please explain socionics!

[Typh0n]

Yeah, I agree with you. In MBTI I'm an INTJ, and had the second level test done professionally so I know all the ins and outs of that, and cognitive functions work with that. What I got from the Socionics was that I tested as INTp and my Dual is around the ENFP types, and some of that other relational stuff.

I never got the reasoning behind that lettering thing like LIE- Fi as in what's the Fi part of that mean?

If you are INTp, or ILI, then your dual is SEE or ESFp, not ENFp.

There is no LIE-Fi, its either LIE-Te or LIE-Ni, since LIE has two main functions, Te (dominant function) and Ni (creative function), they can prefer one of those functions (they use it more) over the other.

 

[Chrysanthe]

If you are INTp, or ILI, then your dual is SEE or ESFp, not ENFp.

There is no LIE-Fi, its either LIE-Te or LIE-Ni, since LIE has two main functions, Te (dominant function) and Ni (creative function), they can prefer one of those functions (they use it more) over the other.

Though I suppose an LIE-Ni is also effectively an LIE-Fi, because Fi along with the other F and N counterparts are strengthened too with that subtype.

 

[wolfnara]

I'm not so sure about this. I have figured out my MBTI type with relative ease. However it's worth noting I most frequently test as ESTJ.

Yet, in socionics, while SLE makes the most sense to me, and I am 100% beta, I honestly feel like a three way mix between SLE, EIE, and LSI. I've flopped between all 3 of those at one point or another, and I find it very difficult to nail down my type. The functions in socionics seem a lot more merky and wishy-washy, and there's a lot of behavior basis which I don't really buy in any theory since it's inconsistent.

In other words, I think MBTI is a lot easier to sort.

I will correct myself - what I meant by this was it is easier to identify socionics types (overall, not for everyone of course) compared to the cognitive functions. MBTI dichotomies is easy because it is personality types in the most simplest form. That combined with cognitive functions makes it difficult for most to find what their type is. Socionics doesn't involve the judging/perceiving dichotomies, type descriptions based on the four letters, type descriptions based on each function, social extroversion and introversion, and the stereotypes within all that.
Also, I believe a persons MBTI type can very different to their socionics type;

Your socionics type will most likely align with your self-discovered cognitive functions. However, in my opinion socionics types can be slightly different. Depends it you are going by you MBTI type (then it could have a huge difference in the four letters) or your Cognitive Functions alone (Likely the same functions in socionics). You should still read into types and functions to identify your type as it will expand your insight to typology as a whole.

 

[Bush]

[MENTION=25733]wolfnara[/MENTION] [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] -- I'd say this: Socionics is much more clearly and crisply defined than MBTI; and so there's a lot of potential for pinpointing some clear Sociotype. Whether or not that means that it's easier to find one's type, though, is another question. Socionics is so crisp that it's tough as nails to open it up to enough interpretation to properly peg someone. For any given type, there's the IM stacking (the thing that must be relatable), temperament, quadra, 16 intertype relationships, Reinin dichotomies, and approximately one billion other attributes defined by the system.

Some may happen to fit a lot of that stuff for some type. But I'm also sure that there's, say, the odd ILE that hasn't much cared for the SEI (its dual) in his experience.

If someone meets one of the crisp definitions, it becomes very easy to pinpoint their Sociotype; and they may also find the MBTI definitions too vague and overlapping. If they don't meet one of those clear Sociotype definitions, though, ... not so much.

My Enneatype (3) was much more clear for me (and pretty much everyone on the whole planet) than any of the other systems, as I happen to fit one Enneatype well.. but my place in the good ol' MBTI isn't as clear. Plenty of folks, though, struggle to find a solid Enneatype, but they can pinpoint themselves as some MBTI type quickly and confidently because they happen to fit its bill.

 

[Rambling]

If you are INTp, or ILI, then your dual is SEE or ESFp, not ENFp.

There is no LIE-Fi, its either LIE-Te or LIE-Ni, since LIE has two main functions, Te (dominant function) and Ni (creative function), they can prefer one of those functions (they use it more) over the other.

Thanks...so that's right I'm ILI, and I guess I'm more Ni than Te, so then I'd be ILI-Ni.

I think that's right, I found out about Dual and I do get on well with ESFP but I found out that for me I just preferred ENFP because of the shared N...I'd forgotten that.

Is there a test for Quadra? What does a Quadra add to MBTI or Enneagram?

 

[Typh0n]

Thanks...so that's right I'm ILI, and I guess I'm more Ni than Te, so then I'd be ILI-Ni.

I think that's right, I found out about Dual and I do get on well with ESFP but I found out that for me I just preferred ENFP because of the shared N...I'd forgotten that.

Is there a test for Quadra? What does a Quadra add to MBTI or Enneagram?

Not to my knowledge. But you know based on the type you are. ILI and SEE are gamma quadra, so if you know your type you know your quadra based upon the type. Also not sure if quadra and socionics can really be tied to MBTI and enneagram directly.

 

[miss fortune]

There are two types of Visual Identification IIRC...

There's both unchanging traits attributed to a type (like a muscular bulky build or a fox like face) or the changing aspects of a person's appearance (how they smile or how they mobilize themselves or their eye movement)

The former I am way more reluctantly to accept than the latter, and it seems that most socionists would agree that it is the latter that is more reliable because it displays ones mental activity (supposedly)


Quadras, while showing shared values between four types, also have had a dichotomy of Positivism and Negativism added to the system by Victor Gulenko which distinguish which functions are + and which are - in each quadra.

The descriptions for Minus and Plus functions are here if you so wish: ... jist kidding my phone doesnt know how to paste links where i say to ._.

I'm not sure I could get in with any of the VI things considering my penchant for injury and the fact that I work in an industry where such things are common... how do you judge someone's gait when they've injured themselves repeatedly?

and so Quadra are like personality cliques where the drama kids and the sports kids and the band kids and the smart kids all hang out separately? which would make the intertype relationships similar to the band kid who is also in honors classes and has friends at the smart kid table?

thank you for explaining

Hi whatever. I'll take a shot at your questions.



Yeah. It says that about relations with some of my close friends too. I wouldn't take it personally, there socionics isn't meant to be used to tell you who you should be in a relationship with, it explains how some relations work, personally, I find that this is sometimes true but sometimes totally off.

Out of curiousity, what type are you and what type is your SO?

an ESfJ of sorts (perhaps a very feely EStJ?)... either way the internet has indicated that I'm a leech to his cow or something along those lines I suppose that such things draw in the people who are looking for "their perfect match " but seriously... I don't understand the point of telling someone that they don't have a good chance in their current relationship!

Yeah, VI isn't universally accpeted. I would ignore it if you're skeptical, its not that important.



Yeah, they are important, because people of the same quadra basically value the same functions. People of the same quadra have the same values( they value the same functions), even if they don't always get along.

Here are the quadras:

Alpha values :

Beta :

Gamma :

Delta :

there are symbols for everything? I'd forgotten that... what's the point of those? though it seems that the darker ones are the extroverted functions while the lighter ones are the introverted ones...

and so like I said above... these are the personality cliques of people who are said to have the most in common so they tend to be associated with one another then?

I suppose in a way it's nice not to see everything broken down into the dumb sensor and brilliant intuitive camps that we get from MBTI things though

I would advise it, but maybe not now...get the basics down first, then the subtypes. Its like ennegaram, with the wings.

Hope that helps, don't go to fast, just take the time to take it all in!

yes... there is so much information out there and I kind of wish that someone would do it all in charts and graphs to make it all make more sense!

thank you

So it's also important to know that, although Socionics's types can be expressed in MBTI-like form (e.g. SLE -> ESTp), it's mostly meant to just make Socionics more accessible to MBTI folks. Those four dichotomies are useful vocabulary in Socionics too, but they could've used different notation for them

it would have made things a bit less confusing if they wanted to distinguish their system... though with the addition of picture symbols it just makes things look MORE complex... so maybe they should have stuck to the 3 letter descriptives?

My relationship is Activation. It's apparently not the holiest and perfect and rainbowy of relationships

lucky you and your unicorn-y relationship... I'm his benefactor apparently, which sounds to me like I should be paying him to paint portraits of Jesus somewhere or something... doesn't sound all that equal

I find wikisocion's descriptions to be among the best. At least, they pull it all together pretty well. Check out descriptions of types broken down by function, and check out the descriptions of the functions themselves:

• Wikisocion SLE composite - Wikisocion
• Extroverted sensing - Wikisocion
• Introverted logic - Wikisocion
• also the other six functions maybe

also, what's with all of the appearance bullshit that goes along with all of the socionics things, like VI? do they ignore genetics and things of that sort? would that mean that identical twins should have the same personality?

They're much more reasonable than the Keirsey bullshit, at least. Quadras are all about shared values. Betas and Deltas theoretically value completely different things and so they haaate each other.

For example

Do you buy into, say, Enneagram's arrows of integration and disintegration? (I personally don't.) If not, you can in good conscience ignore the more needless complications in Socionics in the same way.

To some, building on a theory is just cool to do !!!! but ultimately the nuances are hard to justify in the real world.

Also, you can safely ignore Socionics's more needless complications anyway.

interesting way of presenting the description... can't say that it all fits perfectly, but it does fit better than the others (apparently I'm supposed to give a fuck about hierarchies? and stomp on my underlings?)

I'll have to poke around more on the site and discover more things... though the person I get along with the least is a Delta apparently, so that's kind of amusing

not a fan of integration and disintegration because it seems to needlessly complicate things that don't need to be complicated, so if it doesn't make the theory incomplete to ignore the extraneous details I shall be happy to do so!

thank you as well!

 

[á´…eparted]

I will correct myself - what I meant by this was it is easier to identify socionics types (overall, not for everyone of course) compared to the cognitive functions. MBTI dichotomies is easy because it is personality types in the most simplest form. That combined with cognitive functions makes it difficult for most to find what their type is. Socionics doesn't involve the judging/perceiving dichotomies, type descriptions based on the four letters, type descriptions based on each function, social extroversion and introversion, and the stereotypes within all that.
Also, I believe a persons MBTI type can very different to their socionics type;

Ok I see what you're saying. That's fair and I would largely agree with that. It's interesting you should mention that too as in MBTI my J is quite pronounced, so it seems quite weird to me that I'd be ESTp, but if indeed the 4th dichotomy doesn't really exist, and rather is based off functions, then it reconciles the biggest contention I hold with socionics. Ultimately the way the functions are describes things, SLE fits slightly better than EIE does, and it further captures a lot of the things MBTI fails to capture with myself. It's also worth noting that I don't seem to relate/click with EIE's on these forums, and the few SLE's I have come across here and elsewhere I seem to share a pretty decent kinship with.

I guess a way to explain my contention is I am very (aggressive/blunt, say what's on my mind, authoratative, etc), but I am so tactical, and with an immense manipulative capacity (a la ) with how I go about it (social dynamics/flow matter a lot). I have too much finnese and care about it and I am also crazy expressive?

Anyway, sorry for hijacking this about myself for a moment.

[MENTION=25733]wolfnara[/MENTION] [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] -- I'd say this: Socionics is much more clearly and crisply defined than MBTI; and so there's a lot of potential for pinpointing some clear Sociotype. Whether or not that means that it's easier to find one's type, though, is another question. Socionics is so crisp that it's tough as nails to open it up to enough interpretation to properly peg someone. For any given type, there's the IM stacking (the thing that must be relatable), temperament, quadra, 16 intertype relationships, Reinin dichotomies, and approximately one billion other attributes defined by the system.

Some may happen to fit a lot of that stuff for some type. But I'm also sure that there's, say, the odd ILE that hasn't much cared for the SEI (its dual) in his experience.

If someone meets one of the crisp definitions, it becomes very easy to pinpoint their Sociotype; and they may also find the MBTI definitions too vague and overlapping. If they don't meet one of those clear Sociotype definitions, though, ... not so much.

My Enneatype (3) was much more clear for me (and pretty much everyone on the whole planet) than any of the other systems, as I happen to fit one Enneatype well.. but my place in the good ol' MBTI isn't as clear. Plenty of folks, though, struggle to find a solid Enneatype, but they can pinpoint themselves as some MBTI type quickly and confidently because they happen to fit its bill.

I sort of feel like the functions are too rigid in socionics, and that's one of my contention points. It's like, when I go through all 8 of them (I read the links you provided), Most of them fit, but there's always a few that are totally, or parts where I'm like "er... if it was explained different or if they mean this, then it would be accurate".

So would you go insofar as to say if one totally relates to a function, then that would be their type (re: crisp definition)? If that's the case SLE it is because when I read it's totally me and I don't need to correct anything. However for I have to go "yeah, but...".

I also have never bought socionics relationship pairups- they seem to rigid as well.

Also, like you enneagram (1w2) trump all else and pegs me to the letter. Hence it's my go-to theory of choice.