Socionics type: EII or LII

[Athenian200]

I've been looking at Socionics, and one thing I know with certainty is that I'm not Beta, and others who've typed me usually come up with EII or LII, with approximately equal consistency. So I think it's likely I'm one of those two types.

Normally I'd assume that since I'm INFJ in MBTI, I should be EII (INFj) in Socionics, especially since I'm clearly not IEI (INFp). But I've heard of people's Socionic L/E not matching up with their MBTI T/F, and I figured it was worth investigating.

The main difference seems to come down to Role function and Base function:

The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in their system of views and behavior. They freely make logical assertions (often exaggerated) about new information and experience. They hold highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and are a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, their own, or even the other person's. Although they are able to adopt others' rules, their own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement.
Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.

The individual recognizes the existence and importance of personal relationships, so they are usually cautious at first about offending others if they do not know them well. To minimize this risk they adhere somewhat simplistically to the relevant social conventions (e.g. political correctness). However, if taken too far this produces stress, as it inhibits their natural Logical inclination to voice exactly what their thoughts are on a given issue or situation, with the expectation that others will appreciate their straightforwardness, rather than accusing them of being insensitive. This caution gradually disappears as they get to know people better.
They prefer to develop relationships indirectly with others based on open conversation and common activities, and only reveals their innermost personal feelings to those they have known for a long time. They may become confused and suspicious if they are directly solicited by others.

The individual sees reality primarity through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including themselves, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by their personal ethics. The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people. This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. If they have difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, they will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude them, they will regard the relationship as not worth it. Their own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in their relationships with others is a very strong factor in their sense of self-worth. Ethics in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual.

The individual is able to talk about things from a dispassionate academic or theoretical point of view for brief periods of time, but seems overly bookish when doing so and tends to grows tense. When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by Ethics, the individual attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out. He then either explains the ethical motivation or avoids the issue altogether.

If you've observed my posting style over a long period of time, this may help as well:

Vocabulary/Introverted ethics - Wikisocion

Vocabulary/Introverted logic - Wikisocion

Anyone familiar with Socionics, feel free to point out anything you feel I've overlooked. I haven't already dismissed all of the other factors (despite emphasizing these), but have provided this simplified framework so that those unfamiliar with the larger context will have a semi-reasonable basis for forming an opinion on the matter.

In all likelihood, I'm just going to assume I'm EII in Socionics (despite a few inconsistencies that make me question it) and leave it at that for now if no one suggests otherwise.

 

[entropie]

Dont you think your problem could lay elsewhere, than in finding out your socionics type, if you couldnt identify with one of their types to at least 10% of satisfaction ?!

I mean on Wikisonicon they write A LOT about types. And if you cant decide on one, but rather choose the best bits of them all, your problem definitly wont be solved by finding out your socionics type.

 

[Athenian200]

Dont you think your problem could lay elsewhere, than in finding out your socionics type, if you couldnt identify with one of their types to at least 10% of satisfaction ?!

I mean on Wikisonicon they write A LOT about types. And if you cant decide on one, but rather choose the best bits of them all, your problem definitly wont be solved by finding out your socionics type.

My "problem"? I was just curious what people would think. Please don't get angry with me.

What do you think my problem is? I didn't mean to offend you or anything...

 

[entropie]

well nvm.

 

[Athenian200]

well nvm.

O... kay.

You had me curious what you thought my problem was, but... ah, well.

Now I wish I hadn't started this thread. :blushing:

 

[Kasper]

I'd suggest posing this question on a socionics board, there aren't many people here who rate socionics and even less who understand it.

My belief is you should be the same time under both systems but should still independently investigate them in case you are mistyped under one.

 

[Athenian200]

I'd suggest posing this question on a socionics board, there aren't many people here who rate socionics and even less who understand it.

I've done that, actually. That's how I narrowed it down to EII and LII. The problem is that the people on the other boards have no concept of my behavior over time, and only have one or two conversations to go on. So here, people know how I am, but don't get the system. There, people know the system, but don't know how I am. I was hoping that by simplifying the choice to be clearly between two relevant descriptions, I could get better feedback despite (or even because of) the respondent's ignorance of the context.

But, considering how entropie reacted, I probably shouldn't have bothered with this.

My belief is you should be the same time under both systems but should still independently investigate them in case you are mistyped under one.

Okay, I'll go ahead and take that as confirmation of EII, then. Thanks.

 

[snegledmaca]

I know the system, but don't know how you are.

My "problem"? I was just curious what people would think. Please don't get angry with me.

What do you think my problem is? I didn't mean to offend you or anything...

This reaction reminds me exactly of a reaction of this person, who is universally regarded as EII, where this person thought I was venting my frustrations on them.

Why are you "clearly not IEI"? Or you know with certainty that you're not Beta? What makes you think you value Ne/Si over Ni/Se?

 

[Athenian200]

I know the system, but don't know how you are.

Yes. It would appear so...

This reaction reminds me exactly of a reaction of this person, who is universally regarded as EII, where this person thought I was venting my frustrations on them.

Well, he did seem angry. He used an exclamation point and question mark, and presumed I had a problem I wasn't mentioning. So I was just trying to calm him down. I don't know what I did to offend him, but I must have done something.

Why are you "clearly not IEI"? Or you know with certainty that you're not Beta? What makes you think you value Ne/Si over Ni/Se?

Well, the thing is, I can relate to MBTI descriptions of Ni and Se to some degree, but not to Socionic descriptions of it. In Socionics, Ne is a better fit... I don't know why. And Socionic Se... yikes, it's all about power. It seems reinforced by my disagreement with Gamma and Beta quadra values compared to Alpha and Delta.

 

[527468]

If you're interested in socionics at all, then join a socionics forum and post around. People there will type you without you even asking, and give reasonability with that. Even show off some pictures for VI purposes. Attending these forums will give you a basis for learning the importances of socionics, which in affect generates an understanding of type.

Other than that, I'd love to help you. I'm already assuming that you think you're Se PoLR.

My belief is you should be the same time under both systems but should still independently investigate them in case you are mistyped under one.

That's less than often applicable.

 

[snegledmaca]

Well, he did seem angry. He used an exclamation point and question mark, and presumed I had a problem I wasn't mentioning. So I was just trying to calm him down. I don't know what I did to offend him, but I must have done something.

The general comfort with the emotional side of things it is what struck me. For example, I'd expect a rational type to make a reason based response, not an ethical one. Especially a supposed Ti dominant.

Well, the thing is, I can relate to MBTI descriptions of Ni and Se to some degree, but not to Socionic descriptions of it. In Socionics, Ne is a better fit... I don't know why. And Socionic Se... yikes, it's all about power. It seems reinforced by my disagreement with Gamma and Beta quadra values compared to Alpha and Delta.

What about your quadra values? I'd say one's quadra values are important and are where, IMO, one's type is revealed.

How do you generally feel about the Ti/Fe - Fi/Te difference? Would you say you value Ti/Fe or Fi/Te?

 

[Athenian200]

The general comfort with the emotional side of things it is what struck me. For example, I'd expect a rational type to make a reason based response, not an ethical one. Especially a supposed Ti dominant.

Yeah. I'm fairly comfortable with my emotional side compared to those types.

What about your quadra values? I'd say one's quadra values are important and are where, IMO, one's type is revealed.

How do you generally feel about the Ti/Fe - Fi/Te difference? Would you say you value Ti/Fe or Fi/Te?

Well, again... it depends on MBTI or Socionics. In MBTI I value Fe, but in Socionics I don't like it. I'm pretty sure I value Fi over Fe in Socionics, but I'm not sure about Ti or Te. I'm pretty sure I value MBTI Ti over Te, but in Socionics the lines seem more blurred, though I'm more aware of using Ti.

Am I confusing you yet?

It literally feels almost like Socionics turns my functional preferences inside-out.

 

[snegledmaca]

Well, again... it depends on MBTI or Socionics. In MBTI I value Fe, but in Socionics I don't like it. I'm pretty sure I value Fi over Fe in Socionics, but I'm not sure about Ti or Te. I'm pretty sure I value MBTI Ti over Te, but in Socionics the lines seem more blurred, though I'm more aware of using Ti.

Am I confusing you yet?

It literally feels almost like Socionics turns my functional preferences inside-out.

That's because they use the same names for different things. For example, there is no equivalent of socionics Se in MBTT.

Well if you think you value Fi over Fe then that pulls valued Te over Ti. And if you are a EII, that would make LSE your dual. And they have dominant Te. That is, if you are EII you would value Te. How come you're not sure about Ti and Te? And why do you say you value Fi over Fe? Elaborate.

 

[527468]

Okay, I'm going to keep trying to help even though you seemed to dodge my response.

Ti/Fe types are "merry," and Fi/Te types are "serious," of traditional quadra dichotomy.

Here are definitions of Ti and Fi in terms of the first function (leading.)

Ti logic is inertial. Instead of “making things work”, it rather focuses on elimination of contradictions, on systematization, or in more general meaning – on “justice” (if it only exists). The types for which this function is dominant are often not too energetic, they are rather stable-mooded, work without noticeable “falls” and “rises”, logical and reticent in their sayings and deeds. On the one hand, other people respect them for being “just”, for their cold and sober analysis of situations; on the other, they do not “feel people” well.

Fi is inertial; many emotions are inside such a person, but they do not go outwards, and rather stay “conserved”. Such people are very passionate in evaluating other people, but from outside they seem to be “emotionless”, smiling just as much as etiquette requires. They are good spectators of relations: in a small collective, they very quickly feel who has which relations with whom. They can work with people – as lawyers, pedagogues, etc. However, being so attentive to people's relations, they do not like, even more, they are afraid of “intellectual initiative”, do not like arguing, because it can “break” or just significantly change relations with other people.

 

[Athenian200]

That's because they use the same names for different things. For example, there is no equivalent of socionics Se in MBTT.

Ah, I kind of thought they were for different things. Most people insist that it's the same thing, though.

Well if you think you value Fi over Fe then that pulls valued Te over Ti. And if you are a EII, that would make LSE your dual. And they have dominant Te. That is, if you are EII you would value Te. How come you're not sure about Ti and Te? And why do you say you value Fi over Fe? Elaborate.

Okay, that's easy enough.

Socionics Fe just seems goofy and shallow, and mostly about expressing your own feelings and being in the moment. Like the kids I used to dislike in High School. It reminds me of what I disliked about MBTI Se. Fi is more the "political correctness" and concern with propriety thing in Socionics, while in MBTI Fe had that role.

Now, with MBTI Te, it's just all about achieving goals efficiently and making people work together, which is nice but not a priority. Socionics Te includes that, but throws in more things like citing sources and judging ability/intelligence. Ti is still pretty much Ti. The added weight to Te makes it look more appealing, but I'm still drawn to the precision of Ti as well.

Did any of that make sense?

 

[Athenian200]

Okay, I'm going to keep trying to help even though you seemed to dodge my response.

That wasn't intentional. I just started on page 2, so I missed it. Anyway, that's good advice. And yes, I do sort of suspect Se PoLR. That power stuff freaks me out.

Ti/Fe types are "merry," and Fi/Te types are "serious," of traditional quadra dichotomy.

Oh, well I'd definitely say I'm more serious than merry in general.

Ti logic is inertial. Instead of “making things work”, it rather focuses on elimination of contradictions, on systematization, or in more general meaning – on “justice” (if it only exists). The types for which this function is dominant are often not too energetic, they are rather stable-mooded, work without noticeable “falls” and “rises”, logical and reticent in their sayings and deeds. On the one hand, other people respect them for being “just”, for their cold and sober analysis of situations; on the other, they do not “feel people” well.

See, I do focus on eliminating contradictions and systemization, but not on "justice." I don't consider Justice logical, but rather ideal. I tend to try and explain things fully and elaborate, giving examples rather than being reticent.

Fi is inertial; many emotions are inside such a person, but they do not go outwards, and rather stay “conserved”. Such people are very passionate in evaluating other people, but from outside they seem to be “emotionless”, smiling just as much as etiquette requires. They are good spectators of relations: in a small collective, they very quickly feel who has which relations with whom. They can work with people – as lawyers, pedagogues, etc. However, being so attentive to people's relations, they do not like, even more, they are afraid of “intellectual initiative”, do not like arguing, because it can “break” or just significantly change relations with other people.

I'm mostly like this, except I'm not afraid of arguing a point logically. Sometimes I do take intellectual initiative and attack a point, especially if I'm in an environment where that's considered acceptable.

 

[527468]

From my own understanding that I've shared with others, introverted functions are more inclined to regard and value the truth of the element, where as extroverted functions are more inclined to regard and value the elements use.

So introverted feeling is cold truth regarding ethics. Not in search for something one can use on the spot, like Fe to brighten one with emotions and improve the situation through carrying the emotional weight of the group, rather a cold understanding, the meaning of the words. Same with introverted thinking. It doesn't have to be useful, rather urges for a complete understanding of the logical system. Fi/Te valuer would rather have the "logic" in form of how useful it is, and usually make personal use for ethics. Introverts making implications rather than movements. The opposite goes for Ti/Fe. Most logical implications can easily be generalized from this understanding.

 

[527468]

The role function, which would be the one you didn't chose, if you are an INxj, is what confirms you when it comes to needing improvement in social situations. You try to put on this face of "role" until you can find a comfort zone in the conversation and make your way to your leading function. If that is Fi, then at first you would show a somewhat artificial face of Ti (not necessarily expressing it or communicating it, but being ready with it) which you don't value or are strong in, but it most easily goes with balancing your overly used Fi, so Ti would temporarily block with Ne until you were at the point of "letting go" and being yourself, feeling comfortable expressing Fi.

 

[527468]

If you are Fi leading, then you are Te seeking or accepting. You long for help in this area, and expression of this weak function gives you the confidence to express it yourself. It is the leading strength of your dual. Duality and relationships alike are what defines socionics in terms of practical application. If you feel as though the ESTj is not your dual, then either your understanding of duality is off, your understanding of the ESTj is off or easily misinformed by MBTI stereotypes, or you are not an EII. There is theoretically no exception for a fault, since socionics works as a whole. Relations are the tools of socionics. No person is less human than you.

 

[Athenian200]

The role function, which would be the one you didn't chose, if you are an INxj, is what confirms you when it comes to needing improvement in social situations. You try to put on this face of "role" until you can find a comfort zone in the conversation and make your way to your leading function. If that is Fi, then at first you would show a somewhat artificial face of Ti (not necessarily expressing it or communicating it, but being ready with it) which you don't value or are strong in, but it most easily goes with balancing your overly used Fi, so Ti would temporarily block with Ne until you were at the point of "letting go" and being yourself, feeling comfortable expressing Fi.

Well, that's really hard to tell. There are some emotions I would only share with people I knew well. But there are other emotions I "fake" around people I don't trust, but if I knew them I would criticize them.

For instance, I once felt rather annoyed with someone because they referred to a PM as an e-mail, and that was technically inaccurate. Also, I often like to correct people's grammar if it's off. Finally, I got really annoyed when someone told someone else about the J/P switch for Introverts in Socionics/MBTI conversion being an explaination for why their J/P didn't match up, and I insisted on pointing out that the switch doesn't always work, and that you can't actually convert the types. I was confused when they justified by saying their explanation was reasonable "at the level of the conversation." I couldn't understand how that justified dissiminating incorrect information.

In MBTI, I'm pretty sure that would be Ti. What about Socionics?