hand...
There's the dual temperament... and the dual temperament is all about the actual dual relation. The dual relation is one's complement, hence it's actually one of the hardest to understand, since the whole point is that the other person is doing things that you can't and in such a manner helping you out. But this non-understanding maintains the problem of lack of empathy. A complementary relation is not always equal. One tends to objectivize one's dual partner, use them. While being happy of them one does not always appreciate them enough. To understand this further, think about the following complementary relations from the point of view of empathy (complementation of roles really just meaning the easy assignment of roles, not that there's benefit to both partners): Predator - prey, master - slave, user - tool, customer - whore, addict - drug ...

Now there's a dissonance in most dual temperament relations so that the roles still don't quite match. Either there's a problem of the relations of the small-cycle functions or the relation is a contrary relation. Contrary is a problematic relation, potentially the most problematic of all for the misunderstanding is deep and there's really no way to easily fix the situation. Contrary partners are people who may look really pretty on the outside but when you get closer you find the shell empty. It doesn't work like an identical, nor like a dual. The problem is the levels of social openness/definedness. When both partners reach out in an open way, they try to outdo each other and the situation seems shallow. When neither partner does this, they just stare at each other from afar. When neither partner is well-defined the situation is vague and lacks substance. When both partners actions are well-defined there's friction and collisions. The contrary partner is a trap.

:
Wait, activity? I thought you were describing beneficiary.

:
Sure I was. But since I called the relation between the temperaments IJ and EP the mirror temperaments I'll call the other relations of temperaments the activity temperament relation and the dual temperament relation. And beneficiary partners are of the same temperaments as activity partners, hence falling into the cathegory of the activity temperament relation.

I was going to discuss the following groups

Tactical-Process-Thinking ENTp-ISTj-INTp-ESTj

These are people who have a tendency of just doing or just saying things. These are the quick solvers of issues, not caring too much about the implications or corollaries, just generally rushing things to their conclusion or resolution. "Let the chips fall as they may!" would be their chant.

The general focus of this group is funnily enough not strictly only the actual solving of issues but also the acknowledgement of reasons they have to be solved for. The group can turn toward the issue of thinking in which case they'll act as a sort of slightly dissonant "club". Discussing the strict meanings and implications of accepted knowledge. Or they can turn to using their perceptive functions in which case they become a couple of activity partners who are contrary/conflict partners to the other couple.

Strategic-Process-Feeling ISFp-ENFj-ESFp-INFj
This would be a group of people enveloped into an activity that has a deeper significance to them. This group is as passionate as the previous one about what it does but rather more caring about the end result, more open to discussion and choice of methods/ ways to achieve the end result, more collaborative. On the other hand they can be a bit helpless, a lot of talk and little action.

Tactical-Result-Feeling ESFj-ENFp-ISFj-INFp
This group seems like they don't really care about what in particular they are doing nor the reason for it. They're willing to give a go to anything for a while at least. Not that their support is going to carry an issue all the way.

Strategic-Result-Thinking INTj-ISTp-ENTj-ESTp
And these are the "boss men" more inclined to look after their interests and supervise anything than to actually do the work. They're the planners, strategists and controllers of environments and groups. And as the other versions of this group structure they can either turn towards being a judging-function oriented club or a couple of perception-oriented activity partnerships.

...

And the next groups!


Defining traits:
intuitive/sensory
process/result
creation-creating/emotion-creating

These are made up of similar relations as the previous groupings but in a different order. The last groupings had the irrationals supervising the rationals and the rationals benefiting the irrationals. This one has it the opposite way.

Intuitive-process-creationcreating ENTp INFj INTp ENFj

These would be people who are trying to furiously take a mental process to it's natural end. They have a pattern in their head, something to maintain, but it doesn't have a concrete form, so they can't just put it down so they could pick it up again later. It takes their time and defines them as people. A personal project of sorts, something they need to go through. They can pitch well developed ideas at each other but aren't so good at discussing them, the matter is usually already settled in their heads when they bring it up. They can form either a sort of intuitive slightly dissonant "club" group or they can divide to two activity couples the same way the previous grouping did. One could also call them people with "issues".

Sensory-process-emotioncreating ISFp ESTj ESFp ISTj
These would be generally awkward people, wandering and wondering through life doing and accomplishing matters of which they don't really have much of a clue why they are doing it for anyway. A certain servility is natural to these people, and with this servility comes an expectation of being treated well. Since they're cooperating with other people, others should cooperate with them. When that doesn't happen, it's obvious that there's something seriously wrong with these particular other people and they, being such "weak" individuals just might need to retaliate with all the force they can muster.

Sensory-result-creationcreating ESFj ESTp ISFj ISTp
In opposition to the previous group these are people who could be servile, who feel they know how to accomplish what others want and are willing to do small services, but only if you meet the criteria for the right kind of person and the right kind of task. You need help, they know it, so they set the rules for giving it, ok?

Intuitive-result-emotioncreating INTj INFp ENTj ENFp
These are the true students of issues. They're the ones who are really trying to test ideas, find out what's what. A certain light intellectualism, willingness to tackle any subject and try to learn anything permeates these people. One downside is that they really are willing to entertain any strange idea at least for a short while, turning them rather gullible. Also they lack some energy in taking complicated ideas to their logical conclusions, rather they let ideas evolve on their own pace.

:

Intuitive-process-creationcreating ENTp INFj INTp ENFj

These would be people who ... One could also call them people with "issues".

What do you mean by "issues"?

:
Anything really. The stereotypical religiousness of INFjs and ENFjs would apply for example. So would the general INTp nihilism and ENTp anarchism. A sort of mental network of how things need to play out and happen.

:

Sensory-process-emotioncreating ISFp ESTj ESFp ISTj
These would be generally awkward people, wandering and wondering through life... When that doesn't happen, it's obvious that there's something seriously wrong with these particular other people and they, being such "weak" individuals just might need to retaliate with all the force they can muster.

Who's weak? And who needs to retaliate? (And, I like that - "wondering and wandering." Not that those types are doing that, but those two words together.)

:
The members of this group can feel weak in relation to what they feel is expected of them. And they may feel like being picked on, like others weren't cooperating with them. And they may feel insulted by this noncooperation and feel like retaliating by emphasized noncooperation (or aggression). In all cases "they" being the members of this group.

...
The group of the day...

The group is formed of an illusion-relation/semi-dual, one benefactory relation and a conflict relation. It can turn into a couple of perceiving activity function pairs that are in turn the contrary and conflict and conflict partner of the other couple. It can also turn into a couple of judging dual partnerships that are in turn the quasi-identical and conflict partner of the other couple. This latter change seems generally slightly more favourable.

Tactical-Taciturn-Compliant ENTp INFp ISFj ESTj
Believing in certain specific issues that remain open to discussion, thus given to sudden changes of the frame of mind and activity. These would be people who are moved by selected facts (as each of them understands the issue of 'fact') and moved by them to a naturally advantageous-seeming activity. Erratic.

Now as these groups seem somewhat boring I might mention as additional information that for example this group is divided to two kinds of members, the ones in whom tactics leads to taciturnness which leads to compliancy and the ones in whom compliancy leads to taciturnness which leads to tactics. The mechanism of how the member actually works as a member of the group can therefore vary. (The first group is made of ENTp and ISFj and the latter of INFp and ESTj). Similar differences exist for many of the other groupings that have been and will be mentioned.

Strategic-Narrative-Compliant ISFp ESTp ENTj INFj
These would be people who most carefully pick their side on an issue based on their complete understanding of matters related to it. They can be moved under changing conditions though and when the conditions do change, their jumping ship may surprise people greatly as they may have been active advocates of the previous situation as well. They can also be open to persuasion.

Tactical-Narrative-Obstinate ESFj ISTj INTp ENFp
These would be smart-asses, selecting a side and sticking to it for kicks, as a matter of pride. They can be respected for their strength or annoying for their nonbudgingness. They're moved by their personal ideas that seemed "really good at the time". Some ability with creative interpretation of facts is to be expected.

Strategic-Taciturn-Obstinate INTj ENFj ESFp ISTp
These are people who stick up for what they believe in, identify with some specific issue and defend it in any available way. The actual reasoning for their selections of important issues can be fuzzy or not even remembered. Eventually new stories are invented to back up the issue, whatever it is.

[Smilingeyes]

And that's all that Smile and Eyes had time to chat about before someone attacked the forum causing a change of priorities.

Now that things are mostly fixed there might be some continuation to this. There's been talk about taking it a couple of steps further even, but it might take a moment or two.

[FDG]

Ah, the addendum on groupings is a much useful tool, it seems. Nice to operate fine distinctions in distinguishing types that might seem to look similar. Also nice to notice how conflicting types have in actuality similar means of interaction with the outside world, even if with differing goals, motivations and perceptions. Which beautfiully (or, obviously) connects with the way relations were described in the dichotomical description of types. I think that it would be a nice project, in the future - not by you, of course, but by somebody else if you auhtorize to it - to add everything into a wiki which connects the concepts that are adiacent in meaning, but apart in location.

[Smilingeyes]

Ah, the addendum on groupings is a much useful tool, it seems. Nice to operate fine distinctions in distinguishing types that might seem to look similar. Also nice to notice how conflicting types have in actuality similar means of interaction with the outside world, even if with differing goals, motivations and perceptions. Which beautfiully (or, obviously) connects with the way relations were described in the dichotomical description of types. I think that it would be a nice project, in the future - not by you, of course, but by somebody else if you auhtorize to it - to add everything into a wiki which connects the concepts that are adiacent in meaning, but apart in location.

These descriptions are rather rough still. There might be errors in these or things that are not adequately explained. The pattern of functions and qualities and the way to think of them is very fruitful though. If someone wants to develop these onward or quote this material anywhere they have my leave to do so. I'll only snap if they make a cock-up.

[Smilingeyes]

Some more small group descriptions. Rough mass produced versions...

Quadras
ESTp - ISTj - INFp - ENFj : aristocratic - merry - resolute = beta
ESFp - ISFj - INTp - ENTj : democratic - grave - resolute = gamma
ENFp - INFj - ISTp - ESTj : aristocratic - grave - judicious = delta
ENTp - INTj - ISFp - ESFj : democratic - merry - judicious = alpha

ESTp - ISTj - ISFp - ESFj : narrator - merry - sensing
INTp - ENTj - INFj - ENFp : narrator - grave - intuitive
ESFp - ISFj - ISTp - ESTj : taciturn - grave - sensory
ENTp - INTj - INFp - ENFj : taciturn - merry - intuitive

ESTp - ISTj - ISFp - ESFj : narrator - merry - sensing
Explanations of the boasting variety, having large expectations of one's capability to make things happen.

INTp - ENTj - INFj - ENFp : narrator - grave - intuitive
Explanations of the downplaying variety. Errs on the side of believing things to be more certain than they are. Believing 'things just happen' and avoiding the personal element of the issue.

ESFp - ISFj - ISTp - ESTj : taciturn - grave - sensory
Does things with little expectation. Just acts. Downplays personal effect. Doesn't really understand his own contributions.

ENTp - INTj - INFp - ENFj : taciturn - merry - intuitive
Appreciative of skill in others but wishes to be shown what others can do. Encouraging others to take initiative. Incitement.

ESTp - ISTj - INTp - ENTj : thinking - narrator - resolute
ENTp - INTj - ISTp - ESTj : thinking - taciturn - judicious
ESFp - ISFj - INFp - ENFj : feeling - taciturn - resolute
ENFp - INFj - ISFp - ESFj : feeling - narrator - judicious

ESTp - ISTj - INTp - ENTj : thinking - narrator - resolute
People who dictate terms, explain how things have to be and make a big splash in the environment that way. Pushy.

ENTp - INTj - ISTp - ESTj : thinking - taciturn - judicious
People who pull out of anything that doesn't interest them or doesn't feel good. Need to be dragged into or "hooked" by proposals.

ESFp - ISFj - INFp - ENFj : feeling - taciturn - resolute
People who are constantly "there" when others need them. Will help others when it's explained what's needed of them.

ENFp - INFj - ISFp - ESFj : feeling - narrator - judicious
People who approach select, chosen people and try to create a group of selected friends.

Clubs:
ESTp - ISTj - ISTp - ESTj : sensory - thinking - aristocratic = practicals, the maximum of being well-defined (explicit)
ENTp - INTj - INTp - ENTj : intuitive - thinking - democratic = researchers, the maximum of being socially closed (detached)
ENFp - INFj - INFp - ENFj : intuitive - feeling - aristocratic = humanists, the maximum of being not well-defined (implicit)
ESFp - ISFj - ISFp - ESFj : sensory - feeling - democratic = socials, the maximum of being socially open (involved)

Groups along the judging functions:
ESTp - ISTj - ENTp - INTj : static - merry - thinking = Ti
ENFp - ESFp - ISFj - INFj : static - grave - feeling = Fi
ESTj - ISTp - ENTj - INTp : dynamic - grave - thinking = Te
ESFj - ISFp - ENFj - INFp : dynamic - merry - feeling = Fe

Groups along the perceiving functions:
ESTp - ISTj - ESFp - ISFj : resolute - static - sensory = Se
ENTj - ENFj - INTp - INFp : resolute - dynamic - intuitive = Ni
ESTj - ESFj - ISFp - ISTp : judicious - dynamic - sensory = Si
INTj - ENTp - ENFp - INFj : judicious - static - intuitive = Ne


ESTp - INFp - ESFp - INTp : irrational - resolute - calculating
ENTp - ENFp - ISFp - ISTp : irrational - judicious - carefree
ESTj - INFj - INTj - ESFj : rational - judicious - calculating
ENTj - ENFj - ISTj - ISFj : rational - resolute - carefree

ESTp - INFp - ESFp - INTp : irrational - resolute - calculating
Creating schemes to stay on center stage. Grabbing and back-stabbing.

ENTp - ENFp - ISFp - ISTp : irrational - judicious - carefree
Just having fun, caring about nothing but personal comfort. Comfort through relaxation.

ESTj - INFj - INTj - ESFj : rational - judicious - calculating
Making elaborate, non-realistic plans and acting on them. Comfort through personal choices.

ENTj - ENFj - ISTj - ISFj : rational - resolute - carefree
Staying in the center stage through exertion of force, going all out.

ESTp - INFp - ENTp - ISFp : irrational - merry - compliant
ESTj - ENTj - INFj - ISFj : rational - grave - compliant
INTj - ISTj - ENFj - ESFj : rational - merry - obstinate
INTp - ISTp - ENFp - ESFp : irrational - grave - obstinate

ESTp - INFp - ENTp - ISFp : irrational - merry - compliant
Seeing great potential in the environment, acts in accordance with the facts of it. Using the flow of events.

ESTj - ENTj - INFj - ISFj : rational - grave - compliant
Seeing little potential in the environment, is willing to accept it. Stopping struggling.

INTj - ISTj - ENFj - ESFj : rational - merry - obstinate
Seeing a lot of potential in the environment, tries to use it up, struggle against the variety, define it through personal action. Struggling against the stream.

INTp - ISTp - ENFp - ESFp : irrational - grave - obstinate
Seeing little potential in the environment, sees no reason to accept it. Feeling safe, makes its will known. Passive aggression.



ESTp - INFp - ENFp - ISTp : irrational - aristocratic - result
ESTj - INFj - ENFj - ISTj : rational - aristocratic - process
ENTj - ISFj - ESFj - INTj : rational - democratic - result
ENTp - ISFp - ESFp - INTp : irrational - democratic - process

ESTp - INFp - ENFp - ISTp : irrational - aristocratic - result
Lacking the power to challenge the status quo, experimenting with various activities as needed.

ESTj - INFj - ENFj - ISTj : rational - aristocratic - process
Accepting a task as a personal duty and doing whatever one is capable to accomplish it.

ENTj - ISFj - ESFj - INTj : rational - democratic - result
Seeing the extent of one's capabilities and showing them off in various ways with little meaningful purpose.

ENTp - ISFp - ESFp - INTp : irrational - democratic - process
Acting in direct relation to the fullest of one's capabilities in the interest of going through something.

ESTp - INFp - INTj - ESFj : merry - result - calculating
ENTp - ISFp - ISTj - ENFj : merry - process - carefree
ESTj - INFj - ESFp - INTp : grave - process - calculating
ENTj - ISFj - ISTp - ENFp : grave - result - carefree


ESTp - INFp - INTj - ESFj : merry - result - calculating
Careful selection and preparation in expectation of multiple possibilities and long-term growth and profits. Cherry-picking.

ENTp - ISFp - ISTj - ENFj : merry - process - carefree
The epitome of carefree. Rushing headlong, no care for consequences.

ESTj - INFj - ESFp - INTp : grave - process - calculating
Careful, determined navigation of course with little expectations good results but trying to avoid the worst.

ENTj - ISFj - ISTp - ENFp : grave - result - carefree
Being forced outside a process, independence and feeling of safety.

ESTp - INFp - ISFj - ENTj : result - compliant - resolute
ISTp - INTj - ESFj - ENFp: result - obstinate - judicious
ENFj - ISTj - ESFp - INTp: process - obstinate - resolute
ESTj - ISFp - INFj - ENTp: process - compliant - judicious

ESTp - INFp - ISFj - ENTj : result - compliant - resolute
Content in standing at center-stage. Selling out. Eyes on the prize. Expectation of rewards.

ISTp - INTj - ESFj - ENFp: result - obstinate - judicious
Highly individualist, standing apart of everything and just being oneself, pushing one's own agenda in a variety of ways without actually striving for anything in particular.

ENFj - ISTj - ESFp - INTp: process - obstinate - resolute
Choosing oneself as the instrument of change in the environment, either pushing against resistance or accepting the direction of the current and pushing even further.

ESTj - ISFp - INFj - ENTp: process - compliant - judicious
Accepting what needs to be done, and taking upon oneself to do it, inserting one's input through choosing the path of execution.


ESTp - INFp - INFj - ESTj : compliant - calculating - aristocratic
ENTp - ENTj - ISFj - ISFp : compliant - carefree - democratic
ISTp - ENFj - ENFp - ISTj : obstinate - carefree - aristocratic
INTp - INTj - ESFj - ESFp : obstinate - calculating - democratic

ESTp - INFp - INFj - ESTj : compliant - calculating - aristocratic
These are people who are taking heed and agreeing with the environment. Inclined to make sure of things. Careful preparation.

ENTp - ENTj - ISFj - ISFp : compliant - carefree - democratic
Encountering the troubles of being carefree, quickly starting to take notice of their surroundings, forced to adapt, sort of slowed down to a stand-still and gathering new energy.

ISTp - ENFj - ENFp - ISTj : obstinate - carefree - aristocratic
Headstrong action, running into troubles and through troubles. Pushing your own way despite opposition.

INTp - INTj - ESFj - ESFp : obstinate - calculating - democratic
Letting go of calculation, pushing forward as planned, gathering speed, opening up and showing your personal interests.






ESTp - ENFj - ESFp - ENTj : hot - resolute - strategic
ISTp - INFj - ISFp - INTj : cold - judicious - strategic
ESTj - ENFp - ESFj - ENTp : hot - judicious - tactical
ISTp - INFj - ISFp - INTj : cold - resolute - tactical

ESTp - ENFj - ESFp - ENTj : hot - resolute - strategic
Going for what is generally thought of as important. What is often seen as greed.

ISTp - INFj - ISFp - INTj : cold - judicious - strategic
Confidence in personal choices, rare and strange priorities.

ESTj - ENFp - ESFj - ENTp : hot - judicious - tactical
Practicing rare skills and qualities.

ISTp - INFj - ISFp - INTj : cold - resolute - tactical
Making oneself generally useful.

ESTp - ENFj - ENTp - ESFj : hot - creation-creating - merry
ISTp - INFj - INTp - ISFj : cold - creation-creating - grave
ESTj - ENFp - ENTj - ESFp : hot - emotion-creating - grave
ISTj - INFp - INTj - ISFp : cold - emotion-creating - merry


ESTp - ENFj - ENTp - ESFj : hot - creation-creating - merry
Confident over their experience, of having found something more powerful than others and willing to push this on others, to test what they've found.

ISTp - INFj - INTp - ISFj : cold - creation-creating - grave
Having understood through experience the weakness of the individual and accepting it. Having a learned method to cope with it.

ESTj - ENFp - ENTj - ESFp : hot - emotion-creating - grave
Curiosity, approaching others openly as a student. Knowing one's limitations and seeking new ways to surpass them.

ISTj - INFp - INTj - ISFp : cold - emotion-creating - merry
Confidence over personal ability to find a way to deal with any problem.


ESTp - ENFj - ENFp - ESTj : hot - negative - aristocratic
ENTp - ESFj - ESFp - ENTj : hot - positive - democratic
ISTp - INFj - INFp - ISTj : cold - positive - aristocratic
INTp - ISFj - ISFp - INTj : cold negative - democratic

ESTp - ENFj - ENFp - ESTj : hot - negative - aristocratic
Being socially controlled and therefore unable to freely express themselves. Likewise social controllers and punishers of people straying from the rules.

ENTp - ESFj - ESFp - ENTj : hot - positive - democratic
The wild ones. Freely expressing whatever they feel like and are capable of.

ISTp - INFj - INFp - ISTj : cold - positive - aristocratic
Social managers. Confident over their roles in the society, are liberated by filling that role.

INTp - ISFj - ISFp - INTj : cold negative - democratic
Social outsiders, privately lacking in capability, in need of others and troubled by that need.


ESTp - ENFj - INTj - ISFp : merry - negative - strategic
ENTp - ESTj - ISTj - INFp : merry - positive - tactical
ESFp - ENTj - INFj - ISTp : grave - positive - strategic
ENFp - ESTj - ISFj - INTp : grave - negative - tactical

ESTp - ENFj - INTj - ISFp : merry - negative - strategic
A feeling of being deprived of something important, being willing to do almost anything to gain it.

ENTp - ESFj - ISTj - INFp : merry - positive - tactical
Seeing great importance in something one does or is able to do. Being easily motivated to continue what one is doing, play with one's skills.

ESFp - ENTj - INFj - ISTp : grave - positive - strategic
Having focus on what one considers the most important thing and the capabilities it confers. Laxity over "minor issues".

ENFp - ESTj - ISFj - INTp : grave - negative - tactical
Confidence over one's skills in repairing what is broken, doing what is necessary, fixing things. Occupied over troubles.



ESTp - ENFj - ISFj - INTp : negative - resolute - creation-creating
ESTj - ENFp - ISFp - INTj : negative - judicious - emotion-creating
ENTp - ESFj - INFj - ISTp : positive - judicious - creation-creating
ESFp - ENTj - INFp - ISTj : positive - resolute - emotion-creating

ESTp - ENFj - ISFj - INTp : negative - resolute - creation-creating
A sort of wallowing over the same old, same old known problems. Unimaginativeness in the finding of solutions, dominance of familiar responses to familiar problems. Slogging onwards.

ESTj - ENFp - ISFp - INTj : negative - judicious - emotion-creating
Frustration over strange and unique problems and willingness to find strange and unique responses to them.

ENTp - ESFj - INFj - ISTp : positive - judicious - creation-creating
Comfort. Choosing familiar, personally suitable, nice ideas and ignoring the problems.

ESFp - ENTj - INFp - ISTj : positive - resolute - emotion-creating
Growth-orientedness. Looking for new ways to proactively gain profit from the general situation. Finding multiple ways to benefit from a situation. Energy.



ESTp - ENFj - INFj - ISTp : strategic - creation-creating - aristocratic
ESTj - ENFp - INFp - ISTj : tactical - emotion-creating - aristocratic
ENTj - ESFp - ISFp - INTj : strategic - emotion-creating - democratic
ENTp - ESFj - ISFj - INTp : tactical - creation-creating - democratic


ESTp - ENFj - INFj - ISTp : strategic - creation-creating - aristocratic
The group consists of people who are slowly giving up what they've trusted and upheld and finding new goals of value. They sort of hang on to what they know though they're no longer really supported by it. This group seems to act in self-defeating ways.

ESTj - ENFp - INFp - ISTj : tactical - emotion-creating - aristocratic
This group consists of individuals trying to turn what they've learned into practice. Generally a very active, vital seeming group with a sort of "I'll take care of it" -attitude.

ENTj - ESFp - ISFp - INTj : strategic - emotion-creating - democratic
This group consists of individuals in whom a chosen goal is rising their curiosity and openness to new things. A group that wants to learn very much.

ENTp - ESFj - ISFj - INTp : tactical - creation-creating - democratic
A group of proud proven masters of a certain set of skills. They feel they've reached what there is to reach and only small finishing touches are left to be handled.


The four group types mentioned below are mainly interesting due to their characteristic of being easier thought of as consisting of two types with a large variety rather than four with a smaller one. For example in the first group both ESTp and ENTp belong in the group by the virtue of their creative Ti and the perceiving functions have little to contribute to the group interaction. So it would be reasonable to think of it as a creating Te - Creating Ti diad.

ESTp - ENTp - INTp - ISTp : thinking - irrational - creation-creating
Been more or less described where the dichotomies were discussed originally


ESTp - ENTp - ENTj - ESTj : compliant- hot - thinking
Been more or less described where the dichotomies were discussed originally

ESTp - ESFp - ISFp - ISTp: sensory - strategic - irrational
Been more or less described where the dichotomies were discussed originally

ESTp - ESFp - ESFj - ESTj : hot - sensory - calculating
Been more or less described where the dichotomies were discussed
originally



...........................

ESTp - ENFp - ISFp - INTp : narrator - irrational - negative
These would be people who concentrate on the general lack of opportunities in the environment. They have explanations and reasons to pour down cold water on any grand plan as such don't generally succeed.

ISTj - INFj - ENTj - ESFj : narrator - rational - positive
Habitually all-knowing, seeing the good possibilities and convinced of their ability to control systems.

ESTj - ENFj - INTj - ISFj : taciturn - rational - negative
People who get stuck in circumstances, details and are generally bound by facts. Often disappointed in their inability to find a way to progress.

ISTp - INFp - ENTp - ESFp: taciturn - irrational - positive
Empowered by specific details and circumstances, able to accomplish many random things without apparent coherency.

...................................

ESTp - ENFp - ESFj - ENTj : narrator - result - hot
People who push their stories and explanations and for that reason have difficulty concentrating on personally actually doing anything significant for any length of time.

ISTj - INTp - INFj - ISFp : narrator - process - cold
People carried away by their own story, unable to relate to other possibilities.

ENFj - ESTj - ENTp - ESFp : taciturn - process - hot
People who are concentrated on the pursuit of changing a specific circumstance in their environment.

ISTp - INTj - INFp - ISFj : taciturn - result - cold
People who feel that they have certain unique experiences which they must come to terms with before they can concentrate on anything.

[felafel]

smilex, would it be awfully sad if i happen to mention that I'd possibly fail a test in smilexian socionics had there been one ?

This is week Te? Abstract Te?

oh, life's harsh

[krieger]

Don't worry, it's perfectly normal. This thread is the stuff of genius. Nobody swallows it whole and lives. :wink:

[jas05]

Don't worry, it's perfectly normal. This thread is the stuff of genius. Nobody swallows it whole and lives. :wink:

Oh how I love this!

[Jonathan]

ESTp - ISTj - INTp - ENTj : thinking - narrator - resolute
People who dictate terms, explain how things have to be and make a big splash in the environment that way. Pushy.

Just a small question...I don't see Socionics descriptions of ILI as being pushy or dictating terms. Maybe "pushover" is more like it ? NiTe in MBTI might be pushy though.

[Minde]

I put together some diagrams based on the clock-face illustrations in this thread. If you see any mistakes or have any suggestions on how to make them better or more complete, please let me know.

I have found them useful in understanding and remembering what's been presented in this thread.

[The Greeter]

Thanks for the diagrams, Minde. And Smilex too.