Socionics + Instinctual Variants

[limNol]

I think we should rescue instinctual variants from the enneagram and incorporate them into socionics because they make a lot of sense and would help sort out a lot of problems arising from intratype differences. If socionics describes how we perceive and modify the world around us, understanding socionics in light of instinctual variants would clarify how people allocate this 'perceiving' and 'modifying' energy.

This would also help prevent people trying to apply socionics from falling back onto stereotypes. For instance, an sp/sx ESE or an so/sx ILI would display the function order of their respective types, but neither would be a caricature of the stereotypical ESE or ILI.

Similarly, understanding how leading Te sx/sp manifests differently from leading Te so/sx (for example) would lead to a clearer understanding of different ways the same function can manifest in terms of the way different people allocate their energy, and it would make typing much easier.

I'll elaborate on the details of this later, but I think this would be a lot more helpful than a lot of the current subtype systems. Thoughts?

[Aleksei]

How is this different from simply combining instincts as used in Enneagram with Socionice types?

[Galen]

Hmm, interesting way of looking at it. I don't think I'd go to far as to call instinct stackings "subtypes" in as much as they are simply other means of typing. But seeing instinct stackings working in tangent with types/IEs seems like a worthwhile analysis. It does seem like something that would help to eliminate stereotypes, although it could just as easily lead to creating even more hyper-specified stereotypes than before (the odds of which don't seem that likely, considering the number of types in play).

[KazeCraven]

Probably best if we use this to get an idea of the scope of one's Socionic type. Does instinct change the axioms of Socionics? For example, does an ESE with sp/sx have different values of functions when compared to an sx/so ESE?

I doubt we can get reliable enough reads on these systems to do a good analysis of this at this point.

[limNol]

How is this different from simply combining instincts as used in Enneagram with Socionice types?

It's the difference between just using two systems simultaneously and actually using them in conjunction. I'm not just talking about figuring out your socionics type and then figuring out your instinctual variant -- I'm talking about integrating them in order to clarify each other. Socionics and instinctual variants fit together very well because socionics deals with what kinds of energy people are attentive to while instinctual variants are about where people direct this energy.

It does seem like something that would help to eliminate stereotypes, although it could just as easily lead to creating even more hyper-specified stereotypes than before (the odds of which don't seem that likely, considering the number of types in play).

It does seem unlikely since people fall back on stereotypes because they're too lazy to really analyze things. But when you have to juggle 96 stereotypes, analysis starts to seem more appealing. I don't really think of it as 96 distinct types though... rather, it's about recognizing the different dimensions to types and how the overall "energy" of one type can manifest itself through a variety of different channels.

Probably best if we use this to get an idea of the scope of one's Socionic type. Does instinct change the axioms of Socionics? For example, does an ESE with sp/sx have different values of functions when compared to an sx/so ESE?

It's more about creating a paradigm for applied socionics that makes it easier to handle intratype variation. Socionics theory is very clear cut, but when it comes to actually trying to type people and practically understand how their types manifest, there's a lot of ambiguity, and I'd be willing to bet that following through on the idea of integrating socionics type and instinctual variant would cut back on a lot of this ambiguity.

For instance, take the ESE sp/sx and the ESE sx/so. Let's say they want to know their socionics types, so they log into the16types and make a type thread. Most likely, there will be a lot of different types being thrown around, some of their behaviors will flat-out contradict the widely-accepted notion of ESE, etc. When people try to type the ESE sp/sx, Si ego will probably be easier to pick up on, but things like EJ temperament, Fe leading, etc. will be a lot harder to pick up on. They might even get typed SEI or something, even if their actual function ordering is that of an ESE. But a systematic understanding of how EJ temperament, Fe leading, etc. manifest via sp/sx channels will shed a lot of light on the type of the individual in question.

Similarly, the ESE sx/so will probably be more stereotypically Fe-leading, but Si will probably be less apparent. They might be mistyped EIE or something, but once again, their function ordering is that of an ESE, and understanding how Si-creative manifests in an sx/so type will clear things up.

In other words, you're right that this doesn't change the basic axioms of socionics. The problem is that there's a huge gap between the clarity of socionics' axioms and our ability to use socionics powerfully and accurately -- we gotta close that gap, or we're wasting our time here.

[KazeCraven]

This does give me an idea though. What happens when so-dominant and Fe PoLR collide? Does a person simply handle the social realm in a very logical fashion? Would such a person worry about group atmosphere?

I wonder if there's a rough correlation between these. Seems that if anything is happening here, it would be
Fi ~ sx
Fe ~ so

Another thought, which I think might actually be the case, is that the socionic type causes the manifestation of instinct. Instinctual types are pretty much considered inborn, but perhaps these are just results of one's Sociotype. Not to say that everyone would necessarily type as the same thing, but rather that the changeable part, the part induced by life experience, is the only part that varies.

[Galen]

I wonder if there's a rough correlation between these. Seems that if anything is happening here, it would be
Fi ~ sx
Fe ~ so

From what I've seen, no such correlation between instinct stacking and valued IEs, or even both socionics and enneagram types, exists. I'd like to see other people's thoughts on it though.

[limNol]

This does give me an idea though. What happens when so-dominant and Fe PoLR collide? Does a person simply handle the social realm in a very logical fashion? Would such a person worry about group atmosphere?

They would apply their ego functions towards social ends. They would still have Fe PoLR, but they would be probably be especially distressed with how their PoLR affects their social standing, more so than sx or sp Fe PoLR types.

People stereotype ILIs and SLIs as reclusive, phlegmatic, and asocial, but there are ILIs and SLIs who do pay a lot of attention to their social position. Fe != social stuff and Fe PoLR != being asocial.

[squark]

They would apply their ego functions towards social ends. They would still have Fe PoLR, but they would be probably be especially distressed with how their PoLR affects their social standing, more so than sx or sp Fe PoLR types.

People stereotype ILIs and SLIs as reclusive, phlegmatic, and asocial, but there are ILIs and SLIs who do pay a lot of attention to their social position. Fe != social stuff and Fe PoLR != being asocial.

True.

[Words]

They would apply their ego functions towards social ends. They would still have Fe PoLR, but they would be probably be especially distressed with how their PoLR affects their social standing, more so than sx or sp Fe PoLR types.

People stereotype ILIs and SLIs as reclusive, phlegmatic, and asocial, but there are ILIs and SLIs who do pay a lot of attention to their social position. Fe != social stuff and Fe PoLR != being asocial.

Most people pay attention to that stuff ime.

[limNol]

Most people pay attention to that stuff ime.

Of course, just like most people pay attention to all IEs. It's a matter of priority and degree.

[mikesilb]

For instance, take the ESE sp/sx and the ESE sx/so. Let's say they want to know their socionics types, so they log into the16types and make a type thread. Most likely, there will be a lot of different types being thrown around, some of their behaviors will flat-out contradict the widely-accepted notion of ESE, etc. When people try to type the ESE sp/sx, Si ego will probably be easier to pick up on, but things like EJ temperament, Fe leading, etc. will be a lot harder to pick up on. They might even get typed SEI or something, even if their actual function ordering is that of an ESE. But a systematic understanding of how EJ temperament, Fe leading, etc. manifest via sp/sx channels will shed a lot of light on the type of the individual in question.

Similarly, the ESE sx/so will probably be more stereotypically Fe-leading, but Si will probably be less apparent. They might be mistyped EIE or something, but once again, their function ordering is that of an ESE, and understanding how Si-creative manifests in an sx/so type will clear things up.

I am actually a so/sx ESE and I can see myself very similar to the other sp-last ESE that you mentioned here. High Fe (with solid resonance with EJ temperament) who fell into an EIE mistype for a long time. Not nearly as much Si as Fe, but fit the alpha quadra values quite well overall (vs. beta). Also, using the 2-subtype system, I would likely be an Fe-ESE (vs. the sp/sx ESE which would likely be an Si-ESE). So all this totally jibes with my own experience. As an sp-last ESE, I would undoubtedly prioritize everything slightly differently than an sp-dominant ESE.

All this makes sense!

[Korpsy Knievel]

All this makes sense!

You and Jonathan ought to mate.

[mikesilb]

LMAO!!! Friggin hilarious! I always enjoy reading your succinct responses to my posts! I find myself chuckling every time!

[Korpsy Knievel]

Most outstanding. A question: Do you create charts to better understand Model A?

[mikesilb]

No...but I feel like I have to use some sort of pneumonic 'algorithm' to determine what IM element is in what slot for a given type. For example, I know that for say, an SLI, since Si is the dominant, its alternative, Ni must be the role. Likewise, since Te must be the creative, its alternative, Fe must be the PoLR.

Then, the converse of Si, Ne must be the DS function, and so on...

It is as if I am following this mental map/algorithm in order to successfully identify which IM element in Model A fits in the right spot.

I'm not sure if this directly answers your question, but that is basically how I do it.

[Korpsy Knievel]

OK, thanks. What stands out for me in your response is the attention given to understanding dyadic sets within Model A, which suggests a general inclination toward finding the equilibrium in things. I am curious whether you've read this: http://scienceblogs.com/developingin...e-way-up-meta/ Attention also to @labster on this article.

[mikesilb]

Thanks for referring this article to me. It was an interesting one to check out! Admittedly, there was a bit of a language barrier in reading the article since my training has been in biochemistry rather than neuroscience. However, from what I generally understood, it appears that the article focuses on those sudden shifts that can transfer one's perception from one state to another, based on being perturbed from one low-energy state (across some energy barrier) to a second/alternative/adjacent low-energy state that causes a shift in what is being perceived ('the dancer dancing clockwise' shifts instantaneously to 'the dancer dancing counterclockwise'). (Am I understanding the concepts correctly?) So in essence, there is a competition between these two states of perception (with 'residence times' between the states that can vary depending on what is being assessed/perceived).

In biochemistry, there is also this constant competition between altering conformational states of proteins, etc. I have always found studying the nature of these competitive states to be interesting, because there is often some entropic element that makes catching a certain molecular state (that may or may not be more 'useful' than the alternative state) a matter of serendipitous timing. The interplay of time, randomness, energetic/conformational rearrangements and all that jazz makes this stuff quite interesting to investigate.

In terms of equilibrium...
I can tell you for sure that in my own life this type of equilibrium and stability is something that I like to achieve in general. I think that as an EJ type, I know that I would like to have that, and thus if something feels a bit out of sync in this sense, I will try to do whatever I can to address that 'out-of sync-ness' as soon as possible so that it gets altered sooner rather than later in favor of a greater stable equilibrium. I think that type 6s on the Enneagram are all about finding that seemingly elusive/evasive equilibrium, stable point. If they find it, it is all about holding on to it. However, if it is far from their grasp, they will do whatever they can to attain or reattain that equilibrium.

It's all about balance ...