Notes about Socionics

[Squirrel]

Warning: this series may be uncomfortable to you if you're a big fan of applying the theory " as the book says " and/or don't accept using any system except Socionics


This series contains my comments and notes on whatever I find illogical and doesn't makes sense in the theory

So far, the list includes the following ( updated when needed )

1-Rationality/Irrationality ( ✔️ )

2- Skills/hobbies and typing via behaviours/Character traits

3- ITR

4- Introversion/Extraverion


Let's Gooooooooooo :

[Squirrel]

abbreviations used in this article :
if you decide to read it, it is preferable to write it on a piece of paper next to you so as not to get lost when reading it later :

Ji = Ti/Fi
Je = Te/Fe
Pi = Ni/Si
Pe = Ne/Se
Jx = rational functions ( Ti,Te,Fi,Fe )
Px = irrational functions ( Ni,Ne,Si,Se )
E = Enneagram ( E8= Enneagram 8 , etc )

It's supposed that irrationals are quicker to change their opinions and more sensitive to new information than rationals , who are more decisive and doesn't change their opinions

I don't find this necessarily accurate

Te , for example , is an extraverted dynamic function , it's completely governed by external data ( especially in the case of LxE ) , so it can change by changing external data

Let's suppose, for example, that Te is in the middle of implementing a plan and then suddenly finds a shorter and more profitable path, will it reject it because it's a rational function that doesn't change its decisions?

Let's suppose also that Te is basing its argument on an external source, but finds an argument from another external source that contradicts the first source but more plausible, will it reject it because it's a rational function that doesn't change its views?

Also, If we put Enneagram in the middle, this changes a lot , let's see what happens when enneagram is mixed with Sociotype :


E6 Sp and EII :
6 Sp are the least assertive and most fearful of all E6s (who are already known to be very suspicious), they find it difficult to make decisions on their own , they see everything in shades of gray rather than black and white.
The term “fixed in opinions and doesn't change decisions” will not apply to EII E6 at all
( Note : 6 Sp are archtypically EII )

E8 and SLE :
Same problem with E6 and EII, but the opposite: E8 are very assertive and stubborn

I gave two very common examples in everyday life, that's enough but there are more: LIE and 7 Sp for example

What is the difference between rationality and irrationality then?

Rationality means the tendency to quickly judge and use information, whether by using an internal system (Ji) or by using an external system (Je) , this information may be thoughts, feelings, sensations, intuitions, ethics , or anything else

Irrationality, on the other hand, means collecting information for later use, they realize the situation first ( Px ) then the judgment comes later (Jx)

Irrationals rely more on their body's rhythms (they experience energy spikes and dips more than rationalists), BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE THEM RECKLESS .

For more information on the rational/irrational dichotomy, you can read this article:


On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Rationality-Irrationality by Trehov and Tsypin

I didn't read it completely, just few quick excerpts, but I found what I read well

authors also have similar articles about intention/sensing and logic/ethics

Last note : I personally think that MBTI got the right name for this dichotomy from this side : judging vs perceiving , this name won't causes the misconception that rational types tend to be common sensers and irrational types are outliers that are more prone to take drugs*

[Squirrel]

having Si in Ego block doesn't mean that the person constantly strives to clean

Si seeks comfort, but it's not a condition that its comfort is with a clean environment, it could be a dirty or chaotic environment

People who clean constantly are 2F and 3F in Psyche Yoga, even if they have 1D Si

[Beautiful sky]

Si is not about cleaning
Si can be about a sensation that has taken hold of the person
For instance an SLI who tries a new potato chip and the sensation they experienced is exhilarating so it causes “ummm this is so good I can’t help myself from eating this whole bag”
Personal experience of sensory information

[Squirrel]

Si is not about cleaning
Si can be about a sensation that has taken hold of the person
For instance an SLI who tries a new potato chip and the sensation they experienced is exhilarating so it causes “ummm this is so good I can’t help myself from eating this whole bag”
Personal experience of sensory information

I know, but thanks for drawing attention to this

I am talking about a misconception

[Metaphor]

abbreviations used in this article :
if you decide to read it, it is preferable to write it on a piece of paper next to you so as not to get lost when reading it later :

It's supposed that irrationals are quicker to change their opinions and more sensitive to new information than rationals , who are more decisive and doesn't change their opinions

I don't find this necessarily accurate

Te , for example , is an extraverted dynamic function , it's completely governed by external data ( especially in the case of LxE ) , so it can change by changing external data

Let's suppose, for example, that Te is in the middle of implementing a plan and then suddenly finds a shorter and more profitable path, will it reject it because it's a rational function that doesn't change its decisions?

Let's suppose also that Te is basing its argument on an external source, but finds an argument from another external source that contradicts the first source but more plausible, will it reject it because it's a rational function that doesn't change its views?

Last note : I personally think that MBTI got the right name for this dichotomy from this side : judging vs perceiving , this name won't causes the misconception that rational types tend to be common sensers and irrational types are outliers that are more prone to take drugs*

That's not how rational-irrational dichotomy works - it doesn't work like that. Rationality means that you have a reason to do what you are doing, this was what Jung referred to as "grounded by reason" - irrationality is the opposite of this, or "beyond reason" according to Jung.

[Squirrel]

That's not how rational-irrational dichotomy works - it doesn't work like that. Rationality means that you have a reason to do what you are doing, this was what Jung referred to as "grounded by reason" - irrationality is the opposite of this, or "beyond reason" according to Jung.

I haven't used Jung's definition here, but anyone can use it anyway

[fjoerd]

That's not how rational-irrational dichotomy works - it doesn't work like that. Rationality means that you have a reason to do what you are doing, this was what Jung referred to as "grounded by reason" - irrationality is the opposite of this, or "beyond reason" according to Jung.

I don't get it. When Mrs. Si-type is triggered by a sense of discomfort caused by some kind of subjectively perceived imbalance in the immediate environment and turns to her creative Te to put things in order and reach internal comfort that way, how does she not have an identifiable reason for what she is doing? How is she any less grounded in reason than Mr. Fi-type who measures all his feels to malleable information coming from subjectively perceived Ne impressions and acts accordingly? How is one approach more rational than the other according to your definition? Sorting IMs into rational and irrational categories is maybe fine (albeit the divide seems arbitrary) and I can see how you could make a case for TiSe overall being a more rational type than SiTe but the rational-irrational dichotomy doesn't seem to be equally applicable through the whole system when observing and comparing types with full stacks.

[Metaphor]

I don't get it. When Mrs. Si-type is triggered by a sense of discomfort caused by some kind of subjectively perceived imbalance in the immediate environment and turns to her creative Te to put things in order and reach internal comfort that way, how does she not have an identifiable reason for what she is doing? How is she any less grounded in reason than Mr. Fi-type who measures all his feels to malleable information coming from subjectively perceived Ne impressions and acts accordingly? How is one approach more rational than the other according to your definition? Sorting IMs into rational and irrational categories is maybe fine (albeit the divide seems arbitrary) and I can see how you could make a case for TiSe overall being a more rational type than SiTe but the rational-irrational dichotomy doesn't seem to be equally applicable through the whole system when observing and comparing types with full stacks.

Interesting questions that you have here. So, about that matter, first of all, I have to say one thing: 'grounded' means orientation or attachment towards reasoning. and therefore, it must be understood that the irrational type's orientation towards their action is beyond reasoning - and it already was demonstrated by your example about Mrs. SLI who "is triggered by a sense of discomfort" thus has a need to "put things in order and reach internal comfort." This is what really means by irrational - it doesn't, for example, evaluate or analyze the information that are processed but rather about directly perceive the immediate environment as in their Statis (Si) to eventually act on it using their tool/instrumental function, which is Te-creative. Also, speaking of which, as for your example of Fi-base, isn't that clear they evaluate "all his feels to malleable information coming from subjective perceived Ne impressions and acts accordingly" as a part of their rationality? Feeling is the source of their belief to evaluate such information, despite it may seem irrational by its definition. Therefore, Irrational type of Jung dichotomy doesn't really mean irrational or illogical.

[Metaphor]

I haven't used Jung's definition here, but anyone can use it anyway

Socionics used Jung dichotomies to define IMEs, just saying.

[fjoerd]

Interesting questions that you have here. So, about that matter, first of all, I have to say one thing: 'grounded' means orientation or attachment towards reasoning. and therefore, it must be understood that the irrational type's orientation towards their action is beyond reasoning - and it already was demonstrated by your example about Mrs. SLI who "is triggered by a sense of discomfort" thus has a need to "put things in order and reach internal comfort." This is what really means by irrational - it doesn't, for example, evaluate or analyze the information that are processed but rather about directly perceive the immediate environment as in their Statis (Si) to eventually act on it using their tool/instrumental function, which is Te-creative. Also, speaking of which, as for your example of Fi-base, isn't that clear they evaluate "all his feels to malleable information coming from subjective perceived Ne impressions and acts accordingly" as a part of their rationality? Feeling is the source of their belief to evaluate such information, despite it may seem irrational by its definition. Therefore, Irrational type of Jung dichotomy doesn't really mean irrational or illogical.

This is a good answer, thank you. I thought about this more after I posted my reply, and have come to a similar conclusion. But I still think it's somewhat flawed how the rationality/irrationality of types has been brought over to Socionics. Jung defined his types mainly by the conflict within the dominant-inferior axis and seemingly assumed that the secondary conflict of a type (the functions in the middle) plays a less important role in a type's character, so in his thought experiments it was kind of natural to sort his types into rationals and irrationals. By his logic, a type is clearly one or the other. However, in Socionics the types are defined by the Ego Block, and the block is understood as the seamless interplay of rational and irrational elements of the base and creative function, and I think this shift in approach renders the original dichotomy less meaningful and reduces its significance.

[Metaphor]

This is a good answer, thank you. I thought about this more after I posted my reply, and have come to a similar conclusion. But I still think it's somewhat flawed how the rationality/irrationality of types has been brought over to Socionics. Jung defined his types mainly by the conflict within the dominant-inferior axis and seemingly assumed that the secondary conflict of a type (the functions in the middle) plays a less important role in a type's character, so in his thought experiments it was kind of natural to sort his types into rationals and irrationals. By his logic, a type is clearly one or the other. However, in Socionics the types are defined by the Ego Block, and the block is understood as the seamless interplay of rational and irrational elements of the base and creative function, and I think this shift in approach renders the original dichotomy less meaningful and reduces its significance.

I agreed that Jungian dichotomies is flawed, considering that Psychological Types never was incomplete, and I've been tempting to work on these definitions as well. However, it is important to keep in mind that despite that Ego block of a type is the combination of both Rational and Irrational, its Base determines these dichotomies. Therefore, I wouldn't say it is less meaningful, let alone reduce its significance, it's just that these dichotomies often are misunderstood as the significance of type as a whole - this is not true since to presume that, for instance, a logical person can't do illogical things is fallacious at best and cannot be taken as anything but rather misleading information.

[Tallmo]

This is a good answer, thank you. I thought about this more after I posted my reply, and have come to a similar conclusion. But I still think it's somewhat flawed how the rationality/irrationality of types has been brought over to Socionics. Jung defined his types mainly by the conflict within the dominant-inferior axis and seemingly assumed that the secondary conflict of a type (the functions in the middle) plays a less important role in a type's character, so in his thought experiments it was kind of natural to sort his types into rationals and irrationals. By his logic, a type is clearly one or the other. However, in Socionics the types are defined by the Ego Block, and the block is understood as the seamless interplay of rational and irrational elements of the base and creative function, and I think this shift in approach renders the original dichotomy less meaningful and reduces its significance.

I don't really see the problem here. A person can use both irrational and rational functions, but the base function is the most important function, and most developed, it defines your consciousness in a way. So in this way a type is clearly one or another. I can use rational functions but my default mode is always going back to the Si base, irrational, just taking in a flow of impressionistic sensations.

The type, as psychological structure, is clearly one or another, but people can of course use weaker functions also temporarily. But the type can be said to be either rational or irrational. Even if a person uses the creative function also, it is much weaker than the base in its strength, adaptation, efficiency etc.

We also say that types are either extraverted or introverted.

[fjoerd]

I don't really see the problem here. A person can use both irrational and rational functions, but the base function is the most important function, and most developed, it defines your consciousness in a way. So in this way a type is clearly one or another. I can use rational functions but my default mode is always going back to the Si base, irrational, just taking in a flow of impressionistic sensations.

The type, as psychological structure, is clearly one or another, but people can of course use weaker functions also temporarily. But the type can be said to be either rational or irrational. Even if a person uses the creative function also, it is much weaker than the base in its strength, adaptation, efficiency etc.

We also say that types are either extraverted or introverted.

There's no problem, I just see it differently. The two models have fundamentally different logic. In Socionics types are defined by the synergy of the rational and irrational within the blocks and the conflicts between the blocks. For Jung, a type was irrational if its main inner conflict was irrational, and a type was rational if its main inner conflict was rational. What is rational/irrational is just not the same in the two models.

[Tallmo]

There's no problem, I just see it differently. The two models have fundamentally different logic. In Socionics types are defined by the synergy of the rational and irrational within the blocks and the conflict between the blocks. For Jung, a type was irrational if its main inner conflict was irrational, and a type was rational if its main inner conflict was rational. What is rational and irrational are just not the same in the two models.

I don't understand. What conflicts? The types are the same, it's just that Socionics adds the weaker functions to the model.

[fjoerd]

I don't understand. What conflicts? The types are the same, it's just that Socionics adds the weaker functions to the model.

But they aren't. Jung defined only 8 types and for good reason. For him, an irrational type's rational conflict and a rational type's irrational conflict wasn't important.
> What conflicts?
For Jung, conflict between the conscious and unconscious forces.

[Sol]

Jung defined only 8 types and for good reason.

Jung has defined 16 types. He gave a description for 8 types by base function. And also said that every such type has 2 variants by 2nd function.
Read Jung's book with better attention.

[fjoerd]

Jung has defined 16 types. He gave a description for 8 types by base function. And also said that every such type has 2 variants by 2nd function.
Read Jung's book with better attention.

That is factually incorrect.

[Tallmo]

But they aren't. Jung defined only 8 types and for good reason. For him, an irrational type's rational conflict and a rational type's irrational conflict wasn't important.

I still don't understand what you mean. Both Jung and Socionics know that there is a creative (auxiliary) function with the opposite rationality. But that doesn't change the fact that the type has a main function and the rationality / irrationality of the type is defined by that function. T/F are rational and S/N are irrational both for Socionics and Jung.

Do you have any link that could explain what you mean. I'm wondering if I am missing something.

[fjoerd]

I still don't understand what you mean. Both Jung and Socionics know that there is a creative (auxiliary) function with the opposite rationality. But that doesn't change the fact that the type has a main function and the rationality / irrationality of the type is defined by that function. T/F are rational and S/N are irrational both for Socionics and Jung.

Do you have any link that could explain what you mean. I'm wondering if I am missing something.

You're not missing anything. What I was trying to say is that there's a shift in emphasis. In Socionics or MBTI for that matter, the creative/auxiliary function plays a far greater role in the model, it has equal importance to the leading function in defining the type. That's not the case for Jung. Jung mentions it, but doesn't really even define it. This is why he has only 8 types. Just an example: In Socionics, two types that lead with the same function (and Jung didn't even tell apart) don't even belong to the same quadra. Or to put it in a different way: According to Socionics, FiNe and NeFi are more similar to each other than FiNe and FiSe. Which brings up the question: What is even rational and irrational in Socionics, if an introvert rational type is more similar to an extrovert irrational type than to a type leading with the exact same function?

[Tallmo]

ok, thank's for explaining.

You're not missing anything. What I was trying to say is that there's a shift in emphasis. In Socionics or MBTI for that matter, the creative/auxiliary function plays a far greater role in the model, it has equal importance to the leading function in defining the type.

Yes it has a greater role because Socionics works with 16 types. But these are just the 8 Jungian types x 2. The model is completely modular. In this forum we also use 8 types frequently when we talk about "Ti bases", "Se bases" etc. That's 8 Jungian types, even though we don't call it that. Or we talk about "extraverts" vs "introverts". That's 2 types. You can simply choose how much detail you want to include at a given moment. The actual types in real life are exactly the same in Socionics and Jung.

That's not the case for Jung. Jung mentions it, but doesn't really even define it. This is why he has only 8 types.

He basically leaves it to us to work out the details. Just as we have done and now we talk about 16 types. Jung uses 8 types because there are only 8 base functions. In this sense there are only 8 main types, and kindred types (for example SLI & SEI) could be considered subtypes of each other. (If one wants to be picky about the structure). But talking about 16 types works fine.

[Just an example: In Socionics, two types that lead with the same function (and Jung didn't even tell apart) don't even belong to the same quadra. Or to put it in a different way: According to Socionics, FiNe and NeFi are more similar to each other than FiNe and FiSe. Which brings up the question: What is even rational and irrational in Socionics, if an introvert rational type is more similar to an extrovert irrational type than to a type leading with the exact same function?

Ok, so I think you are drawing too fast conclusions here. Quadra is just a practical way to group the types according to valued functions. There are many other ways to group the types. I don't think it's true that EII and IEE are more similar than EII and ESI, because that depends complete on what you mean by that. They are similar in the sense that they value the same functions, true. But EII and ESI are similar in the way that they are both rational and share the same base function. They are different in other ways.

[fjoerd]

@Tallmo I understand this and I wholly respect your opinion, I just disagree with it or see it differently. To me, the big Jungian type categories don't add up in MBTI nor in Socionics and I trace it back to how the auxiliary/creative function is treated. Sure, if common sense is not a concern, you can work around everything in a theory with more word salad definitions (Don't get me wrong, I'm not referring to you), but I believe, the festering problem can be clearly spotted in practice. People in typing circles cannot even agree on what is introversion and extroversion anymore, but if you focus on how Jung describes the behavior of the introverted and extroverted types (and you don't just focus on his incomplete definitions up to interpretation), it's pretty much the same how it is generally understood and it should be the most easily observable dimension of a type. Of course, the confusion comes from the fact that in order to uphold the inner logic of these newer models, the Jungian categories have to be redefined and reinterpreted all the time. Typologists just cannot leave types alone until they turn everything into spectrums.

Edited to add because I think it illustrates my problem:

Ok, so I think you are drawing too fast conclusions here. Quadra is just a practical way to group the types according to valued functions. There are many other ways to group the types. I don't think it's true that EII and IEE are more similar than EII and ESI, because that depends complete on what you mean by that. They are similar in the sense that they value the same functions, true. But EII and ESI are similar in the way that they are both rational and share the same base function. They are different in other ways.

I don't follow. So why don't you make your opinion clear on the matter? EII and ESI should be two variations of the same thing while IEE supposed to be something else, since it leads with a function completely different in nature. Not that simple, right? Now compare this to Jung's typology: How is a Ne-type any similar to a Fi-type for this to be even an issue.

[fjoerd]

Or from a different angle: For Jung, these categories were clear cut and worked perfectly because his types have nothing to do with each other, there's no overlap: In a sense, Jung's types have a single "valued element," the dominant function that is definitive for the type and that's it. If what the type values is extroverted, the type is extroverted, if it's rational, the type is rational and so on. Jung's types don't "value" the auxiliary, nor the inferior function. His categories just don't translate to models faithfully where every type has four valued elements and they value a mixture of everything.

[Tallmo]

@Tallmo I understand this and I wholly respect your opinion, I just disagree with it or see it differently. To me, the big Jungian type categories don't add up in MBTI nor in Socionics and I trace it back to how the auxiliary/creative function is treated. Sure, if common sense is not a concern, you can work around everything in a theory with more word salad definitions (Don't get me wrong, I'm not referring to you), but I believe, the festering problem can be clearly spotted in practice. People in typing circles cannot even agree on what is introversion and extroversion anymore, but if you focus on how Jung describes the behavior of the introverted and extroverted types (and you don't just focus on his incomplete definitions up to interpretation), it's pretty much the same how it is generally understood and it should be the most easily observable dimension of a type. Of course, the confusion comes from the fact that in order to uphold the inner logic of these newer models, the Jungian categories have to be redefined and reinterpreted all the time. Typologists just cannot leave types alone until they turn everything into spectrums.

MBTI doesn't follow Jung so yes, it doesn't add up. But Socionics follows Jung and that's why it works so well. The ITR are an amazing discovery.

It is all about being able to learn and observe the types in real life. Then you can also see past some minor differences in terminology etc. I don't know how much experience you have, but you have to be able to type yourself and you should experience all the relationships many times. Then you can see what Jung and the founders of Socionics have seen. It's the only way to learn typology, because you have to be able to double check things and correct mistakes because the types can be difficult to learn. There's lots of confusion out there, as you said. I think the problem is often that people haven't experienced these things themselves, and that's something one has to do otherwise there is no real psychological knowledge.

I don't follow. So why don't you make your opinion clear on the matter? EII and ESI should be two variations of the same thing while IEE supposed to be something else, since it leads with a function completely different in nature. Not that simple, right? Now compare this to Jung's typology: How is a Ne-type any similar to a Fi-type for this to be even an issue.

It's just a matter of what you want to focus on and emphasize. Ne bases are totally different from Fi bases as far as the base function goes but if you bring in weaker functions there are similarities (IEE & EII for example). This is not just about psychological types. We could have the same discussion about cats and dogs and golden retrievers. There is no problem here.

if you focus on how Jung describes the behavior of the introverted and extroverted types (and you don't just focus on his incomplete definitions up to interpretation), it's pretty much the same how it is generally understood and it should be the most easily observable dimension of a type.

In reality many people are balanced and adapted and it makes it harder to observe. Jung describes the pure type cases. But now we have things like DCNH subtypes that digs into that problem of sorting out non type related stuff, making it easier to get to the real type.

[fjoerd]

We could have the same discussion about cats and dogs and golden retrievers. There is no problem here.

cf.

In reality many people are balanced and adapted and it makes it harder to observe. Jung describes the pure type cases. But now we have things like DCNH subtypes that digs into that problem of sorting out non type related stuff, making it easier to get to the real type.

How would this be the same discussion? When it comes to dogs, cats and golden retreivers, it is clear what to observe and how to verify and the method leads to clarity, in the other case it is unclear what or even how to observe, there's no way to verify and attempts lead to confusion. Not that I insist on scientific proof, all I'm saying is introducing more and more leads to more confusion and besides, it's hard to overlook: In the first case, we know what is a dog, a cat or a retreiver while in the other, nothing is certain to any degree, there's just no dying this, - in practice, there's no agreement in a single person's type, which leads to my overall conclusion that your advice to learn and observe is a red herring. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Squirrel]

Socionics used Jung dichotomies to define IMEs, just saying.

Can you explain how ?

I don't seem to understand what you mean

[Metaphor]

Can you explain how ?

I don't seem to understand what you mean

Classical Socionics was mainly derived or, perhaps, having influence from Jung's Psychological Types, especially the Jungian Dichotomies.