The Esssence and Origin of Socionics

[Aramas]

So, I've speculated before about the origins of Socionics. This might be based on something I have heard in the distant past about Socionics, but at least based on my own memory, it seems like I came up with it from my own musing. It could also be something others have thought before themselves. But regardless of the source, I'd like to talk about this topic.

So here we go. The basis of Socionics is the answer to two questions:

1) How do we acquire resources? (NeSi & NiSe)
2) How do we deal with other people? (FiTe & FeTi)

The NiSe method of gathering resources is focused on acquisition through some method other than cultivation. Finding and appropriating resources (like food, for instance) is something that is done in a hunter/gatherer style. They take what already exists in the sensory department and use it. Ni in its original context most likely existed as a means of predicting which necessary resources would be available in the future for acquisition, and where those might be found. Because of the often cyclical aspect of nature and the seasons and how resources replenish themselves over time, Ni itself bears an awareness of cyclicality. Hunter/gatherer tribes often would keep moving and returning to the same spots throughout the year, going to each as it came to fruition at the proper time.

The NeSi method of resource gathering is focused more on cultivation. The original form of this function can most likely be seen in the tendency toward agrarianism. Subtle attention is required to cultivate resources, and the ability to protect cultivated land and crops and other resources from harm by external forces (such as deer, other groups of raiding/roving humans) is necessary. It is also necessary to be aware of which quality crops would be best to cultivate in the future, and to save those for future use to increase future bounties and crop fertility. While Si is more focused on the day-to-day defense of land and preservation of physical resources, the attendant purpose of Ne was to speculate about what potential plots of land or regions might bear the best opportunity for future cultivation. Some land, while extraordinarily fertile, is also extremely fragile. So finding land that is both fertile and durable is important to the success of agriculture.


The judging functions deal more with dealing with other people.

The FeTi dyad is associated with higher population density. That means more people and less space. When in this scenario, division of labor is more specialized, and individuals take up work that benefits not only themselves, but also the social community in which they live, because, due to the specialization of labor, no one person has all the skills necessary for survival, or even close. This specialization of labor naturally entails a social responsibility that requires a function like Fe to bind the units of society together. In the presence of a highly dense population, people whose character is too different from the norm are anathema, because there must be at least some modicum of similarity and homogeneity to support the coming together of so many people into a functioning unity. The functional skills necessary here are the ones that allow one to have passing acquaintances and to be genial to many people. Dealing with constantly shifting social scenarios with many new people is associated with this dyad.

The FiTe dyad is associated with lower population density. That means fewer people in more space. When in this scenario, division of labor is rather unspecialized. People in this scenario learn a wide variety of skills necessary for survival, because there are not enough people to allow for extreme specialization. Deep differences can be allowed, because the people in these societies have a wider skillset that permits autonomous function, as well as enough space to permit people to live apart in case of disagreement of character. The skills used for dealing with these people often have an emphasis on more long-term interaction, because there are fewer people and fewer opportunities to meet different people.

There are likely a great number of consequences, implications, and other conclusions that can be derived from these ideas. I welcome anyone who would like to use these ideas as a starting point for further development to do so.

Another implication of this mode of thought is that the idea commonly thought of as "quadra progression" or a "law of quadra progression" becomes pointless. Quadra progression is not defined by a definite progression from one quadra into another, necessarily. Instead, society takes shape on the basis of whatever method for acquiring resources and dealing with people works best for a given situation. So, there is not any necessary order for what quadra must come after another. What quadra comes next in the progression is simply defined by what methods work best for the people in a society for their survival. The knowledge gained from any prior progression is most likely subsumed into the next cycle, and evolution continues in the style of an upward helix assuming a lack of a catastrophe that is too severe for humans to cope with. When looking at the idea of quadra progression, I think it's necessary to see it as something that is similar to "boxes within boxes" for lack of a better term. It's possible that a society has longer-term progressions, and, within those, short-term progressions that define decades and shorter periods of time. The longer-term progressions define eras, ages, periods, and so on. So this is a holographic or compositional way of thinking of quadra progression.

This view of Socionics is evolutionary, naturalistic, and based on thinking about socionics as a means of survival. I think it's the best explanation I've come up with for how Socionics and typology came to be. If you think about it, all societies can really fit neatly into one of the four categories I've mentioned, and that is perhaps the source of the functions, quadras, types, etc.


This has been a really disorganized and kinda crazy post, but I have been looking to get these ideas out for some time, and I'm not good at organization like that, so I thought I'd just spew it out for you guys to see and read and think about.


Edit for addition of new thought:

When we think about why we have what functions we do, and why there aren't others, and perhaps cannot be others, it's because the methods we have of acquiring resources or dealing with others are limited to a small number of possibilities. We can either get our resources or make them. We can either deal with a lot of people or a few people. There aren't really any other options.