The Truth of Socionics

[Metamorph]

Socionics is based on partial truths which is what makes it rather dangerous. I enjoy some of the ideas which inspired it such as Jung's types and Kępiński's theory of information metabolism, but I don't think combining those two theories result in socionics in any meaningful way. I also find Jung somewhat questionable compared to the ideas which inspired Jung himself, and Kępiński seemed to have plenty of questionable ideas too, only that they seemed to have been significantly fewer and less horrible than Jung's.

However, some of the ideas of socionics do lead directly to what I see as being the more relevant, more interesting observations.

One, I think intuition has the characteristics of a "rational" function and not feeling. Socionics, however, has a dichotomy for this: abstract vs. involved, so I will use this word instead of "rational."

Ne = Sanguine temperament = air (hot/wet) = "Ej temperament" = dialectical-algorithmic
Ti = Choleric temperament = fire (hot/dry) = "Ij temperament" = causal-determinist
Fe = Phlegmatic temperament = water (cold/wet) = "Ep temperament" = holographic-panoramic
Si = Melancholic temperament = earth (cold/dry) = "Ip temperament" = vortical-synergistic

If you can't see here, the "wet" elements are the extravert ones vs. "dry" introvert, and the "hot" ones are abstract vs. "cold" involved. If you find this questionable, show me what's wrong. You won't be able to, because Fe is not choleric and Si is certainly not choleric. This is how a real hypothesis that makes counterintuitive-seeming predictions looks, but all these predictions hold up to scrutiny because I based them on evidence to begin with. Extraverts are the intuitive ones and not introverts, additionally, people stuck in their own little world are generally stuck in the senses.

What I would really like to question, however, is the idea no type is better than any other and that types don't change. Intuition, which overwhelmingly appears to be an extraverted element rather than an introverted one, seems to be the best, and sensing seems to be the worst. Additionally, intuition shows all the attributes of "rationality" much more than feeling does. The four humors theory related the four humors to health. You want to be sanguine and choleric is not too bad, while you don't want to be melancholic or even phlegmatic. The four humors clearly don't seem to cause the phenomenon attributed to them, but the connection between the mind and the body seems to hold, in addition to the idea of there being four of them which share certain attributes and differ in other ways. Something like the cognitive styles is especially modern, but Gulenko did not invent those, either, he simply decided to apply them to Reinin dichotomies. I think Jung's agenda really distorted things since Jung was trying to basically prove that things that were traditionally viewed as unfavorable weren't so bad, and other people's agendas after him distorted things as well.

This has been the reality of socionics. It's wrong, but it's not quite complete nonsense, and that's what makes it such a problem.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah I've had very similar thoughts earlier. There are many psychological theories that are better, like Attitudinal Psyche- but socionics always often gets things right 50% of the time and it's annoying.

Jung distorted things because he had a hard on for imagination as opposed to reality. What some people have criticized IEIs for, but really the best IEIs understand how both are important. ((it's a mistake to think that IEIs don't understand 'reality' well, because reality as a whole IEI probably understands the best.)) That is really the core jist of why socionics has failed to me, it's not grounded enough in a way that's scientifically measurable. Whereas in AP I can go 'oh fuck yeah that drawing is just like somebody I know and met IRL' Yeah, a big part of this is me being an IEI who wants the reality & rawness of Se as opposed to fanciful imaginations, and the reason why I agree with you so much is that we're probably mirrors in socionics (You EIE, me IEI) - but that is exactly what I mean about it being half right.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Yeah I've had very similar thoughts earlier. There are many psychological theories that are better, like Attitudinal Psyche- but socionics always often gets things right 50% of the time and it's annoying.

Jung distorted things because he had a hard on for imagination as opposed to reality. What some people have criticized IEIs for, but really the best IEIs understand how both are important. ((it's a mistake to think that IEIs don't understand 'reality' well, because reality as a whole IEI probably understands the best.)) That is really the core jist of why socionics has failed to me, it's not grounded enough in a way that's scientifically measurable. Whereas in AS I can go 'oh fuck yeah that drawing is just like somebody I know and met IRL' Yeah, a big part of this is me being an IEI who wants the reality & rawness of Se as opposed to fanciful imaginations, and the reason why I agree with you so much is that we're probably mirrors in socionics (You EIE, me IEI) - but that is exactly what I mean about it being half right.

I think socionics is flawed simply because everyone is somwhat restricted by their own type, with Jung and Aushra being IEI. I think out of all the 8 functions, 4 are in my opinion not that well defined, and these are Te (which is often reduced to facts), Ne (which is seen as possibilities and ideas), Si and Se. all these functions are rather weak for IEI, with the sensing functions being of course harder to explain as an intuitive. Fe and Fi on the other hand are surprisingly well defined. socionics just needs to find some ways to fix these raw edges, which will happen over time.

[Metamorph]

I think socionics is flawed simply because everyone is somwhat restricted by their own type, with Jung and Aushra being IEI. I think out of all the 8 functions, 4 are in my opinion not that well defined, and these are Te (which is often reduced to facts), Ne (which is seen as possibilities and ideas), Si and Se. all these functions are rather weak for IEI, with the sensing functions being of course harder to explain as an intuitive. Fe and Fi on the other hand are surprisingly well defined. socionics just needs to find some ways to fix these raw edges, which will happen over time.

...Fi is one of the most poorly-defined of all. If you want to explain socionics by stating Aushra Augustinavichiute is an IEI, then you have to explain why her theory is about metabolism of information in the external world (Te and Ne) instead of being about people's internal feelings and dreams like Jung's was (Ti and Ni.) Hate to break it to you, but socionics is an offshoot of cybernetics while Jung is not, and IEIs aren't usually messing with cybernetics. Sorry not sorry.

[Metaphor]

These correlations seem to be poorly defined.

[seeking it]

Ne = Sanguine temperament = air (hot/wet) = "Ej temperament" = dialectical-algorithmic
Ti = Choleric temperament = fire (hot/dry) = "Ij temperament" = causal-determinist
Fe = Phlegmatic temperament = water (cold/wet) = "Ep temperament" = holographic-panoramic
Si = Melancholic temperament = earth (cold/dry) = "Ip temperament" = vortical-synergistic

If you can't see here, the "wet" elements are the extravert ones vs. "dry" introvert, and the "hot" ones are abstract vs. "cold" involved. If you find this questionable, show me what's wrong. You won't be able to, because Fe is not choleric and Si is certainly not choleric. This is how a real hypothesis that makes counterintuitive-seeming predictions looks, but all these predictions hold up to scrutiny because I based them on evidence to begin with. Extraverts are the intuitive ones and not introverts, additionally, people stuck in their own little world are generally stuck in the senses.

Wtf??

Since when is being introverted, calm, cool-headed, cold-blooded "Ti" being an externalising, hot-tempered angry Choleric????

There, I showed you what's wrong lol

(Alot of the rest is wrong too lol but I'm not even gonna read on, this hurt my eyes as soon as I looked at Choleric, thanks)

What I would really like to question, however, is the idea no type is better than any other and that types don't change. Intuition, which overwhelmingly appears to be an extraverted element rather than an introverted one, seems to be the best, and sensing seems to be the worst. Additionally, intuition shows all the attributes of "rationality" much more than feeling does. The four humors theory related the four humors to health. You want to be sanguine and choleric is not too bad, while you don't want to be melancholic or even phlegmatic. The four humors clearly don't seem to cause the phenomenon attributed to them, but the connection between the mind and the body seems to hold, in addition to the idea of there being four of them which share certain attributes and differ in other ways. Something like the cognitive styles is especially modern, but Gulenko did not invent those, either, he simply decided to apply them to Reinin dichotomies. I think Jung's agenda really distorted things since Jung was trying to basically prove that things that were traditionally viewed as unfavorable weren't so bad, and other people's agendas after him distorted things as well.

This has been the reality of socionics. It's wrong, but it's not quite complete nonsense, and that's what makes it such a problem.

Sigh. You're doing the bolded yourself. Trying to prove that things that are traditionally viewed x are really y, not so bad, etc. Exactly the same thing you've been accusing Jung of. How ironic.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

"Jung, the father of typology, mistyped himself, and is actually IEI." — Alive, some random guy living in his mom's basement who hasn't felt grass since falling down the rabbit hole 8 years ago

[on a peaceful hiatus]

"Jung, the father of typology, mistyped himself, and is actually IEI." — Alive, some random guy living in his mom's basement who hasn't felt grass since falling down the rabbit hole 8 years ago

How can Alive voice an opinion about things... I live in Berlin without my parents by the way. your Ni is pretty shit, the only thing it causes for you is a mental breakdown every second day.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

How can Alive voice an opinion about things... I live in Berlin without my parents by the way. your Ni is pretty shit, the only thing it causes for you is a mental breakdown every second day.

Alive: "You're IEI with 4D Ni"
Alive: "Your Ni is shit"

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Alive: "You're IEI with 4D Ni"
Alive: "Your Ni is shit"

just because you have something as base function doesn't mean you're good at it geez. there are countless of Ni base types with an average IQ who make stupid end of the world predictions that never happen.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

just because you have something as base function doesn't mean you're good at it geez. there are countless of Ni base types with an average IQ who make stupid end of the world predictions

Meh...this reply was boring. Give me another one.

[Metamorph]

just because you have something as base function doesn't mean you're good at it geez. there are countless of Ni base types with an average IQ who make stupid end of the world predictions that never happen.

Well, this explains why you self-type as LII despite being wrong about everything.

[Metaphor]

Alive: "You're IEI with 4D Ni"
Alive: "Your Ni is shit"

Contradictory PoLR Te moment. Alright, joking.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Contradictory PoLR Te moment.

I would really like to know how any of this is related to Te, and what it means in your view. I hope it is more than 'facts', as from a theoretical perspective, Te is associated with responsible use of money. dunno how that is related to my statement.

[Metaphor]

I would really like to know how any of this is related to Te, and what it means in your view. I hope it is more than 'facts', as from a theoretical perspective, Te is associated with responsible use of money. dunno how that is related to my statement.

I didn't know why you were to take it seriously despite I haven't said anything rude so far.
However, to inquire you, read this description below, Mr. LII:

Te PoLR / Ti hidden agenda

Considerably inclined to struggle with learning, collecting data and producing knowledge, mostly likely to avoid citing authors and sources, also lacks skills to formulate thoughts and sorting objects. Example: getting frustrated by a videogame due to its complexity, videogames tend to have lots of explicit and abstract dynamic activities.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I didn't know why you were to take it seriously despite I haven't said anything rude so far.
However, to inquire you, read this description below, Mr. LII:

I may have come across as harsher than I intended, but dunno where you got that description from. It seems very inaccurate to me

[Metaphor]

I may have come across as harsher than I intended, but dunno where you got that description from. It seems very inaccurate to me

How is it inaccurate? Te PoLR has an inclination to avoid citing resources and or authors is very sensible because they do have a schedule to "express" themselves using their own form of logic, which is more likely for them to try make sense of things despite what they really say doesn't really make any sense and seems to be said out of the thin air. They don't have a clear preference in aggregating data despite they do have resources to back-up their argument but they never do so as they never doubt their own structural framework - does this sound familiar?

[Metamorph]

Wtf??

Since when is being introverted, calm, cool-headed, cold-blooded "Ti" being an externalising, hot-tempered angry Choleric????

There, I showed you what's wrong lol

(Alot of the rest is wrong too lol but I'm not even gonna read on, this hurt my eyes as soon as I looked at Choleric, thanks)

Robespierre = LII
Maxim Gorky = LSI

Basically it's about thinking you're right and other people are wrong. Introvert and extravert are not supposed to refer to social or loner. Try reassigning any of the other ones and it makes no sense at all. Fe likes getting along with other people like sewing circle ladies/religious group ladies, and Si is basically just the "reptile brain" caring for its own comfort.

Sigh. You're doing the bolded yourself. Trying to prove that things that are traditionally viewed x are really y, not so bad, etc. Exactly the same thing you've been accusing Jung of. How ironic.

There is one significant difference: Jung was trying to redefine actions and behaviors everyone can observe to support his pet hobbies and his philosophy, while I'm trying to redefine types to match my personal observations and observations from sources I think are more credible.

From everything I've seen, the first two people Jung ever typed were Goethe as EIE and Schiller as LII. Jung needed to invent the idea of EIEs to explain how someone who seemed primarily driven by intuition seemed like a rational and extraverted person instead of an irrational and introverted person. In fact, it's normal for people who use intuition to be rational and extraverted, so I must infer that this is how intuition itself is. Additionally, some ideas don't really fit in well to Jung's theory. For example, Te, Ne, and Fi are really not distinct enough to be anything new and Si vs. Se was just based on comparing impressionism to academic painting, as if that were a sufficient basis for an entire function. What Jung describes as Ni is closer to Ne, as seen by him giving it to his "EIEs," but they aren't sitting around hallucinating and panicking about it like his mental patients, they actually act quite extraverted and rational.

[Squirrel]

How is it inaccurate? Te PoLR has an inclination to avoid citing resources and or authors is very sensible because they do have a schedule to "express" themselves using their own form of logic, which is more likely for them to try make sense of things despite what they really say doesn't really make any sense and seems to be said out of the thin air. They don't have a clear preference in aggregating data despite they do have resources to back-up their argument but they never do so as they never doubt their own structural framework - does this sound familiar?

Alive believe that Te is just about being economical and not making reckless spending ( although this is a skill that anybody can learn, including Te PoLR )

[seeking it]

Honestly what’s wrong about Socionics is it doesn’t focus much on teaching you how to bag the people you wanna bag. So it’s just kinda corny. I was kinda hoping for an explanation how to induce prolonged “dualization” or lovey dovey feels for each type but too bad, they describe one ITR as that. That’s too common of a trope and isn’t really helping my romantic fantasies We could have been doing 16 sexy love stories for each type by now. I don’t know about you guys, but my Jupiter is in 7th. That means I can have a lot of husbands and my expansion can be helped by (but not limited to) my marriages. I think I can have them after a few years, given that I remembered a post here saying marriages are meant to last only a few years. Why would I choose a dual every time, come on now. If anything I would have an ultimate person for each type. Well unless one guy can actually shapeshift, then I guess I’ll get all the 16, or hell maybe even the 512. My goal is to actually live multiple times, but I’m realistic and not a cat so I have to have a workaround. I think this compromise would give a similar outcome.

I want some of the weed you've been doing

[seeking it]

How is it inaccurate? Te PoLR has an inclination to avoid citing resources and or authors is very sensible because they do have a schedule to "express" themselves using their own form of logic, which is more likely for them to try make sense of things despite what they really say doesn't really make any sense and seems to be said out of the thin air. They don't have a clear preference in aggregating data despite they do have resources to back-up their argument but they never do so as they never doubt their own structural framework - does this sound familiar?

A lot of this fails to really differentiate between Ti leading and Ti mobilising. Minus of course, everything that a Ti lead type says will automatically have to make sense.

Robespierre = LII
Maxim Gorky = LSI

Basically it's about thinking you're right and other people are wrong. Introvert and extravert are not supposed to refer to social or loner. Try reassigning any of the other ones and it makes no sense at all. Fe likes getting along with other people like sewing circle ladies/religious group ladies, and Si is basically just the "reptile brain" caring for its own comfort.

You know you don't have to force everything into 4 elements....of course it won't make any sense as it is now or when reassigning them in any other way.

There is one significant difference: Jung was trying to redefine actions and behaviors everyone can observe to support his pet hobbies and his philosophy, while I'm trying to redefine types to match my personal observations and observations from sources I think are more credible.

Sorry I could not read the rest of your paragraph afterwards.

[Metaphor]

A lot of this fails to really differentiate between Ti leading and Ti mobilising. Minus of course, everything that a Ti lead type says will automatically have to make sense.

You aren't blind, are you?
Jokes aside, it does differentiate Ti-base and Ti-mobile in a way that the former still controls themselves by using 3D Te for research purpose.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Te is about external objects in motion & dynamanicsm, not just money. It's such a gross over-simplication. Oprah loses her temper and throws all her chairs at you, all those chairs in motion- that's Te, 4D Te sets things up in the world and micro-managers physical objects to achieve a Fi outcome for itself.

You can use 4D Ni and sense the trajectory of where the chairs are going to land (Like Phoebe on old school Charmed) and dodge them, even though it's your polr. People think Ni is all about writing bad fan fiction and being lost in your head and allowing assholes to make fun of you. It isn't. It's naturally linked with Se- so it's good at sensing immediate dangers in the physical environment and protecting others and yourself from them. Though IEIs often miss the small things, because Te hazards are often smaller but just as deadly.

A lot of financial stuff is also Ni and Ti, not just Te. Being high at Te can also cause you to do irresponsible and horrible shit with finances if you don't have your ESI housewife saying "Are you sure that's a good idea honey?" etc. I would wager that 4D Te have an easier time making money perhaps (because understanding how all those external businesses interact with each other is a Te skill), but they're also more likely to file bankruptcy or get in trouble with the FBI for doing something illegal - I don't view it black and white.

some people confuse Se with Te - but Se is more like a hot gay dude bending over in front of you and being inviting yet stationary (external objects at rest) - or how DEAD will keep dming me on discord. Though sorry, I do like his company- but I don't think he's 'hot' or anything, I didn't mean to say that. Different gays I mean. 4D Ni ppl can admittedly be kind of autistic, and I like the safety and repetition of external objects that are there for me and aren't narcissistically moving like Te.

[seeking it]

You aren't blind, are you?
Jokes aside, it does differentiate Ti-base and Ti-mobile in a way that the former still controls themselves by using 3D Te for research purpose.

I disagree that it differentiates properly between these two - beyond noting that Ti mobilising can have poor arguments out of thin air, like I already indicated - or that it mentions much about researching things.

[Metaphor]

I disagree that it differentiates properly between these two - beyond noting that Ti mobilising can have poor arguments out of thin air, like I already indicated - or that it mentions much about researching things.

It does. Te PoLR tends to avoid citing sources (yielding) and this behaviour alone already is obvious - in other words, it's not superficial and therefore it is notable. Also, who said they would have poor arguments to point out? IEI's argument is far better due to Fi-demonstrative. You clearly don't know what you are talking about and instead, pulling out a sarcastic remark as if it was funny.

[seeking it]

It does. Te PoLR tends to avoid citing sources (yielding) and this behaviour alone already is obvious - in other words, it's not superficial and therefore it is notable. Also, who said they would have poor arguments to point out? IEI's argument is far better due to Fi-demonstrative. You clearly don't know what you are talking about and instead, pulling out a sarcastic remark as if it was funny.

Ti leading also avoids citing sources, so....

The nonsense from the last part of your post you can keep to yourself instead of taking things incredibly personally and making a fool of yourself, thanks

[Metaphor]

Ti leading also avoids citing sources, so....

The nonsense from the last part of your post you can keep to yourself instead of taking things incredibly personally and making a fool of yourself, thanks

I didn't take things personally, neither did I make a fool of myself. It was a joke.
However, Ti-leading that avoids citing resources? How hilarious:

The individual is adept at finding external sources of factual information and confident in his ability to evaluate their value, but regards collecting data as secondary to making them fit into a consistent logical system. To him, listing facts without analyzing their relationships is a trivial and boring exercise. He values efficiency and productivity but is skeptical that they will be achieved if one’s actions and process do not follow a clear procedure.

[seeking it]

I didn't take things personally, neither did I make a fool of myself. It was a joke.

OK, so your sense of humour is pretty weird. Where you'd jump to claims from nothing, like I don't know what I'm talking about....lol.

However, Ti-leading that avoids citing resources? How hilarious:

What is hilarious is that the very same quote that you copypasted, supports what I said... it says nothing about CITING resources. In fact, it says Ti lead does not like listing facts.

[Metaphor]

What is hilarious is that the very same quote that you copypasted, supports what I said... it says nothing about CITING resources. In fact, it says Ti lead does not like listing facts.

>Ti leading also avoids citing sources
>In fact, it says Ti lead does not like listing facts.
>it says nothing about CITING resources

[Beautiful sky]

I think socionics is flawed simply because everyone is somwhat restricted by their own type, with Jung and Aushra being IEI. I think out of all the 8 functions, 4 are in my opinion not that well defined, and these are Te (which is often reduced to facts), Ne (which is seen as possibilities and ideas), Si and Se. all these functions are rather weak for IEI, with the sensing functions being of course harder to explain as an intuitive. Fe and Fi on the other hand are surprisingly well defined. socionics just needs to find some ways to fix these raw edges, which will happen over time.

Jung is LII
Aushra ILE

You don’t have to retype people you know to match your own system of understanding about others types. It’s always good practice to trust people who have examined their own types as you have examined your own

[on a peaceful hiatus]

How exactly does a type with Fi as PolR, so with ethics of relations as weakest function, invent a typology system that accurately describes the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and how they will play out long-term in the future? sometimes it's better to use your own mind instead of blindly following established rules.

[fjoerd]

I think she's saying that they easily find sources and evaluate their value, but don't like citing them or listing facts.

Maybe this isn't related to type all that much, but in my experience, Ti types, especially intuitives, quite often have a kneejerk reaction when someone questions their authority with insisting on "where are the proofs."
They can really lose their shit. Perhaps inferior Fe judges these questions as backhanded attempts to invalidate them.

[Popcorn]

How exactly does a type with Fi as PolR, so with ethics of relations as weakest function, invent a typology system that accurately describes the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and how they will play out long-term in the future? sometimes it's better to use your own mind instead of blindly following established rules.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but is it really so hard to accept the idea that someone could logic relationships, but be bad at having/maintaining them?

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but is it really so hard to accept the idea that someone could logic relationships, but be bad at having/maintaining them?

the only reason Aushra is considered ILE is because that's her self-typing and in classical socionics Alpha is seen as this quadra that brings new things so people tend to cling to that perspective a lot.

just think about it neutrally. how does a type with Ni, intuition of time as ignoring function, deeply reflect on long-term interactions in a field they have a very poor focus on due to Fi as vulnerable function? it makes zero sense when you look at ILE's valued functions. now look at IEI, a type with Ni and Fi as very strong functions, here you have exactly the combination of functions that would absolutely be interested in a concept like socionics.

[fjoerd]

I would like to add that I agree that there's something wrong with Socionics. It seems like multiple people have at least run into obstacles when they tried to operate on ITR's. I think that the structure and the data might be solid, but that the implications aren't.

In other words, I think that Socionics descriptions and ITR's are solid, but that the straightforward conclusions you would make based on those aren't. An example of the descriptions' straightforward conclusions not being solid might be that ethical types aren't actually always "ethical" (moral) or "illogical" (bad at logic).

I've speculated that this problem exists because of other personality type systems, such as Enneagram and Attitudinal Psyche/Psyche Yoga. Enneagram deals with thinking and emotional characteristics, and AP/PY deals with logical/emotional skill or awareness. I also think DCNH can cause unexpected results because it deals with the emphasis of certain IE's (by DCNH subtype) and compatibility.

When it comes to morality, I think that it operates in a completely different way from Socionics IE's. Even though logical types are less capable at understanding ethics, I think that they can have principles and expectations when it comes to morality that make them more moral than ethical types (at least intent or principles-wise). However, I think that logical types tend to look less moral than ethical types because of their lack of understanding when it comes to human relations (they commit more ethical violations on accident). I'm not sure about this (I think it needs data backup).

For judging and categorizing morality, I'd probably either use SLOAN or the DnD alignment system. However, SLOAN is another "all are equal" system. The DnD alignment system is the only system i know of that adequately categorizes "good", "bad", and I guess a sort of "not so bad". As a disclaimer, I don't think I know any other morality/alignment systems.

I agree. Socionics ITR is mostly written from a narrow, survivalist standpoint, - all else matching up perfectly (good mental health, maturity, chemistry, goals, interests, intellect, etc.), duals complement each other in the most mutually beneficial way. But 21st century people and relationships are just very complex, and the actual manifestion of a person's natural disposition greatly depends on the "all else," which I'd assume is far more important than whether two people's dispositions fully complement each other or not according to a theory that doesn't have much beyond anecdotal evidence to support it.

[Beautiful sky]

How exactly does a type with Fi as PolR, so with ethics of relations as weakest function, invent a typology system that accurately describes the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and how they will play out long-term in the future? sometimes it's better to use your own mind instead of blindly following established rules.

She invented a system

[on a peaceful hiatus]

She invented a system

Never mind

[Beautiful sky]

Never mind

Ethics of relationships like our fellow ESI said is the ability for someone to form relationships and think of these relationships as stable bonds that are long lasting where these bonds are not frazzled by daily moods swings. They have nothing to do with someone making a system based on how they observe (extroverted) processes of society of relationships work (Fe).

[seeking it]

>Ti leading also avoids citing sources
>In fact, it says Ti lead does not like listing facts.
>it says nothing about CITING resources

What @Clarke already said.

And you can imagine, if Ti lead doesn't like listing facts, why would they like citing resources unless absolutely required to do so?

Maybe this isn't related to type all that much, but in my experience, Ti types, especially intuitives, quite often have a kneejerk reaction when someone questions their authority with insisting on "where are the proofs."
They can really lose their shit. Perhaps inferior Fe judges these questions as backhanded attempts to invalidate them.

As a supposed Ti lead, I don't mind being asked for proofs but I do find citing sources boring and I'd rather not spend time on it.

[Popcorn]

the only reason Aushra is considered ILE is because that's her self-typing and in classical socionics Alpha is seen as this quadra that brings new things so people tend to cling to that perspective a lot.

just think about it neutrally. how does a type with Ni, intuition of time as ignoring function, deeply reflect on long-term interactions in a field they have a very poor focus on due to Fi as vulnerable function? it makes zero sense when you look at ILE's valued functions. now look at IEI, a type with Ni and Fi as very strong functions, here you have exactly the combination of functions that would absolutely be interested in a concept like socionics.

What you are saying makes logical sense, but I don't think it makes practical sense. For example, Fe enjoys relationships, but they are different from the kind of Fi relationships. I know Fi is defined as having to do with relationships, but Fe does as well. It is the feeling function that connects people. An ILE with Fi polr is not good at Fi feeling, but they still value and care about Fe feeling. If anything, I think a better argument is that an ILE, such as supposedly Aushra is, would struggle explaining Fi or working it into the theory in a neutral way.

In this way, I think you are right that F types would understand and explain it better. But I personally think Socionics is more of a Ti way of trying to explain human behavior and personality, which makes Fi really difficult to understand or describe and is probably poorly described because Fi isn't really about relationships any more than Fe is, it's just a different kind of relationship. It's similar to how Ti can be rules or laws that people follow, where Fi can be feelings people have towards each other that aren't meant to be changed or tampered with and are like emotional laws.

Fi seems like an emotional prison to me and not a good foundation for a relationship, but I clearly do not value it. So I personally have a hard time seeing it as about relationships, rather than about some kind of Mob Mentality where you are supposed to have certain feelings towards certain people that aren't supposed to really change. I think in a simple way, that can more easily be described as valuing relationships because your connections with people are not volatile, but it's also just a different way of relating with people to begin with, so basically then it implying Fe doesn't involve relationships (when they are just "different" relationships) is misleading. Does that kind of make sense?