3-letter code / 4-letter code

I prefer the 3 letter code just because it makes a clear distinction between socionics and MBTI (especially here in America where MBTI is widely known). Speaking socionics in 4 letter codes also makes it erroneously seem like types can be converted from one system to the other through whatever formula. My experience has revealed to me that typing socionically is way different from MBTI typing, and any similarities in letters between the 2 are purely coincidental.

That said, my preference is not THAT strong, as long as people understand the distinctions. My preference is more so as not to mislead the beginners than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

Like Aiss said, most Reinin dichotomies are explained by functions. The rest are simply no dichotomies in reality, neither Reinin himself doesn't believe in them anymore

---

Tuturututu and I recently found ways to explain them all in terms of the functions using T/F, S/N, Limiting/Empowering, Strong/Weak and Valued/Unvalued. A log of our chat on the subject is in the "more thoughts on interpreting symbols 2.0" thread.

Emotivism = Strong Limiting Serious, Strong Empowering Merry
Constructivism = Strong Limiting Merry, Strong Empowering Serious

Tactical = Strong Limiting Sensing, Strong Empowering Intuition
Strategical = Strong Limiting Intuition, Strong Empowering Sensing

Carefree = Valued Limiting Sensing, Valued Empowering Intuition
Calculated = Valued Limiting Intuition, Valued Empowering Sensing

Obstinate = Valued Limiting Ethics, Valued Empowering Logic (Limiting Ethics = Interest Protecting)
Compliant = Valued Limiting Logic, Valued Empowering Ethics (Limiting Logic = Resource Protecting)

Quote:

---

Invent new dichotomies (actually just terms) to justify the existing high-level ones?

---

No, using terms that have been useful in explaining phenomena before to explain more phenomena. Limiting/Empowering is already extensively used in my explanation of the workings of Accepting/Creating (aka dominant vs. auxiliary function).

Quote:

---

Limiting T and Empowering F", what means that?

---

It means exactly what the description say when they explain the dichotomy as interest protecting vs. resource protecting. In the Obstinates, the ethical function, the motivation, the interest is fixed and singular and thus unnegotiable and to be protected. In Compliants this goes for the logical function, the tool, the resource.

Quote:

---

Edit: labcoat, please provide the equations for the other dichotomies as well, in terms of empowering & stuff, I'm trying to grasp where you're coming from. What I'm interested in:
- Merry/Serious
- Judicious/Decisive
- Aristocratic/Democratic
- Dynamic/Static
- Extroverted/Introverted
- External/Internal

---

I don't think what you're asking makes sense. I regard most of these things as fundaments as much as I regard Limiting/Empowering as one.

I would challenge people to stop using the dichotomies, if they really want to help their grasp of Socionics to further develop.

It's generally because MBTI dichotomies don't really work much of the time at typing (say, for identifying legitimate quadra boundaries, which MBTI doesn't have.) There are said to be more INTPs than INTJs, where as there are probably a good number of INTPs who are INTj in Socionics, so that P/J dichotomy doesn't work when you're trying to decifer the difference, and the same goes for any of the dichotomies. MBTI still has "types," they're just not the same as Socionics. An INTP is an INTP because it favors Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Perceiving. An ENTj, INTj, ISTj, ISFj, whatever, could prefer those dichotomies and be an INTP. That doesn't mean MBTI is a bad typing system, as long as people realize its not Socionics because it doesn't work with intertype relations and the IMs. I would say that each type in MBTI is pretty "signature" and doesn't need to be correlated to Socionics, because in truth, it's not going to be that useful to do so. It will be more confusing, and you'll start integrating a lot of nonsense, people saying INTps are INTPs and the MBTI profile is the same for Socionics, it's just incorrect, and you have the reverse happening too, people typing in MBTI based on what Socionics says. But certain people like to tweak the truth to fit an easier concept.

dichotomie is just a smaller part of a function. so it's part of model A. Why throw it away?

Dividing people into halves instead of 8ths is easyer too.

until I found out how to convert the 3-letter code to 4-letter code I was messed up trying to figure out the 3-letter one.

simple guide of how to understand the 3-letter code (I found it out myself):

FIRST LETTER OF THE 3 LETTER CODE IS THE PREFERRED FUNCTION
SO LIE MEANS THE PERSON IS TJ IN THE FOUR LETTER CODE. ILE means person is NP. SIMPLE AS THAT. FIRST LETTER=PREFERRED FUNCTION OR EITHER PERCEIVING OR JUDGING.

SECOND LETTER IS THE SECOND FUNCTION. SO LIE MEANS PERSON HAS AS SECOND FUNCTION INTUITION.

LAST LETTER OF THE THREE LETTER CODE IS SIMPLY INTROVERT/EXTROVERT DICHOTOMY.

I USUALLY BEGIN TO CONVERT BY SEEING THE LAST LETTER, THEN I ALREADY KNOW IF IT´S AN INTRO OR EXTRO. THEN THE FIRST LETTER TELLS ME PREFERRED FUNCTION - FJ, NP, SP, TJ ARE THE POSSIBILITES.
THE SECOND LETTER IS THE SECOND FUNCTION THE PERSON USES.

BUT I DO PREFER 4 LETTER CODE... SINCE ALL THIS SHIT CAME FROM JUNG, SO STOP TRYING TO DO USELESS INNOVATIONS AND JUST GIVE JUNG THE CREDIT FOR BUILDING THE BASIS OF SOCIONICS, OF COURSE SOCIONICS IS WAY BETTER THAN SIMPLE JUNG OR MBTI, BUT JUNG WAS THE MAN WHO INTRODUCED THE MODEL. SO TO USE 3-LETTER CODE IS JUST TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR BEGGINERS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

dichotomie is just a smaller part of a function. so it's part of model A. Why throw it away?

Dividing people into halves instead of 8ths is easyer too.

---

The point you guys seem to be missing is to not throw away the integrity of typing for ease. Sure, keeping dichotomies and MBTI rhetoric makes things easier, but it also makes things wrong. Socionics isn't to be boxed and mass produced, it is completely different than MBTI even if it shares similar phenotypic qualities. It's better to promote the aspects of Socionics that people need to learn, and on top of that list are the IEs and function placements. The four-letter code derails from this, the three letter code is neutral, as it is just representative of the types, and just writing out the IEs in their placements (ie NeFi) directly shows people what they should be paying attention to concerning Socionics types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky

Sure, keeping dichotomies and MBTI rhetoric makes things easier, but it also makes things wrong.

---

what is wrong about dichotomies? they are part of model A, they are part of humans, they were the starting point of Jung.

btw I'm nowhere discussing mbti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky

The point you guys seem to be missing is to not throw away the integrity of typing for ease. Sure, keeping dichotomies and MBTI rhetoric makes things easier, but it also makes things wrong. Socionics isn't to be boxed and mass produced, it is completely different than MBTI even if it shares similar phenotypic qualities. It's better to promote the aspects of Socionics that people need to learn, and on top of that list are the IEs and function placements. The four-letter code derails from this, the three letter code is neutral, as it is just representative of the types, and just writing out the IEs in their placements (ie NeFi) directly shows people what they should be paying attention to concerning Socionics types.

---

True sky. I noticed you using that kind of nomenclature and I understood why--I like that actually. I still prefer using the 3-letter codes though personally just because it rolls off the tongue easier. :P But to help newbies, for sure, your way is best.

I also see functional assessment as central to socionic typing. Never understood the dichotomies, nor had any interest in deciphering them. Well I understand like the merry vs serious one, but the others seem very cryptic and not too clear as to how exactly they manifest. Never bothered to delve into gaining a better understanding of those.

I see the dichotomies as, like someone mentioned, an ok way to validate a typing determined by functional analysis, or a way to help clarify uncertainty between 2 or 3 possible typings, but not the end-all be-all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

I would challenge people to stop using the dichotomies, if they really want to help their grasp of Socionics to further develop.

It's generally because MBTI dichotomies ...

---

I would just point out that dichotomies are Jungian, not MBTI.

There's nothing wrong with using dichotomies ie E/I, N/S, T/F, rational irrational.

Indeed, as Jung pointed out, it's generally best to determine first of all if someone is either extraverted or introverted, and therefore which leading function/dichotomy they fall into, so if they are extraverted and logical then you can have EXTj, and that's just a case of determining the second function in the case of socionics.

Although Jung mainly spoke about dominant preferences of a type (dichotomy and functions), he did mention that types often have an auxillary function. (therefore 16 types).

So personally I don't mind combining the dichotomies with functions and other methods, it's case by case basis with a person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

what is wrong about dichotomies? they are part of model A, they are part of humans, they were the starting point of Jung.

btw I'm nowhere discussing mbti.

---

Dichotomies take the parts of types without the context, and use them to identify a type. To use one just brought up, "Merry vs Serious." Does this dichotomy exist? Yes, it exists as :Fe:/:Ti: valuing vs :Fi:/:Te: valuing, I'm not going to deny this or any other dichotomy. But what existed before the dichotomy is just valuing :Fe:, :Fi:, etc, and seeing how that manifests according to where it is in function placement. Dichotomies look for a shortcut to say, because they are a merry type, :Fe: and :Ti: are placed somewhere in the valued positions, and here is what all of those have in common. But the commonality is so percise, that it doesn't give a good reading of how :Fe: is presented by an NeTi vs SeTi, or FeNi vs TiSe. The popular usage of these dichotomies for typing is to see where a person fits into each dichotomy, and the type that fits into the same one is their type. But all these dichotomies do not carry the context of each type it represents. For example, NeFi might be "Intuitive" and "Feeling," but these as parts, along with the others, don't add up to NeFi. 1+1+1+1=4 only because there isn't any other context to evaluate.

I think dichotomies are an interesting tangent that is relevant to a point. Using the edited MBTI code for Socionics types places too much importance on the observance of dichotomies, which isn't necessary to be able to type. However, since understanding what IEs are in a type's ego and their overall placement is completely necessary, that should be stressed over dichotomies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky

Dichotomies take the parts of types without the context, and use them to identify a type. To use one just brought up, "Merry vs Serious." Does this dichotomy exist? Yes, it exists as :Fe:/:Ti: valuing vs :Fi:/:Te: valuing, I'm not going to deny this or any other dichotomy. But what existed before the dichotomy is just valuing :Fe:, :Fi:, etc, and seeing how that manifests according to where it is in function placement. Dichotomies look for a shortcut to say, because they are a merry type, :Fe: and :Ti: are placed somewhere in the valued positions, and here is what all of those have in common. But the commonality is so percise, that it doesn't give a good reading of how :Fe: is presented by an NeTi vs SeTi, or FeNi vs TiSe. The popular usage of these dichotomies for typing is to see where a person fits into each dichotomy, and the type that fits into the same one is their type. But all these dichotomies do not carry the context of each type it represents. For example, NeFi might be "Intuitive" and "Feeling," but these as parts, along with the others, don't add up to NeFi. 1+1+1+1=4 only because there isn't any other context to evaluate.

I think dichotomies are an interesting tangent that is relevant to a point. Using the edited MBTI code for Socionics types places too much importance on the observance of dichotomies, which isn't necessary to be able to type. However, since understanding what IEs are in a type's ego and their overall placement is completely necessary, that should be stressed over dichotomies.

---

oke for the record. when I say dichotomy I mean just the 4 dichotomies. (4 letter code)
Reinin has got nothing to do with it.

but wouldn't you agree that dichotomies are more visible in types then functions. (at first sight/contact)

Jung didn't discover functions, he discovered 4 dichotomies, because they are more noticable. Why would you want to get rid of such a great method.

Also: They might not have anything to do with 'valued' functions, but they have everything to do with 'ego' and 'strong' functions.

If you know the 3-type you can construct the 4-type easily, and vice versa.

For example, ESI = ethical sensing introvert (last letter defines introvert/extravert). Ethical implies F, so we have F S and then introvert giving Fi Se. Then since Socionics views the p preference depending on whether the dominant function is information-gathering or not (Ni, Ne, Si, or Se), you get IXXj, but since we have sensing we get ISXj, and since we have an F preference, we get ISFj. It's quite logical, perhaps too logical...but that's how you do it.

Then with the four letter, take INTp for example. We know they are introverted, so we just have to define the first two letters with the 1st and 2nd functions. In this case we have N T, since the p means the information gathering function is first (Ni, Ne, Si, or Se). So we have N T translating to intuitive logical introvert.

Or in other words. You have the following correlations

Fi <=> Fe == ethical
Ti <=> Te == logical
Ni <=> Ne == intuitive
Si <=> Se == sensing

Introvert/Extrovert goes last in the three letter code and the p/j corresponds to whether or not an information gathering function (Ni, Ne, Si, or Se) is first (meaning p) or a judgment function (Ti, Te, Fi, or Fe) is first (meaning j).

Yeah, I have time to spare so I thought I would write this and give someone that honestly hasn't spent the time to learn and care about this without looking it up in a table a decent explanation.

0_o, haha.

Oh, and I'm not held liable for any mistakes I accidentally might have made. That's why I made you sign that waiver ;P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airborne

until I found out how to convert the 3-letter code to 4-letter code I was messed up trying to figure out the 3-letter one.

simple guide of how to understand the 3-letter code (I found it out myself):

FIRST LETTER OF THE 3 LETTER CODE IS THE PREFERRED FUNCTION
SO LIE MEANS THE PERSON IS TJ IN THE FOUR LETTER CODE. ILE means person is NP. SIMPLE AS THAT. FIRST LETTER=PREFERRED FUNCTION OR EITHER PERCEIVING OR JUDGING.

SECOND LETTER IS THE SECOND FUNCTION. SO LIE MEANS PERSON HAS AS SECOND FUNCTION INTUITION.

LAST LETTER OF THE THREE LETTER CODE IS SIMPLY INTROVERT/EXTROVERT DICHOTOMY.

I USUALLY BEGIN TO CONVERT BY SEEING THE LAST LETTER, THEN I ALREADY KNOW IF IT´S AN INTRO OR EXTRO. THEN THE FIRST LETTER TELLS ME PREFERRED FUNCTION - FJ, NP, SP, TJ ARE THE POSSIBILITES.
THE SECOND LETTER IS THE SECOND FUNCTION THE PERSON USES.

BUT I DO PREFER 4 LETTER CODE... SINCE ALL THIS SHIT CAME FROM JUNG, SO STOP TRYING TO DO USELESS INNOVATIONS AND JUST GIVE JUNG THE CREDIT FOR BUILDING THE BASIS OF SOCIONICS, OF COURSE SOCIONICS IS WAY BETTER THAN SIMPLE JUNG OR MBTI, BUT JUNG WAS THE MAN WHO INTRODUCED THE MODEL. SO TO USE 3-LETTER CODE IS JUST TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR BEGGINERS.

---

This is why I keep using the 4...why don't we just use them interchangeably? Don't get upset, because they are trying to complicate the system for other reasons then to just keep things simple, that is, they are trying to figure out, in mathematical or logical terms, what/how the different relationship dynamics work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

There is a possibility to make a binary notation:

- "What's your type, JohnDo?"
- "I'm a thousand"

---

Must be something wrong with this table... See wikipedia for a correct one...

Bitwise notation is very useful to remember intertype relatinonships. INTj/ENTp = 0110 = Mirror. Easy to remember.

Lol, people still don't get it. The only way you can be sure of an accurate typing is by knowing someone's information elements. You can fit ILI and Ni dominant, Te creative, for instance and not fit the "INTP" dichotomies in Socionics or Jungian typology that well, or you can fit the "INTP" dichotomies exactly, but not be a Gamma with leading Ni. So, again, I don't know why people are confused or still think the dichotomies are all that good. I wish you'd stop thinking so much about them and how they're "simple," because they're not effective. If you can witness one thing from MBTI, its that the dichotomies and functions don't match up perfectly. And its obvious that its the same for Socionics. Nothing has been perfected, and you're not going to be sure of your type if you don't know your dominant function and quadra values. You can't just say, "I fit INTP, so ESFP is my dual. I should look for someone with those 4 characteristics."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

Lol, people still don't get it. The only way you can be sure of an accurate typing is by knowing someone's information elements. You can fit ILI and Ni dominant, Te creative, for instance and not fit the "INTP" dichotomies in Socionics or Jungian typology that well, or you can fit the "INTP" dichotomies exactly, but not be a Gamma with leading Ni. So, again, I don't know why people are confused or still think the dichotomies are all that good. I wish you'd stop thinking so much about them and how they're "simple," because they're not effective. If you can witness one thing from MBTI, its that the dichotomies and functions don't match up perfectly. And its obvious that its the same for Socionics. Nothing has been perfected, and you're not going to be sure of your type if you don't know your dominant function and quadra values.

---

How can someone be NiTe but not correspond to I N T P. Since the dichotomies are connected to functions.

Also just for the record, stop suggesting that dichotomies are only for MBTI, when they are also part of socionics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

How can someone be NiTe but not correspond to I N T P. Since the dichotomies are connected to functions.

---

Where does it ever say the dichotomies are connected to the functions? I can understand how a retard might think that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

Where does it ever say the dichotomies are connected to the functions?

---

ahhh here we are. So that's what you think. nice.

I don't see how any of my posts in this thread could imply that I was thinking what you quoted. How you read my mind is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

You're wrong. Nobody is looking to find those out, they are already, that *is* Socionics, not the four dichotomies!

---

People equate Socionics with typology, with Jung; that's just the way the trend is headed so either go for the ride or go against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

I don't see how any of my posts in this thread could imply that I was thinking what you quoted. How you read my mind is beyond me.

---

ah you are trying to back up. sorry too late, you've proven your noobness by saying that dichotomies aren't connected to functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

but wouldn't you agree that dichotomies are more visible in types then functions. (at first sight/contact)

---

Yes, I would agree that the general topical traits of dichotomies are more visible. But they are also more ambiguous to leading to a definitive type, and also (taking for first statement in the post), not every type takes the full breadth of each dichotomy that is present in both MBTI and Socionics, or that is Jungian. For example, when it comes to the E/I dichotomy, sure, there are some really extroverted characteristics that are easily observable. But how E is interpreted isn't paralleled in Socionics, as well as there isn't a gradation of dichotomies in Socionics like there is in MBTI (like how someone can be 60% E and 40% I). So if I showed you a TiSe who was E (I have an example of one in my life), how would you explain that? The qualities of E vs I are purely topical in Socionics because the IEs don't equate to either. This is the same with the J/P binary, the qualities that come along with the Jungian J/P dichotomy are spotty at best in Socionics types.

I honestly see this "more visible," ie easier, way of justifying the use of dichotomies enough to promote its awareness through the type's name is a cop out and takes away the only integrity these types have as statements on their own. Yes, :Ne: is harder to pin down on a person, but :Ne: leading does not mean the person has the qualities of E, N, and P, as the letters themselves are only representative of surface personality traits that do not have a causal relationship to IEs. This is where you're tripping up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

Jung didn't discover functions, he discovered 4 dichotomies, because they are more noticable. Why would you want to get rid of such a great method.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

ah you are trying to back up. sorry too late, you've proven your noobness by saying that dichotomies aren't connected to functions.

---

You're reliance on the roots of Socionics is a weak one, and honestly, it is where you constantly retreat to. Both MBTI and Socionics are NOT Jung's inventions, they are influenced and adapted from his findings. There isn't a strict observance of Jung's teachings and definitions, both MBTI and Socionics took the model of cognition he was starting and grew off of that. It's not Jung's hypothesis that is popular, it's MBTI. What Jung is more often cited for is his writings on archetypes, it's there you can be a little more fundamentalist. What you're saying is to replace the importance of IEs and substitute for what you believe are well established dichotomies. Really, I don't know why you don't prefer MBTI after they have been developing functions as an auxiliary mode of deepening their types.

I ask you this, why do you prefer Socionics over MBTI? Or, do you not prefer it and are just here to check it out? Because you are way too attached to your opinion on the usefulness of dichotomies, which is exactly how MBTI types, and what Socionics is not founded on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

ah you are trying to back up. sorry too late, you've proven your noobness by saying that dichotomies aren't connected to functions.

---

So you think I'm an ENTp and I'm the highest in INtroversion. I'm more introverted than you, probably.

Quote:

---

So you think I'm an ENTp and I test the highest in INtroversion. I'm more introverted than you, probably.

---

Goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky

Yes, I would agree that the general topical traits of dichotomies are more visible. But they are also more ambiguous to leading to a definitive type, and also (taking for first statement in the post), not every type takes the full breadth of each dichotomy that is present in both MBTI and Socionics, or that is Jungian. For example, when it comes to the E/I dichotomy, sure, there are some really extroverted characteristics that are easily observable. But how E is interpreted isn't paralleled in Socionics, as well as there isn't a gradation of dichotomies in Socionics like there is in MBTI (like how someone can be 60% E and 40% I). So if I showed you a TiSe who was E (I have an example of one in my life), how would you explain that? The qualities of E vs I are purely topical in Socionics because the IEs don't equate to either. This is the same with the J/P binary, the qualities that come along with the Jungian J/P dichotomy are spotty at best in Socionics types.

I honestly see this "more visible," ie easier, way of justifying the use of dichotomies enough to promote its awareness through the type's name is a cop out and takes away the only integrity these types have as statements on their own. Yes, :Ne: is harder to pin down on a person, but :Ne: leading does not mean the person has the qualities of E, N, and P, as the letters themselves are only representative of surface personality traits that do not have a causal relationship to IEs. This is where you're tripping up.





You're reliance on the roots of Socionics is a weak one, and honestly, it is where you constantly retreat to. Both MBTI and Socionics are NOT Jung's inventions, they are influenced and adapted from his findings. There isn't a strict observance of Jung's teachings and definitions, both MBTI and Socionics took the model of cognition he was starting and grew off of that. It's not Jung's hypothesis that is popular, it's MBTI. What Jung is more often cited for is his writings on archetypes, it's there you can be a little more fundamentalist. What you're saying is to replace the importance of IEs and substitute for what you believe are well established dichotomies. Really, I don't know why you don't prefer MBTI after they have been developing functions as an auxiliary mode of deepening their types.

I ask you this, why do you prefer Socionics over MBTI? Or, do you not prefer it and are just here to check it out? Because you are way too attached to your opinion on the usefulness of dichotomies, which is exactly how MBTI types, and what Socionics is not founded on.

---

Igor Weisband cofounder of socionics claimes that he and augusta used the 4 dichotomies as their first typing method. What's your respons to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

So you think I'm an ENTp and I'm the highest in INtroversion. I'm more introverted than you, probably.

---

There is no scale, you are either introverted or extraverted.

I think you are ENTP and NOOB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

I think you are ENTP and NOOB.

---

Okay. What's your definition of an extrovert and an introvert? If it applies to me, then I'll dig around for some courtesy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

Okay. What's your definition of an extrovert and an introvert? If it applies to me, then I'll dig around for some courtesy.

---

maybe these are startingpoints

Socionics :: Extraversion / Introversion

Extraversion and introversion - Wikisocion

Quote:

---

There is no scale, you are either introverted or extraverted.

I think you are ENTP and NOOB.

---

He just told you he consistently tests as introvert. How dense can you be to still not see how your opinion on his type is impossible to combine with your views on the strict appliance of dichotomies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

Igor Weisband cofounder of socionics claimes that he and augusta used the 4 dichotomies as their first typing method. What's your respons to that?

---

I tried looking up this information but couldn't find where he was quoted or described saying that. Do you mind providing the source? Either way, from what I could tell, Weisband made tests that were faulty and later were going to be improved upon (though the general consensus is that you can't test for a Socionics type) and that he created what we know of the type descriptions, and I think we all already have an opinion on that. I think that the type descriptions all around clearly include the observance of strict Jung dichotomies, but that is what makes typing ourselves and others so confusing, because they are of topical personality traits. In the lecture I was reading, it was mentioned that Weisband borrowed from MBTI to make his descriptions clearer, but at the time didn't realize that Socionics and MBTI's take on how dichotomies were used and defined were different. So, I don't know how relevant that dichotomies were part of the initial process but are being worked out of the final product. Reading through the lecture, it's clearer to me that more Socionics followers place a lot more of importance on IEs and functions placements than dichotomies, as it is seen as the major difference between it and MBTI. I don't know why you cling onto dichotomies being so important. They have a place, but it's not before IEs and the functions, no where close.

ETA: And thanks for completely sidestepping my questions, by the way, after I thoroughly answer your's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

There is no scale, you are either introverted or extraverted.

---

You certainly know that Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69 is of the opinion that there is a scale, actually...

There are certain traits that influence social activity much in the same way as introvert/extrovert does. On the whole, the types that are introvert, intuitive and thinking are far more traditionally introverted than types that possess only some of these properties.

Polikujm, what do you actually type yourself?

In regards to this discussion, and what you've asked, in a nutshell extraversion is the focus on the object and introversion is the focus on the idea. This is basically what Jung described and it's what socionics is.

Just incase, if you type as an introvert but you are actually an extravert (I don't know what you actually type yourself as) then there's either something wrong with the tests your doing or you have a pretty poor self-understanding/perception.

------------------------

Also, I find it strange that people are asking for definition of E and I, and disputing this dichotomy in particular. Without this socionics is meaningless. That everyone has a primary focus on either the object or the idea, is a fundamental empirically observed fact by Jung, an actual trained psychologist with numerous experiences of people and patients to draw upon. It's also consistently obvious to anyone with even no interest of knowledge of psychological types or even just psychology in general once it's explained, so I suppose don't really understand the problem here - if there is one, and if there is it sounds like people maybe just want to make this more complicated or are not fully educated on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky

I tried looking up this information but couldn't find where he was quoted or described saying that.

---

he told this at the germany meetup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

Case in point: "as their first". Then they corrected the inconsistencies, developed this further and invented Socionics.

---

Igor Weisband still uses it.

Not sure what you're looking for. Whether someone uses dichotomies or not, you obviously put too much weight in it. The majority of the Socionics community has found that heavy reliance one dichotomies to type is counter-productive. They're all good for some analysis and generating patterns, maybe, but for typing, IEs + function placements is absolutely the best way to type. I don't think this discussion can go much further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

There's no such evidence.

---

He used it to type potatospirit (or something) who was also present at the germany meetup.

the 3-letter code :)