Socionics - "A Bloody Mess"

[Hugo]

Ganin described MBTI as a "bloody mess". I think the same can be said for Socionics; this is in light of the subtypes issue, Model A, and the constant j/p crisis.

Model A is overcomplicated and neglects subtypes. It is too rigid in that whatever is contained in the ego block is rigidly reflected in the rest of Model A.

Below is my theory, which I believe is the next stage of the evolution of psychological theory; it eliminates the j/p crisis and incorporates subtypes. I believe it is more dynamic, and at the same time, less complicated than Model A.

On the whole, the model I have created is a better representation of reality, in comparison to Model A.

I will use examples to explain my theory.

INTj with intuitive subtype is better represented as I-NT-FS.

INTj with logical subtype or balanced subtype is better represented as I-TN-FS.

INTp with intuitive subtype or balanced subtype is better represented as I-NT-SF.

INTp with logical subtype is better represented as I-TN-SF.

are unneccessary and can be replaced by T, F, S and N.

The first letter (from the left) denotes whether the type is extroverted or introverted.
The second letter (from the left to right) denotes the strongest function of the type.
The third letter (from the left to right) denotes the second strongest function of the type.
The fourth letter (from the left to right) denotes the third strongest function of the type.
The fifth letter (from the left to right) denotes the fourth strongest function of the type.

This is a better representation of each type.

The type representation has two blocks. From left to right, after the introversion/extroversion representation is the strong block. After that is the weak block.

I/E - [Strong block] - [Weak block]

Each block can only contain one rational function (that is, T or F) and one irrational function (that is, S or N).

You will note that the weak block of the INTj types is the same regardless of the subtype, and so is the last block of the INTp types. However the strong block for the INTj types or the INTp types is not identical.

The weak block indicates the type of a person. The strong block indicates the subtype of a person.

The last letter of the weak block signifies j or p in socionics. If the last letter is an irrational function (that is, S or N) then the type is j (rational). If it is a rational function (that is, T or F) then the type is p (irrational). For socionists, the weak block along with the I/E representation is an indicator to the Socionics equivalent of the type. So if the weak block of an introverted type is FS, then a socionist will know that the type in Socionics is INTj. If th weak block of an introverted type is SF, then a socionist will know that the type in Socionics is INTp.

There is no need to dicuss j/p and no need to discuss subtypes and no need to discuss Model A.

For the type I-NT-FS (INTj with intuitive subtype), the perfect dual is E-SF-TN (ESFj with sensing subtype); the imperfect dual is E-FS-TN (ESFj with feeling subtype).

The basic Socionics intertype relations remain the same. However there will be many more variations due to the subtype inclusion.

The thing that makes my representation of type better than the conventional representation of type is the fact that it includes all the functions - T, F, N and S - and my representation shows the level of strength for each function for each psychological type.

[Waddlesworth]

Hugo, pretty cool. Now I wouldn't jump the gun on it, but it makes sense and is useful. I wouldn't necessarily say the model A contains errors though. An accepting function is always an accepting function, a producing function is always a producing function. When assembling a complete quadra these designations are essential. So you're looking at this in a more linear manner, which i think is valid but also not fully socionics. Such a method may help in individual comparisons though.

And who is to say that for example, an ISFp with an ethical subtype wouldn't imply that they would also have a weak logical subtype? Would the J aspect in the super-ego be strengthened? I think it would, because we have a person with a stronger producing capacity.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but this is how it goes. every new idea deserves criticism.

[Hugo]

I wouldn't necessarily say the model A contains errors though. An accepting function is always an accepting function, a producing function is always a producing function. When assembling a complete quadra these designations are essential.

And who is to say that for example, an ISFp with an ethical subtype wouldn't imply that they would also have a weak logical subtype? Would the J aspect in the super-ego be strengthened? I think it would, because we have a person with a stronger producing capacity.

Waddles, first I would like to thank you for your genuine criticism. Secondly, I would like to add that what you are saying is on the assumption that Model A is valid. What I have attempted to do is to think outside the "Model A Box" and not accept the model because socionists say it's correct and valid.

Socionists want us to believe that there are "accepting functions" and "producing functions". I think we need to come out of this way of thinking. We need to forget about the 4 blocks and . They create overcomplication.

I would like to add that the way Model A is arranged is that there are 4 blocks, each containing one accepting function and one producing function; this would mean that there are four processes occuring within the mind instead of just one. This is where my theory differs; T, F, S and N come together in a linear manner, where each have differing strengths. In my humble opinion, this sounds more plausible to Model A.

With respect to my representation of type, the weak block along with the I/E representation is an indicator to the Socionics equivalent of the type. So if the weak block of an introverted type is FS, then a socionist will know that the type in Socionics is INTj. If th weak block of an introverted type is SF, then a socionist will know that the type in Socionics is INTp. In light of the above, when assembling a complete quadra the accepting functions" and "producing functions" are not essential; look to the weak block of my representation of type, not the strong block.

[MysticSonic]

No, model-a really is a model, not a scale of importance; the tests are used to test which functions are in one's EGO block, not to see their "importance" in the psyche, which is apparent due to the nature of the super-id, which is just as important in determining one's behavior, if not more so, as the ego block.

[MysticSonic]

"You misunderstand me."

Probably, can you elaborate please? How is it merely a "fleshed out version"?

And of course they didn't just come up with it one day! They made intuitive leaps(gotta love ENTps for those things) and came to a conclusion about the psyche that lead to the development of the model.

Also, Transigent, it is an impossibility that the model is derived from the acronym, as the model arose BEFORE the acronyms became in common usage in Russia; the labels were simply "ILI" "LII" "ILE", and so on. Aushra, I believe that's her name, had no knowledge of any of Myer's or Brigg's work.

[MysticSonic]

"If there was not four variables, and only three, then there would be only 8 types and not 16."

Actually, 16 types can be derived from this system.

ILE, LII, SEI, ESI, EIE, IEI, SLE, LSI, LIE, ILI, SEE, ESI, IEE, EII, LSE, and SLI.

[MysticSonic]

EEK, sorry Transigent, I edited your post. Can you repost it?

Edit-There, I think that's fixed.

As for my response:

'Doh.

[Waddlesworth]

I wouldn't necessarily say the model A contains errors though. An accepting function is always an accepting function, a producing function is always a producing function. When assembling a complete quadra these designations are essential.

And who is to say that for example, an ISFp with an ethical subtype wouldn't imply that they would also have a weak logical subtype? Would the J aspect in the super-ego be strengthened? I think it would, because we have a person with a stronger producing capacity.

Waddles, first I would like to thank you for your genuine criticism. Secondly, I would like to add that what you are saying is on the assumption that Model A is valid. What I have attempted to do is to think outside the "Model A Box" and not accept the model because socionists say it's correct and valid.

Socionists want us to believe that there are "accepting functions" and "producing functions". I think we need to come out of this way of thinking. We need to forget about the 4 blocks and . They create overcomplication.

I would like to add that the way Model A is arranged is that there are 4 blocks, each containing one accepting function and one producing function; this would mean that there are four processes occuring within the mind instead of just one. This is where my theory differs; T, F, S and N come together in a linear manner, where each have differing strengths. In my humble opinion, this sounds more plausible to Model A.

With respect to my representation of type, the weak block along with the I/E representation is an indicator to the Socionics equivalent of the type. So if the weak block of an introverted type is FS, then a socionist will know that the type in Socionics is INTj. If th weak block of an introverted type is SF, then a socionist will know that the type in Socionics is INTp. In light of the above, when assembling a complete quadra the accepting functions" and "producing functions" are not essential; look to the weak block of my representation of type, not the strong block.

I see what you are saying. The Model-A does seem a bit complicated at first, but I think it needs a bit more understanding, something which is very limited in this English speaking world since there are so few translations. It is my assumption that an understanding of how socionics works is limited everywhere, too.

From how it seems it looks as though alot of socionics is extremely closely related to freuds view of the unconscious and conscious. Now freud is criticized heavily, with good reason, but i consider myself a budding Freudian, something i have never really felt myself to be until just recently.

Freud saw our awareness of our behavior very limited. Our conscious and unconscious are separate things, and that our unconscious resonates with both meaningful and "Chance" behavior, which are often called "parapaxes". Basically, everything we do has some sort of unconscious motive(losing our keys, making spelling mistakes or even choosing incorrect words and much more) So perhaps the unconscious ring is the outer manifestation of inner feelings, both strong and weak, which are perceptible by those of varying temperaments. This brings in the idea of intertype relations.

Now it looks to me that spontaneous realization is in some way related to the preconscious coming into consciousness(spontaneous realization). So the Strong accepting function is our consciousness, and the strong creative function is somehow related to what is preconscious becomming conscious. The conscious ring is seemingly cyclical in nature as well. our first function coming into contact with our second, communicating, whereas our fourth function puts pressure on our first function. I don't yet fully know why this is.

But anyway, when a creative idea comes to be it seems it is a transmutation of something not fully conscious interacting with what is. So the creative idea is changeable because it is always manipulated by the experience. always foggy and "coming into being" but never fully.Heavy stuff, but I think I am on the right track. This could be why dreams are so vivid, because the creativity is heightened due to the lack of the interruption by the genuine experience. Could explain the more vivid imagination of many introverts. But again, seems to me very theoretical. Can only be believed or not believed, rather than proven at this point.

So it seems we can only live in either the inner, or outer world, and the interaction between this area of the world we live in must be somehow rationalized using our creativity. So this is why the strong producing function must be the opposite on the I/E scale to our strong accepting function. We need some sort of balancing nature. Each block must have two sides, an inner and outer. The first side is how we live, the lifestyle, and the second is how we make sense of the experience. We need that inner or outer function in order to make sense of the experience.

Now there is alot I can elaborate on, but I think that the best way to look at what i am saying is to consider that there is a hidden system beneath what seems like an overelaborate theory. I am not saying it is right, but there is alot to it we don't know.

The unconscious appears to be how our behaviors and ideas look to the outer world. It is trying to find the links that haven't been explained to us which is the difficult part of all of this.

Edit: I'll add- I don't necessarily think that the model A speaks in separate processes, although it may appear this way. They speak of resonation, and freuds theory talks of this alot. they are rings, and all of the functions have an impact upon one another. This link is off TommyLove's site, i think that the article may have been written by Augusta herself, although i am not certain. Something in it made me doubt that halfway through, but i can't recall what. It is a poor translations, but the images of the models, although one seems to be incorrect, show the way the functions interact in conscious and unconscious and that this interaction is different:

LINK

[Hugo]

Waddles: I appreciate and understand what you say. Rational arguments can be produced for or against Model A. However, one must raise questions as to it's value.

That's why I propose an alternative to Model A, because I believe that my theory (in my humble opinion) carries more value for the reasons stated in my first post.



Transigent: I am INTj with intuitive subtype. I have more strength in N than T. And I am not extraverted most of the time.

[MysticSonic]

Hugo, I have a few requests:


1. Define the following terms in relation to your theory:

Introversion.

Thinking

Feeling

Sensing.

Intuition.

2. Explain how introversion affects the behavior of the functions, if at all.

[Hugo]

My intention in writing this article is not to define functions - it is to present a model.

Following from my "Jung is wrong" topic, I concluded that Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.