Ask me Socionics junk

[Jeremy8419]

So, ask me Socionics junk and I may be able to answer. Don't ask me to type you or someone, though.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Type me!

Just kidding

 

[Jeremy8419]

Type me!

Just kidding

Well, people get mad if you don't type them how they see themselves instead of how you see them lol.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Yo who is responsible for the typologycentral blog on tumblr

No idea.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Well, people get mad if you don't type them how they see themselves instead of how you see them lol.

I wouldn't

 

[highlander]

So, ask me Socionics junk and I may be able to answer. Don't ask me to type you or someone, though.

I have two questions.

1. I generally have thought that my Socionics type is the same as my MBTI type except the last letter reflects if the person is a dominant perceiver or judger. So as an INTJ, I'm an INTp in Socionics. An ISFJ would be an ISFp. An ESTJ would be an ESTj. An INTP would be an INTj. How accurate is that as a general rule? When are there exceptions? I know there are different tests out there for Socionics - when would they show a different result than an MBTI or cognitive function assessment?

2. What exactly is the difference in the interpretation of the meaning of the cognitive functions when comparing Socionics to the definitions by people like Nardi, Berens, Hartzler or Thompson?

 

[Jeremy8419]

I have two questions.

1. I generally have thought that my Socionics type is the same as my MBTI type except the last letter reflects if the person is a dominant perceiver or judger. So as an INTJ, I'm an INTp in Socionics. An ISFJ would be an ISFp. An ESTJ would be an ESTj. An INTP would be an INTj. How accurate is that as a general rule? When are there exceptions? I know there are different tests out there for Socionics - when would they show a different result than an MBTI or cognitive function assessment?

It depends on the situation surrounding the person and their typing. An initial distinction between typing by assessment and typing by functional analysis in MBTI needs to be known. Typing by assessment is the most accurate way to determine MBTI, as that is what “MBTI Type” actually is. When an individual takes the assessment, it tells the individual what dichotomies they are currently operating in; however, it has no bearing on the situation in which the individual was assessed. The individual could be in an emotional equilibrium, stressed, angry, etc. The individual could be in public, at work, in private, or with family. Without knowing the situation surrounding the individual, nor their emotional state, all you will know is the mentality in which they are currently operating. Typing by functional analysis has no ability to transfer over from just knowing the person’s claimed typed, because it was determined based upon unknown criteria. So, first, one must know these things prior to attempting a conversion.



Within Socionics, you have elements, functions, blocks, superblocks, dimensionalty, etc. Socionics, as an ILE-based system, has 3-dimensional Introverted Thinking (structural logic, system logic). The 3rd Dimension is one which contains Situations, Norms, and Experience Parameters (yes, this may seem Greek). If you follow that the authors of MBTI were, indeed, INFJ and INFP, then they would have the same dimensionality for each of their elements (regardless of how you transfer between systems on any J/P stuff). Both IEI and EII have 2-dimensional Introverted Thinking. The 2nd Dimension contains Norms, and Experience. Norms Parameter is the ability to compare to the norms and standards of society. Within MBTI, and a lot of other typology tests, you have a 2-dimensional Introverted Thinking, structural logic, and system logic, which utilize the four dichotomies to compare the individual’s mindset to others to fit into the system classifications. However, as in the previous paragraph, this does not consider the Situation in which the individual was assessed. Be it MBTI or Socionics test, if it does not consider the Situation surrounding the test, then it will not give Socionics TIM. Situations Parameter is capable of going one dimension higher than Norms Parameter and considering the various situations that exist surrounding Norms Parameter and adapts to these various Situations. By going from a 2-dimensional Introverted Thinking system, such as MBTI assessment, to a 3-dimensional Introverted Thinking system, you move into the realm of Situations, and can develop a system that shows through which Norms (MBTI Type) an individual will operate within based upon the Situation.



Individuals are capable of operating for any length of time in any of their Socionics Functions. Each Function is merely a Situation. Each function has varying degrees of energy use, stress induced, pleasure created, lethargy, whatever, etc. to it.



These functions are arranged into blocks:

Ego: conscious product in society, low energy use, confident state

Super-Ego: conscious necessities in the face of society, high energy use, stressed state

Super-Id: preconscious individual desires to be received from society, high energy use, pleasurable and childlike state

Id: preconscious individual activity, low energy use, lethargy state



An individual may type under Norms as being LIE (Te-), but if the individual is predominated by moderate levels of stress, the individual would actually be operating in the Situation of the Super-Ego, placing their correct TIM as ESE or SEI. Without considering the appropriate Situation, all indications to both the individual and others would indicate LIE (Te-). The various descriptors of the Blocks can be used to narrow down the correct TIM.



These blocks are arranged into superblocks:

Mental: conscious thought in society

Vital: preconscious automation and individuality



By definition correlations, Mental is most similar to Judging and Vital is most similar to Perceiving. An individual could be in one of their two strongest Socionics TIM’s functions while taking an MBTI test and test in MBTI as P, which would place them as operating primarily in their Vital, and, in this case, most likely their Demonstrative Function.

2. What exactly is the difference in the interpretation of the meaning of the cognitive functions when comparing Socionics to the definitions by people like Nardi, Berens, Hartzler or Thompson?

I don’t actually read those authors or researchers, so I would have to be provided with their definitions to translate it into Socionics. Keep in mind, there’s no centralized “Socionics,” so a lot of everything I write concerning Socionics is conglomerations of their various logics, keeping the best quality pieces and making casual determinist connections.

 

[fetus]

Thank you for this thread! I don't understand Socionics much, and it's less known than the other type theories (at least in America), so it's nice to have someone who is knowledgeable.

Can you explain what Si is? And can you explain the difference between Fi and Fe? This is obviously Socionics functions.

 

[highlander]

It depends on the situation surrounding the person and their typing. An initial distinction between typing by assessment and typing by functional analysis in MBTI needs to be known. Typing by assessment is the most accurate way to determine MBTI, as that is what “MBTI Type” actually is. When an individual takes the assessment, it tells the individual what dichotomies they are currently operating in; however, it has no bearing on the situation in which the individual was assessed. The individual could be in an emotional equilibrium, stressed, angry, etc. The individual could be in public, at work, in private, or with family. Without knowing the situation surrounding the individual, nor their emotional state, all you will know is the mentality in which they are currently operating. Typing by functional analysis has no ability to transfer over from just knowing the person’s claimed typed, because it was determined based upon unknown criteria. So, first, one must know these things prior to attempting a conversion.



Within Socionics, you have elements, functions, blocks, superblocks, dimensionalty, etc. Socionics, as an ILE-based system, has 3-dimensional Introverted Thinking (structural logic, system logic). The 3rd Dimension is one which contains Situations, Norms, and Experience Parameters (yes, this may seem Greek). If you follow that the authors of MBTI were, indeed, INFJ and INFP, then they would have the same dimensionality for each of their elements (regardless of how you transfer between systems on any J/P stuff). Both IEI and EII have 2-dimensional Introverted Thinking. The 2nd Dimension contains Norms, and Experience. Norms Parameter is the ability to compare to the norms and standards of society. Within MBTI, and a lot of other typology tests, you have a 2-dimensional Introverted Thinking, structural logic, and system logic, which utilize the four dichotomies to compare the individual’s mindset to others to fit into the system classifications. However, as in the previous paragraph, this does not consider the Situation in which the individual was assessed. Be it MBTI or Socionics test, if it does not consider the Situation surrounding the test, then it will not give Socionics TIM. Situations Parameter is capable of going one dimension higher than Norms Parameter and considering the various situations that exist surrounding Norms Parameter and adapts to these various Situations. By going from a 2-dimensional Introverted Thinking system, such as MBTI assessment, to a 3-dimensional Introverted Thinking system, you move into the realm of Situations, and can develop a system that shows through which Norms (MBTI Type) an individual will operate within based upon the Situation.



Individuals are capable of operating for any length of time in any of their Socionics Functions. Each Function is merely a Situation. Each function has varying degrees of energy use, stress induced, pleasure created, lethargy, whatever, etc. to it.



These functions are arranged into blocks:

Ego: conscious product in society, low energy use, confident state

Super-Ego: conscious necessities in the face of society, high energy use, stressed state

Super-Id: preconscious individual desires to be received from society, high energy use, pleasurable and childlike state

Id: preconscious individual activity, low energy use, lethargy state



An individual may type under Norms as being LIE (Te-), but if the individual is predominated by moderate levels of stress, the individual would actually be operating in the Situation of the Super-Ego, placing their correct TIM as ESE or SEI. Without considering the appropriate Situation, all indications to both the individual and others would indicate LIE (Te-). The various descriptors of the Blocks can be used to narrow down the correct TIM.



These blocks are arranged into superblocks:

Mental: conscious thought in society

Vital: preconscious automation and individuality



By definition correlations, Mental is most similar to Judging and Vital is most similar to Perceiving. An individual could be in one of their two strongest Socionics TIM’s functions while taking an MBTI test and test in MBTI as P, which would place them as operating primarily in their Vital, and, in this case, most likely their Demonstrative Function.



I don’t actually read those authors or researchers, so I would have to be provided with their definitions to translate it into Socionics. Keep in mind, there’s no centralized “Socionics,” so a lot of everything I write concerning Socionics is conglomerations of their various logics, keeping the best quality pieces and making casual determinist connections.

To be honest, I'm having a very hard time understanding all of this. I know MBTI and cognitive functions very well but not Socionics. Is there a more basic description somewhere?

 

[Jeremy8419]

To be honest, I'm having a very hard time understanding all of this. I know MBTI and cognitive functions very well but not Socionics. Is there a more basic description somewhere?

Ah, sorry. I wrote that with the assumption that you had read a fair bit already. Socionics is a collection of individuals and schools applying logical structures to their abstract viewpoints of people and the world around them. There is no linear, universal structure outside of the most basic Model A, which really isn't any much better than MBTI as far as being so abstract that it really doesn't explain much at all as far as concrete details go. Everyone in Socionics has a viewpoint, and all of them are at least slightly different, so you wind up with tons of information that is often contradictory or overlaps itself in contrary ways. They all provide individual impressions of reality. I read a ton, checked society for objective information, and, in MBTI terms, let's just say that I Ni'd(?) the piss out of a whole lot of information on impressions of reality to get much closer to the shared reality behind them.

For basic information, you'll have to use a bit of google translate on some of these:
Socionics from novice to expert | School of System Socionics
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aleksandr_Bukalov/publications
Socionics - International Institute of Socionics

Or I could just write stuff, doesn't matter to me.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Thank you for this thread! I don't understand Socionics much, and it's less known than the other type theories (at least in America), so it's nice to have someone who is knowledgeable.

Can you explain what Si is? And can you explain the difference between Fi and Fe? This is obviously Socionics functions.

Let me know if you follow this:

I think I use Fe/Fi differently in relation to Socionics than some of you are referencing.

Fe I treat as extroversion of emotions, that which we put out into the world from the source of ourselves. It's called Ethics of Emotions in Socionics and treated as singular and objective; that is, the emotions I put into the world are akin to a wave with properties and patterns and frequencies and amplitudes and what-not, but they simply "are," and there is no "good," "bad," or whatever, as there is no subjective comparison. Each individual is able to make their own subjective views on my objective emotions. These emotions, as all waves, affect the world around them.

Fi I treat as introversion of emotions, that which we take within to ourselves from the world around us. It's called Ethics of Emotions in Socionics and treated as relationships (connections) between emotions which are subjective; that is, by introverting different objective emotions from the world around us, we may each make subjective judgments concerning the nature of the connections between different objective emotions such as "good," "bad," "like," "repulsion," etc. Because each individual has different psychic composition, invariably, each person will have different, no matter how slight, subjective judgments on the various connections between emotions in the world around us. Due to it being an introversion, it requires a complimentary extroversion to actually affect the world around us; that is, it has no direct effect on the world around us.

Because the two are poles on the same greater "Ethics," the two have inherent complimentary and inverse relations to each other. For example, as a Fi Leading type, who uses Introverted Ethics as their primary, conscious, and clear worldview, I primarily utilize the introversion of emotions of the world around me as my focus within "Ethics," which bears the consequence of restricted emotional affect (as in psychology "affect") of myself; focus on objective emotions of the world around me reduces my own objective emotions. In response to such, and the inherent necessity of maintaining some form of affect (psychology again) and the consciously restricted Se (Forcefulness), I rely on Ne (Possibilities; manifested via questioning viewpoints) and Te (Work) as my utilized extroversions for affect. Because the two poles of the same Macro-element are two sides of the same coin, and one is Conscious and the other Preconscious, one manifests itself as my conscious process, and the other manifests itself as the background, foundational process; that is, although I have Leading, conscious Fi, the actual subjective judgments such makes is still directly tied to my own, unconsciously repressed, preconscious objective emotions, because it is ultimately my own heart which leads to the conscious breeding of subjective judgments on ethics.

 

[Kierva]

What's the difference in Fi between SEEs and IEEs?

 

[Jeremy8419]

What's the difference in Fi between SEEs and IEEs?

SEE's use their good and bad relationships to protect their space. IEE's use their relationships to increase their good potential and decrease their bad potential.

 

[Kierva]

SEE's use their good and bad relationships to protect their space. IEE's use their relationships to increase their good potential and decrease their bad potential.

Can you elaborate with examples?

 

[Jeremy8419]

Can you elaborate with examples?

SEE will make it apparent that they either like or dislike someone. They do such in a way which benefits the protection of their and their close ones' assets. If they don't like you, you may or may not want them to like you, but, until you exist in such a way that their assets are protected from you, they won't tell people they like you.

IEE will try and be friends and maintain good relationships with everyone. By doing so, they always have access to whatever aspect of life that they want to better themselves at. They will also have access to having whatever negative aspects about themselves removed by those most suited to do such.

 

[Kierva]

SEE will make it apparent that they either like or dislike someone. They do such in a way which benefits the protection of their and their close ones' assets. If they don't like you, you may or may not want them to like you, but, until you exist in such a way that their assets are protected from you, they won't tell people they like you.

IEE will try and be friends and maintain good relationships with everyone. By doing so, they always have access to whatever aspect of life that they want to better themselves at. They will also have access to having whatever negative aspects about themselves removed by those most suited to do such.

What about the IEE that happens to hate that certain someone?

On a somewhat related note, does this have to do with Gamma vs Delta?

 

[Jeremy8419]

What about the IEE that happens to hate that certain someone?

On a somewhat related note, does this have to do with Gamma vs Delta?

Well, everyone does all things, these are just the comparative focuses of their cognitive processes. The two types are Business ITR. One will seem more natural and strong with one form of Fi. IEE will seem like they genuinely like someone with near no inclination of otherwise, but will seem almost juvenile when attempting to say they hate someone. SEE on the other hand will have a wide-range of gradiation in their relationships and how they like or dislike someone, but will seem somewhat juvenile when saying why they like someone.

Somewhat. Overall, there is a large gradiation in people and their relationships, so even if you place pretty firm fences between types, the reality is that fences are only like a hand-length wide in comparison to the huge fields they separate. The types still flow into each other, as do people in reality.

 

[highlander]

Ah, sorry. I wrote that with the assumption that you had read a fair bit already. Socionics is a collection of individuals and schools applying logical structures to their abstract viewpoints of people and the world around them. There is no linear, universal structure outside of the most basic Model A, which really isn't any much better than MBTI as far as being so abstract that it really doesn't explain much at all as far as concrete details go. Everyone in Socionics has a viewpoint, and all of them are at least slightly different, so you wind up with tons of information that is often contradictory or overlaps itself in contrary ways. They all provide individual impressions of reality. I read a ton, checked society for objective information, and, in MBTI terms, let's just say that I Ni'd(?) the piss out of a whole lot of information on impressions of reality to get much closer to the shared reality behind them.

For basic information, you'll have to use a bit of google translate on some of these:
Socionics from novice to expert | School of System Socionics
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aleksandr_Bukalov/publications
Socionics - International Institute of Socionics

Or I could just write stuff, doesn't matter to me.

Feel free to write stuff.

I have always thought that MBTi and cognitive functions provides a solid understanding of the dynamics behind how an individual "thinks" meaning how they perceive and how they make judgments. A lot of the descriptions focus too much on behavior but type isn't a great predictor of behavior. On a practical basis, the way I use it is to try and understand how a person might think vs. predicting how they might act.

 

[Snickie]

How important is it that the Reinin dichotomies match up with one's perceived type?

Keep in mind that all I've read about Socionics is whatever is provided on sociotype.com.

 

[Jeremy8419]

How important is it that the Reinin dichotomies match up with one's perceived type?

Depends on how you want to use Socionics. Model A, Model B, Model T, and the associated descriptions, stereotypes, and, well, basically everything associated with them are written with the Reinin being accurate for each type, whether they readily admit such or not. Within the Typology communities, you have people who say their behaviors compared to their cognition are within the norms of society for society's comparisons, and you have people who say exactly the opposite. The former is how most resources anywhere on any subject will be written, and the latter is a case which should be considered separately from everything else. Model G is more in-line with the latter, as it contains this inversion compared to the norms of society.

The Reinin Dichotomies are poorly described on most English websites due to original resource availability and translations. Stratyovska (? Can't spell lol) is a prominent member of the Socionics community, an ESI (probably ISFJ in MBTI), and the current leading authority on Reinin Dichotomies. The following is a machine translation, with subsequent manual translation of unclear parts by myself, of an article of hers on basic descriptions of the dichotomies.