3-letter code / 4-letter code

[JohnDo]

I think it is very confusing for every beginner that there are these two different systems. Some people prefer the 3-letter code, others the 4-letter code, others are indifferent and use both.

In threads on this forum most people seem to answer using the system the thread opener uses. If the title of a thread is "LII or ILI" most people also talk about "LII" and "ILI". But some people don't like the 3-letter code and talk about "INTj" and "INTp" in the same thread. When I started studying socionics I found that very confusing.

At the very beginning I worked with a table: "What the heck is ESI? Let's look it up... Ah, it's ISFj!" Then I thought: "I can't work with this stupid table for all my life." So I started reading the 3-letter code backwards to translate it into the familiar 4-letter code:
1.) ESI backwards = ISE
2.) E=F so ISE=ISF
3.) E or L at the beginning -> last letter = j
---> ESI = ISFj
Of course it is not difficult but it is a pain in the arse...

People who have studied socionics for several months have no problems with translating 3-letter code into 4-letter code: SEI - ISFp, ILI - INTp, LSE - ESTj. I just know because I have several examples of every type in mind.

Nevertheless, for beginners it is confusing. Why can't we come to an agreement? It would make it much easier for beginners to study socionics if only one system was used on this forum.

Benefits of the 3-letter code:
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Jungian dichotomies
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Reinin dichotomies
- can't be confused with MBTI notation
- more traditional

Benefits of the 4-letter code:
- makes it easier to use Jungian dichotomies
- makes it easier to use Reinin dichotomies
- makes it easier to work with clubs and temperaments
- makes it easier to remember intertype relationships
- makes it easier for beginners who are familiar with MBTI

[Absurd]

I don't care. It's all the same.

[krieger]

I like the 4 letter code, because it transmits the most visible characteristics of a type. The letters paint a good picture of what the type "is like". Functions still have a little bit of a mumbo jumbo factor and are represented perfectly fine by the use of Ti, Te, etc and the shape symbols.

[Aiss]

Benefits of the 3-letter code:
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Jungian dichotomies
- Rick DeLong likes it because it makes it more difficult to work with Reinin dichotomies
- can't be confused with MBTI notation
- more traditional

Benefits of the 4-letter code:
- makes it easier to use Jungian dichotomies
- makes it easier to use Reinin dichotomies
- makes it easier to work with clubs and temperaments
- makes it easier to remember intertype relationships
- makes it easier for beginners who are familiar with MBTI

Makes it easier for beginners familiar with MBTI to confuse the notations?

[Crispy]

Nothing will be confused as long as they read all 16 socionics type descriptions. They should probably read their MBTI type, followed by types of the same club, etc. Then it will be clear which Most fits them.

[MatthewZ]

Representing the rationality dichotomy with j/p make confusion with MBTI easier. It's the rational/irrational dichotomy, NOT judging/perceiving. Dichotomies are essential to understanding MBTI as dichotomies create the types. In Socionics, however types are created by the Information Elements and these types create dichotomies, not the other way around. That's a lesson much easier to learn if we don't represent the types with four dichotomies.

Anyways, speaking as someone who was a beginner in Socionics but at the time much more familiar with MBTI, I have to disagree that the four-letter code makes learning easier. Anyone familiar with MBTI knows that an IP type leads has Ti or Fi as their dominant function. J/P in MBTI determines the "first" extroverted function, not the dominant function. I find it easier for relationships to see "Oh, LxI is -base and xEE is -creative, thus -PoLR, so it's either a supervision or conflict relationship."

[Aiss]

I find it easier for relationships to see "Oh, LxI is -base and xEI is -creative, thus -PoLR, so it's either a supervision or conflict relationship."

Except xEI is -creative.

I agree with the rest, as I have similar experience.

[MatthewZ]

Except xEI is -creative.

I agree with the rest, as I have similar experience.

'twas a typo. Meant to put xEE.

[717495]

I think the 4 letter notation should eventually be gotten rid of (even though its in my signature :/). 3 letter is more Socionics-y and you don't get confused with MBTI, since they're 2 different things. Dichotomies don't really play a large importance in Socionics, so if we can make a letter system that works better with the IMs, it would be ideal.

Part of me wants to keep the 4 letters because it looks cooler, but I know its wrong.

[JohnDo]

Representing the rationality dichotomy with j/p make confusion with MBTI easier. It's the rational/irrational dichotomy, NOT judging/perceiving.

I disagree. Judging/perceiving is a better name for this dichotomy because "irrational" can be understood as absurd or stupid. The definitions are more or less identical, MBTI just uses a different order of functions...

Dichotomies are essential to understanding MBTI as dichotomies create the types. In Socionics, however types are created by the Information Elements and these types create dichotomies, not the other way around. That's a lesson much easier to learn if we don't represent the types with four dichotomies.

There is no lesson to learn, it is just a matter of taste! Types are types. We can define them by
- functions: NeTi, NiTe etc.
- dichotomies: INTp, INTj etc.
- historical persons: Balzac, Robespierre etc.
- nicknames: Critic, Analyst etc.
- 3-letter code: ILI, LII etc.
Just a matter of taste...

I find it easier for relationships to see "Oh, LxI is -base and xEE is -creative, thus -PoLR, so it's either a supervision or conflict relationship."

IxTj * ExFp = 0000 (conflict) or 0100 (j>p-supervision). I think it is easier this way...

[717495]

No, because the actual relation description defines what the information elements are doing in comparison to each other's functions. It can't be described through the dichotomies. Also, J is judging, but LII isn't a judging type, its a "rational" type, and most importantly LII is always a dominant. There's a difference in the systems, its not MBTI. Just because you're an INTJ in MBTI is not any kind of code for saying that you're also that in Socionics. Especially if you use dichotomies, and don't stick to understanding IMs primarily, you miss the entire point of Socionics.

[JohnDo]

No, because the actual relation description defines what the information elements are doing in comparison to each other's functions. It can't be described through the dichotomies.

It can be easier remembered through the dichotomies:

What type of relation is INTj - INTp.

First method:
Dichotomy correspondence 1110
-> quasi-identity

Second method:
INTj = Ti Ne Fi Se Fe Si Te Ni
INTp = Ni Te Si Fe Se Fi Ne Ti
Functions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 reflect on functions 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
-> quasi-identity

Equivalent but the second method is much more complicated.

[Aiss]

I disagree. Judging/perceiving is a better name for this dichotomy because "irrational" can be understood as absurd or stupid. The definitions are more or less identical, MBTI just uses a different order of functions...

There is no lesson to learn, it is just a matter of taste! Types are types. We can define them by
- functions: NeTi, NiTe etc.
- dichotomies: INTp, INTj etc.
- historical persons: Balzac, Robespierre etc.
- nicknames: Critic, Analyst etc.
- 3-letter code: ILI, LII etc.
Just a matter of taste...

IxTj * ExFp = 0000 (conflict) or 0100 (j>p-supervision). I think it is easier this way...

While J can stand for judgmental.

Information elements >> dichotomies. IMO.

And if you have to do xor, at least use xor notation. Please.

[MatthewZ]

I disagree. Judging/perceiving is a better name for this dichotomy because "irrational" can be understood as absurd or stupid. The definitions are more or less identical, MBTI just uses a different order of functions...

Sure, some have argued that the dichotomies have a close correlation because they're based on the same area of Jung's work and it's true that the English Translations of Socionics terms transmit a different impression than they do in Russian,(ex: erotic attitudes) but the ordering of information elements are entirely different. The information elements are the basis of forming intertype relationships. Dichotomies are merely extracted from this. It's easier to convince someone familiar with MBTI that their dual has complementary functions to them, rather than to state that their dual is opposite on the N/S dichotomy. A dual and a conflictor can be thought of as "one dichotomy off" or "entirely different ego functions."

There is no lesson to learn, it is just a matter of taste! Types are types. We can define them by
- functions: NeTi, NiTe etc.
- dichotomies: INTp, INTj etc.
- historical persons: Balzac, Robespierre etc.
- nicknames: Critic, Analyst etc.
- 3-letter code: ILI, LII etc.
Just a matter of taste...

Yes, they all express the same type, but they all give different impressions of what each type fundamentally is. The four-letter code gives the impression that types are built from dichotomies and implies that intertype relationships are also built from dichotomies. (making it puzzling how one's conflictor, which has 3 of the jungian dichotomies of one's dual, is generally viewed as a negative relationship)

IxTj * ExFp = 0000 (conflict) or 0100 (j>p-supervision). I think it is easier this way...

Sure, it's an easy algorithm for remembering some relationships,(it requires separate pairs based on j/p for relationships with adjacent quadras, for a total of 24 relationships to memorize) but it doesn't explain why the given relationships are as they are. It's just a shortcut that only provides beginning learners a superficial knowledge of intertype relationships. It's pure wrote memorization than anything, and that doesn't make it more effective than the natural connections gained from genuine understanding.

[Aiss]

The four-letter code gives the impression that types are built from dichotomies and implies that intertype relationships are also built from dichotomies.

Not to mention it makes one think of purely traits-based systems such as Big Five.

[Suz]

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.

[krieger]

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)

[krieger]

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).

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.

[krieger]

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.

[717495]

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.

[mu4]

three letter code is better and differentiates from MBTI better. No confusion of INTj with INTJ. Two letter codes is hard to figure out I/E which is actually really important.

[yeves]

the 3-letter code

[ClownsandEntropy]

Where's the two letter option? http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ation_elements Type LI woo!

[The Exception]

Where's the two letter option? http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ation_elements Type LI woo!

The 2 letter option I find confusing. I tend to confuse T (Ni) with thinking, I (Ne) with introversion, and E (Fe) with extraversion.

There's also the nickname designation. Robespierre for LII, Huxley for IEE, etc. I find that confusing for beginners. It's a whole new list of things to memorize.

I prefer using symbols or three letter codes.

Four letter codes are too easily confused with MBTI types.

[Olly From Wally World]

3 letter code only because there's no doubt you're talking about socionics when you see it. 4 letter code can be confused for MBTI especially if people say it in all lowercase or caps (ex: infp or INFP). I think the four letter code is more flexible though so when needing to use 'x' for uncertainty or to group types up, it's better. Like if you are stuck between ENTj or ENTp you can say ENTx. Can't really do that with the 3 letter code.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The 4 letter code is still easier for me (if I wanted to make a note of something related to a type and wish to record it accurately - where there is a chance I will go with what I wrote, it would lead to less mistakes, and it is perhaps quicker for me to comprehend). But the 3 letter code is better for the MBTI-related issues that people have mentioned.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Yeah I'm also pro-3-letters because it's obv socionics when you mention it. Also, it has a bit more of a focus on what your dominant function is and what your creative function is, which is kind of what I see is the crux of Socionics.

[Orest Reinn]

I kinda prefer the 4 letters notation. In the other one, the letters I and E have two different meanings, which is especially confusing in case of NF types. I would really love a hybrid notation that uses the 4L letters in the 3L notation, like NFE instead of IEE. This way is way more intuitive, the clubs are easily recognizable this way, and so are whole types.

Oh and some of the types like SEE or EII sound awkward when you say them aloud.