New Alpha Quadra type proposals

[MidnightWilderness]

ESA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as an ESE, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as a SEI.

SEA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as a SEI, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as a ESE.

LIA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as a LII, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as an

ILA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as an ILE, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as a LII.

Additional types I came up with:

Hugodumas - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as an ESE, but the super Id and the Id functions are the same as a SEI.

Dumashugo - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as an SEI, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ESE.

Robespierredonquixote - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as a LII, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ILE.

Donquixoterobespierre - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as an ILE, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as a LII.

Even more additional types:

Hudumasgo - Ego and Id functions are the same as an ESE, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as a SEI.

Duhugomas - Ego and Id functions are the same as a SEI, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ESE.

Robesdonquixotepierre - Ego and Id functions are the same as a LII, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ILE.

Donrobespierrequixote - Ego and Id functions are the same as an ILE, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as a LII.

I believe that under this new system my type is actually ESA-a. It would make more sense for my Si to be 3D instead of 4D because it isn't a constant function unlike my Fe which I am always using. However my Te is still as painful as a regular SEI, and my Ni is still my role function. I prefer Ti over Ne most of the time, and my Ti is very weak in comparison to my Ne which is most likely 2D. Now we have proposed a subtype system of 1st and 2nd functions, but I actually think that extreme SEI-Fe corresponds with the type of ESA-a. This needs to be a thing, as it affects the ITRs greatly. ESA-a is not the dual of an ILE or LII but of a LIA-a, and the other relations between ILE and LII I shall call activality and dualivation respectively. ILEs and LIIs form a half duality, half activation relationship with ESAs.

ESA-a, SEA-a, LIA-a, and ILA-a are a blend of EJ/IP temperament, and are ambiverted instead of extroverted or introverted, hence ESA-a = ethical-sensory ambivert (alpha).

There are also the types of ESA-g, SEA-g, LIA-g, and ILA-g and they are not to be confused with their alpha versions. Likewise the types of SLA-b, IEA-b, EIA-b, and LSA-b should not be confused with the types of SLA-d, IEA-d, EIA-d, and LSA-d.

Under this system, we now have 64 different types.

If anyone thinks that my new system is basically impossible and that I am crazy for proposing it and desecrating the sacred name of Socionics, I would like to know why.

(Also it's sort of a joke, but I really think that we should make new types like this.)

[AWellArmedCat]

It's not that it's "impossible," and I don't think you're crazy for suggesting it, but it just feels a bit unnecessary to be honest. To me this seems much more convoluted than simply using the current method of type+subtype supplemented with enneagram. I feel that is sufficient and just more elegant overall. If you're expecting any personality system to capture every nuance of the human psyche then I believe you are simply expecting far more than what such a system can ever hope to provide. It's much the same as the problem with attempting to recognize 50+ genders in society. It could perhaps be done with great effort, and would indeed better capture some people's lived experiences, but at that point why not just talk to people about their experiences rather than trying to understand them from labels? You're allowed to be an "extreme SEI-Fe" and don't need to fit perfectly into descriptions of your type just as I'm allowed to be a man without really feeling like I fit whatever the societal understanding of that is. Creating extra categories won't solve the problem of people not understanding you. Opening up to people might though.

Ultimately I feel Socionics is a pattern-recognition aid for understanding people more expediently than you might otherwise. We can divide people up into 4 quadra and 16 types not because that's how many there are, but because that's a convenient size with which to work. As we start to understand people more it becomes useful to distinguish between 32 subtypes, and perhaps even use other systems to help us. Socionics is a language one can learn to make social interactions easier to talk about. I feel the issue with your proposal is that it makes Socionics harder to talk about without enough benefits to justify it since I see it as solving roughly the same problem that subtypes already solve (albeit imperfectly).

TL;DR your idea isn't bad, I just think you're trying to milk Socionics for more than it's worth

[MidnightWilderness]

It's not that it's "impossible," and I don't think you're crazy for suggesting it, but it just feels a bit unnecessary to be honest. To me this seems much more convoluted than simply using the current method of type+subtype supplemented with enneagram. I feel that is sufficient and just more elegant overall. If you're expecting any personality system to capture every nuance of the human psyche then I believe you are simply expecting far more than what such a system can ever hope to provide. It's much the same as the problem with attempting to recognize 50+ genders in society. It could perhaps be done with great effort, and would indeed better capture some people's lived experiences, but at that point why not just talk to people about their experiences rather than trying to understand them from labels? You're allowed to be an "extreme SEI-Fe" and don't need to fit perfectly into descriptions of your type just as I'm allowed to be a man without really feeling like I fit whatever the societal understanding of that is. Creating extra categories won't solve the problem of people not understanding you. Opening up to people might though.

Ultimately I feel Socionics is a pattern-recognition aid for understanding people more expediently than you might otherwise. We can divide people up into 4 quadra and 16 types not because that's how many there are, but because that's a convenient size with which to work. As we start to understand people more it becomes useful to distinguish between 32 subtypes, and perhaps even use other systems to help us. Socionics is a language one can learn to make social interactions easier to talk about. I feel the issue with your proposal is that it makes Socionics harder to talk about without enough benefits to justify it since I see it as solving roughly the same problem that subtypes already solve (albeit imperfectly).

TL;DR your idea isn't bad, I just think you're trying to milk Socionics for more than it's worth

Well tbh I did say I was sort of joking, I mean 64 types that would make Socionics worse and an extra pain. Personally enneagram doesn't do a good job of helping with pattern recognition as much as I think psychosophy does. Being e4 will tell you nothing than what you will already know about me. VELF will make more sense in terms of understanding nuances in my type than enneagram will.

Patterns are best learned by just taking note of the behavior of a person and then comparing it with IMs the best you can. Socionics didn't really make me understand anything about my relationships other than what I already knew, so maybe other people's experiences are just better with Socionics than mine. I think in order to confirm being SEI-Fe I would have to compare my experience with ILE-Ne and ILE-Ti to gain a better understanding. I think it would help to talk to more people in my quadra. I really can't

Socionics as a pattern recognition aid is just not necessary in most cases, and it doesn't really seem to make my relationships go better when I try to analyze and fix it with Socionics. It fails to describe all the problems and everything that can go wrong.

For example, why do I find my ILE boyfriend boring most times? Too much Ne? No that isn't the problem at all, and I can explain it in non-socionical terms.

We get into a loop of him just talking endlessly about his plans which bores me half to death. When he isn't talking about his plans, he wants to talk about his health and other matters like that. I do nothing to change the topic of conversation and remain silent, which kills me. He has a strange idea in his mind of who I really am, and I feel like we don't really understand each other at all.

Socionics would say that there must be a flaw in typing or something like that, but the rational mind would say, well clearly this relationship isn't going to go well unless we somehow manage to fix that. And in order to do that I would have to become more vocal and open, which isn't going to happen anytime soon, especially with a logician who doesn't care about emotional matters at all and just tries to avoid that as much as possible. It is much better to identify those problems yourself and to avoid problems when you see them.

I have tried so many times to understand socionics, but ultimately I can't get past an understanding of IE descriptions in general. Nothing seems to make any sense at all to me, it adds so much confusion and I just can't seem to solve anything with it. I can recognize patterns in other people's behaviors, I can see the IE's in my boyfriend and others, but I can't explain my ITRs or why things seem to go wrong with my duality relationship using socionics.

Social interactions don't make any sense when you can't type properly at all... People keep suggesting this and that for the people around me. I am still unconvinced that my dad is EII or SLI, all I can say is that he is in Alpha or Delta quadra at this point and not SEI or ESE or ILE or IEE. He doesn't seem Fe polr to me though, but he also doesn't seem to be my benefactor or supervisor at all. That leaves LII but I doubt he is LII very much. Boyfriend swears up and down that he is EII, but I am unconvinced, I do not feel benefacted and I can argue with him on the same grounds.

I don't hope to capture every nuance of the human psyche, I just want an explanation of Socionics that makes sense to me and clears up all my problems with it.

[MidnightWilderness]

Somewhere, there's strenght of subtype theory: 0,1,2, or 3.
3s are supposed to be rather extreme and rare, and iirc, for SEI-Fe the F and the N functions would be of greater importance while T and S would be weaker.
I can't see you as Fe base even tho you Fe around a lot imo, it's more Fe creative stuff. Please, don't ask me for explaination as to why Fe creative over Fe base, I have nothing concrete.
I must note that some people may be blind to their own use of base function, it can be so central to everything that it's difficult to see unless one steps way back. I'm pretty sure it can also be ignored because of reasons. It can also happens with enneagram.
What I mean is I don't see the necessity of complexifying types so much, also there's too many and I'm lazy.
It happens that people fit weirdly in the middle of two types, I got told I was in the weird middle of EII-Ne and IEE-Fi recently.

It was a joke pretty much, I mean having 64 types would make socionics a train wreck. It's already kind of complicated in it's own way, and improving the subtyping system just a tad would be a little better. Personally I think that there needs to be more professional socionists in order for socionics to become more of an accepted thing. Some of the descriptions of Si are just so bad and shameful that it makes me a little neurotic. This is why there is so much mistyping and confusion, it's just a few misconceptions that need to be sorted and nothing fancy needs to be done.

I know I am not base Fe, most likely just SEI-Fe with a strength of 3. I am definitely an introvert and not extroverted in any way, just kind of momentarily. My Fe is more just a show, especially since on this forum I use so much more Fe than I actually do in most real life conversations. And when I do use it, it really isn't at all like how ESEs or EIEs use it in any way.

Base function is super hard for me to see, but I suppose others could spot it easier than I could. Dual seeking function is also very hard for me to see, but I think that is just my subtype. I need way more Ti than Ne at this point.

This extreme Fe subtype explains my wonky ITRs basically. Unless someone decides to write about the ITRs of SEI-Fes with an extreme subtype then I think I should probably stop using Socionics in the context of my own ITRs. Or I should become the first one to try to write on this topic.

[AWellArmedCat]

@MidnightWilderness

If you don't understand the Information Elements and aren't comfortable with typing people then why are you proposing new additions to Socionics? Sorry if I misunderstood, but I was very confused by you saying it was a joke, but also that "I really think that we should make new types like this."

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. I apologize for my confusion

[MidnightWilderness]

@MidnightWilderness

If you don't understand the Information Elements and aren't comfortable with typing people then why are you proposing new additions to Socionics? Sorry if I misunderstood, but I was very confused by you saying it was a joke, but also that "I really think that we should make new types like this."

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. I apologize for my confusion

I understand the IMs, but I don't feel comfortable with typing people. I can clearly see the IMs only with people I know on a personal level, and sometimes in other people. Somehow there is always one thing to throw off the ITRs though.

Well even I don't understand what I wrote...

I think sometimes that I should give up on Socionics and just do whatever... I tried but I think my ability to understand it is too weak at this point and since I have shown no progress in understanding it, I likely never will.

I'm just too stupid for all this.

Always, always I have to be the one that doesn't fully "get" it... It's better if I just stop talking to everyone in my life that knows about socionics and just give up on it entirely...

;-;

It's not a big deal though, I will just direct my energies towards better things for me. I will move on and instead become a talented writer and musician, in due time and with enough effort and learning I will make it and succeed at what I truly want to do. I will trust my own self to be able to see general patterns in my relationships and to tell whether or not they will be good in the future. Nothing is lost, and if I truly wanted to I could become a great Socionist myself, just I would need time for my skills to develop, and right now I don't have time or patience.

In the end nothing is truly terrible. The world is not black and white, evil or good, but bittersweet. We have to change ourselves and our thinking no matter what life will throw at us. There will always be an opportunity for a good moment here and there. Optimism and free will is not lost and not dead, not yet, and will never be as long as we keep fighting.

[FreelancePoliceman]

@MidnightWilderness, what types of descriptions of Si do you think are bad?

[The Banana King]

The idea is pretty good. I just recently found out that the Ignoring and Demonstrative function are 3-Dimensional and 4-Dimensional respectively (I thought it was the other way around because that makes more sense both intuitively and mathematically) and I thought it was the dumbest thing ever (dimensionality applied to model A that is). Of course I've been applying the theory all wrong but there's something that seems flawed about it. Maybe having even more subtypes will fix it

I want to suggest better names for some types:
Hugodumas -> Humas
Dumashugo -> Dugo
Robespierredonquixote -> Robote
Donquixoterobespierre -> Don Pierre

I shall henceforth be known as Don Pierre. Forget about DCNH and all that rational/irrational subtype crap, we won't be needing it any longer.

I like the A for ambivert. Great for preventing pigeonholing with I/E and also quite useful since a good 50% of people aren't strongly introverted nor extraverted.

Hudumasgo

Duhugomas

Robesdonquixotepierre

Donrobespierrequixote

activality and dualivation

bruh you seriously need to work on those names

[BrainlessSquid]

ESA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as an ESE, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as a SEI.

SEA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as a SEI, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as a ESE.

LIA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as a LII, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as an

ILA-a - The Ego and Super Id functions are the same as an ILE, but the super ego and Id functions are the same as a LII.

Additional types I came up with:

Hugodumas - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as an ESE, but the super Id and the Id functions are the same as a SEI.

Dumashugo - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as an SEI, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ESE.

Robespierredonquixote - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as a LII, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ILE.

Donquixoterobespierre - The Ego and Super ego functions are the same as an ILE, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as a LII.

Even more additional types:

Hudumasgo - Ego and Id functions are the same as an ESE, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as a SEI.

Duhugomas - Ego and Id functions are the same as a SEI, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ESE.

Robesdonquixotepierre - Ego and Id functions are the same as a LII, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as an ILE.

Donrobespierrequixote - Ego and Id functions are the same as an ILE, but the super Id and Id functions are the same as a LII.

I believe that under this new system my type is actually ESA-a. It would make more sense for my Si to be 3D instead of 4D because it isn't a constant function unlike my Fe which I am always using. However my Te is still as painful as a regular SEI, and my Ni is still my role function. I prefer Ti over Ne most of the time, and my Ti is very weak in comparison to my Ne which is most likely 2D. Now we have proposed a subtype system of 1st and 2nd functions, but I actually think that extreme SEI-Fe corresponds with the type of ESA-a. This needs to be a thing, as it affects the ITRs greatly. ESA-a is not the dual of an ILE or LII but of a LIA-a, and the other relations between ILE and LII I shall call activality and dualivation respectively. ILEs and LIIs form a half duality, half activation relationship with ESAs.

ESA-a, SEA-a, LIA-a, and ILA-a are a blend of EJ/IP temperament, and are ambiverted instead of extroverted or introverted, hence ESA-a = ethical-sensory ambivert (alpha).

There are also the types of ESA-g, SEA-g, LIA-g, and ILA-g and they are not to be confused with their alpha versions. Likewise the types of SLA-b, IEA-b, EIA-b, and LSA-b should not be confused with the types of SLA-d, IEA-d, EIA-d, and LSA-d.

Under this system, we now have 64 different types.

If anyone thinks that my new system is basically impossible and that I am crazy for proposing it and desecrating the sacred name of Socionics, I would like to know why.

(Also it's sort of a joke, but I really think that we should make new types like this.)

Socionics is flawed at its root, so there's no hope of it making complete sense and people will have to find the craziest explanations to fit a certain type.

The earlier you realize this the better.
If you feel that your Si is weak then you're probably not Si leading

You may fit SEI in some aspects but that's just like trying to make sense of a song played backwards

[MidnightWilderness]

Socionics is flawed at its root, so there's no hope of it making complete sense and people will have to find the craziest explanations to fit a certain type.

The earlier you realize this the better.
If you feel that your Si is weak then you're probably not Si leading

You may fit SEI in some aspects but that's just like trying to make sense of a song played backwards

IDK what weak Si would even look like at all. It's just that I believe that my intuition is weak so that I must be Si type right?

I just have a weak ability to focus on material things around me, but I don't think that has anything to do with weak Si.

[MidnightWilderness]

The idea is pretty good. I just recently found out that the Ignoring and Demonstrative function are 3-Dimensional and 4-Dimensional respectively (I thought it was the other way around because that makes more sense both intuitively and mathematically) and I thought it was the dumbest thing ever (dimensionality applied to model A that is). Of course I've been applying the theory all wrong but there's something that seems flawed about it. Maybe having even more subtypes will fix it

I want to suggest better names for some types:
Hugodumas -> Humas
Dumashugo -> Dugo
Robespierredonquixote -> Robote
Donquixoterobespierre -> Don Pierre

I shall henceforth be known as Don Pierre. Forget about DCNH and all that rational/irrational subtype crap, we won't be needing it any longer.

I like the A for ambivert. Great for preventing pigeonholing with I/E and also quite useful since a good 50% of people aren't strongly introverted nor extraverted.




bruh you seriously need to work on those names

Well I think your ignoring function is 3D because you tend not to use it for everything and you sort of reject it. With the demonstrative, it is more of a background function that works constantly but unconsciously unlike your ego functions.

So you can use Te quite well and understand it, but you would tend not to project it outwards or believe in it.

I see that you are harmonizing, which if DCHN is to be trusted, that would mean that you use more Ni, making it seem stronger.

What was crazier to me was finding out that your creative function is 3D, like I have stronger Fi than Fe? That really blew my mind to pieces.

But my theory is that it is a background thing and not something you consciously think about or value.

[MidnightWilderness]

@MidnightWilderness, what types of descriptions of Si do you think are bad?

Gulenko's descriptions are very bad, at least they don't make sense to me at all. However some other SEIs also voiced that they can't relate to descriptions of SEI.

I mean it makes sense that it would be so, since the descriptions are usually written by people with weak Si so it doesn't really sound the same as how you feel inside.

Personally I can't actually describe at all how Si manifests in me, so...

[BrainlessSquid]

IDK what weak Si would even look like at all. It's just that I believe that my intuition is weak so that I must be Si type right?

I just have a weak ability to focus on material things around me, but I don't think that has anything to do with weak Si.

Why do you think you have poor intuition, then?? Is it an intuitive feeling? lol

[MidnightWilderness]

Why do you think you have poor intuition, then?? Is it an intuitive feeling? lol

First of all, my ILE boyfriend insists that I have a weak intuition. Secondly, I can't actually prove that I have an intuition.

There is no way I am some Ne user because I don't look for new possibilities all the time, I tend to stick with one and develop it.

Ni ego seems unlikely for me just based on the fact that I do not forget what I desire in life, just that I forget what I should be doing in the current moment or I don't know what I should be doing in the current moment, and end up procrastinating or being oblivious to the fact that I haven't actually made any progress. This problem that I have is more painful than 1D Ne or my Te polr. However I think that has something to do with being mentally detached from the current moment, I think I have some strange disorder that is unrelated to Socionics that has to do with depression and forgetfulness or something. I am dying because I have so much to do but my inattentiveness kills me every time no matter how hard I try to stay focused. It's the worst problem I have in my life and if I could only focus and know what I should be doing right this second, I would have almost zero problems in life and be super successful, I just know that I can make it if only I could work.

The only thing which could possibly go against this is that I dislike Ne egos that keep changing their minds all the time and destroying my plans with their "ideas". However I think I just found the wrong dual so if I find an ILE who either doesn't have any future plans or won't change his mind every second and be willing to negotiate, then I will be happy. Unless I can convince my boyfriend to change his mind and stick with a plan that we come up with together, which will likely never happen.

So no, it's not an intuitive feeling.

[Baqer]

You know I actually thought of a system like this working when I met a super Fe dominant SEI irl. Thing is though, I think focusing on the functions is probably a bad idea. The reason that socionics works is that, generally, certain sets of behavioral properties are linked to psychological traits, and that depending on the set of these a person has, generally, you can predict how well they'll get along with another person when becoming close. The problem is that Jungian functions weren't exactly built to be either accurate representations of how the brain works, or to fit with ITR. While Jungian functions have been a good baseline(along with the Model A and it's blocking of functions), finding a truly accurate Model will take actual neuroscience(to establish anything to close to "Information Metabolism" which Model A proposes), and pretty rigorous and wide experiments(to figure out how exactly ITR work and refine them). Also don't beat yourself up calling it a joke, you're idea is a genuine attempt at trying to explain something which is pretty obviously flawed.