The Theory of 3
Hey 16types, MD here. I know I’ve been busy and don’t post as much anymore, but I’ve been thinking through an idea for a while which can greatly help people in typing others.
The best way I can explain is by playing a quick mystery game. We’re going to try to figure out someone’s type. Now, for this game, we’re going to make 2 assumptions:
1) We’re all well-versed in socionics theory, and can 100% accurately identify which function is being used: Fe, Fi, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Ne, Ni. Now, I know realistically, there are always arguments over which function somebody is using. But, for this experiment, we’re going to assume we can accurately figure it out.
2) We’re all well-versed in how the functions interact with each other. A person subconsciously forces a 2nd person to use the 1st person’s 5th function, and a person receiving information through their 6th function is ‘activated’ to use their leading function, etc.
Ok, now time to play.
You observe an interaction between Mary and Steve. You notice Mary using a lot of Se, and Steve using a lot of Ti. Both seem to appear happy, and both are enjoying the interaction. What type is Mary?
…
Answer: Need more information.
You now observe an interaction between Mary and Joe. You notice Mary using a lot of Fe, and Joe using a lot of Ti. Both seem to appear happy, and both are enjoying the interaction. What type is Mary?
…
Answer: Still can’t definitely type! WHY NOT?
What is going on here? How can this logically be viable? In the 1st case, Mary was using Se with someone using Ti, and in the 2nd case she was using Fe. Both interactions were enjoyable. How is this possible?
I’ll explain how it’s possible. Put simply, any interaction with another person, you are subconsciously being forced to use what they want in the environment. Going back to assumption #2: Certain functions just ‘feed’ off of each other, ie. Fi supporting Te and vice versa, Si supporting Ne and vice versa, etc.
But MD, what does this have to do with typing people?
Look at interaction #1: You might assume Mary is an Se-ego type and Steve is a Ti-ego type. Both are using those respective functions and enjoying the interaction. But this might not be the case. They might just be fulfilling what the other needed in ‘the environment’ of the conversation.
Look at interaction #2: This time Mary is using Fe, and Joe is using Ti. Again, you might assume that they are using their ego functions. Truth be told, it’s still impossible to be sure what types either of them are!!
Answer: Mary is an ESFj. In interaction #1, she was using her 8th function, Se, to help out Steve, an INTp, who was using his 8th function, Ti, to help out Mary. In interaction #2, Mary was using her leading function Fe to help out Joe, an INTj, who was using his leading function, Ti, to help out Mary. (There are still other possible types each could be, which could accurately explain which functions they used.)
Now, I want to highlight 2 CONCLUSIONS from the above examples:
#1: The ‘comfort’ level of the interaction has ABSOLUTELY 0 USE in accurately determining a person’s type. Mary and Steve were conflictors, and were enjoying the interaction. MAYBE THEY JUST MET, and are going through the beginning stage of a conflicting relationship, when everything is ok. Maybe they have known each other long, but are just mature people, and don’t personally interact very much. Who knows, it doesn’t matter.
Also, look at Illusionary relationships. People are perfectly happy discussing, using their Role functions for each other, but then get confused when it’s time to move into action, and each uses their leading function. Again, the comfort level of the interaction is a completely unreliable observation of what type someone is. Just because two people are using Se to support the other’s Ni, and they love each other, does not mean they are duals.
Important CONCLUSION #2:
In order to accurately type 1 person, you need to observe their interaction with AT LEAST 2 more people. This is why I call this “The Theory of 3”, because you need at least 3 people to determine 1 person’s type. This is the meat of my theory. Basically, it’s an answer to a lot of people say ‘BUT I OBSERVED BILLY-JOE USING Ti WHEN TALKING WITH SUSIE, SO HE MUST BE A Ti EGO TYPE!’ Well, my answer is no, you can’t determine his type, or ego function, based off of his interaction with just 1 other person. You have to observe his interaction with multiple people to get a better idea which function he uses most often and most strongly.
Do you talk the exact same way with all of your friends? … Think about it.
No, each one of our friends, of different types, encourages us to use different functions. Each interaction can be widely different. Using different functions. It’s the idea that, although people strongly prefer to use their leading functions, they may use their role function for another person, their 7th or 8th functions if need be, etc. A person even attempts to use their 5th and 6th function if it’s not in their environment! So how can anyone be so certain of a person’s type, even if they 100% accurately identify a function in a person’s interaction?
USING THE THEORY OF 3:
You’ve been trying to type somebody for a while, have been paying attention to their interactions, and notice they use a lot of Ni, Se, and Te. You’re trying to figure which function is leading, which creative, which role, which mobilizing, etc. etc. They seem to have developed each function strongly, and it’s tough to tell which one is being used the best. STOP looking at their functions, and LOOK at the people they’re interacting with. Which function(s) are they using most and when? What do they try to use most often?
Two last remarks:
Celebrities. I see a lot of posts on 16types, where a person posts a video of an interview with a celebrity, using a certain function, as evidence of the celebrity’s type. My questions: Do you know what type the interviewer is? Have you observed the interviewer in many of their previous interviews to understand how they interact with people of different types? … Seriously. No single interview is complete evidence of a celebrity’s type. Once again I ask:
Do you talk the exact same way with all of your friends? Have you talked differently with certain teachers, coworkers, etc? What if someone were observing you: what would they say your type is in different circumstances?
Final remark: Videos with a family member. Now, if you’re new to 16types and trying to figure out your type, a video is helpful. With another person is great, but remember that it’s not complete evidence in and of itself.
Most people mention in order to figure out someone’s type, they need to meet them ‘in person’. That’s so they can see how you interact with a lot of different people, and interact with themselves, when they know their type. This shows the importance of seeing interactions with multiple people. It’s still very possible to accurately type someone online, but I’ll save that for another post.
This was pretty long, but I’ll finish with my 2 points again: in order to accurately type somebody, you shouldn’t care much for the comfort level of their interactions with others, and you should be focusing on how they interact with multiple people. Any single interaction, or accurate use of a certain function, such as Ti, for example, is not enough evidence that the person has Ti in their ego block. You need more evidence. The theory of 3.
Thoughts?