Socionics- What is your quadra and why?

[Polaris]

The socionics functions are defined in a somewhat vague, inconsistent fashion (I've seen awareness of essences ascribed to both Ne and Ni, being a good judge of character ascribed to both Fi and Fe, etc.), and none of the socionics types are entirely good descriptions of my personality, so I've had difficulty settling on a type and quadra for myself. The types that I've eliminated as possibilities are INTp and INFj, because my experiences with ESFjs and ESTps make it clear that they're not my Conflictors. I also have doubts that I'm an INTj, another of the types that would initially seem plausible, because, while I haven't interacted much with ESFps, the profile I read for that type on Wikisocion described what sounded to me like an awesome person. I'm also disinclined to think that I'm someone who, like an INTj, is looking for a Caregiver, because I tend to feel uncomfortable when people take care of me, and my physical, Si-oriented needs seem to be something that I'm at least as capable of handling as anyone else would be.

Getting more in-depth on functions, and putting the focus more on specifically quadra-oriented matters. The one thing that is immediately clear to me is that I'm more Fe+Ti than Fi+Te. I enjoy outward emotional expressiveness, and if someone possesses it, that, to me, is one of the strongest points that they could have in their favor. Another point against socionics Fi is that it tends to strike me as being intrusive; Fi-valuers are especially prone to expect you to conform to their personal morals, and when you don't, they can be over-willing to express their disapproval and drag down a good social atmosphere. Also, perhaps by its nature, Fi is prone to have scruples about the kinds of things that seem, to me, to be largely irrelevant to anyone except the Fi-valuer himself. I do not enjoy being held to someone else's standards when there's no clear external benefit to being in that position.

As far as Ti vs. Te, I do value practicality, like a Te-valuer, and I'm generally a methodical person, but at the same, I'm prone to disregard the facts, laws, and statistics of physical reality, viewing them as shallow and frequently deceptive. On the other hand, there's not really much I could say against socionics Ti--it's something that I clearly use and value, and being good at it is important for my self-esteem--except that I have limited patience for internal logic as an end unto itself. The beauty of numbers, grammar or a musical tuning system are meaningless to me unless I think familiarizing myself with them will help me to achieve a goal dependent on an understanding of them. It could be argued that that is a case of Ti working at the service of Te, but since it's clear that I value Fe, and all of the more plausible Te-valuing types have been eliminated as possibilities, it may as well be considered as clear evidence that I value Ti.

As far as Ni+Se vs. Ne+Si, I'm not nearly as sure which of them I value. The difference between Ni and Ne, and what each of them means independently, is not especially clear to me; many of the key traits ascribed to one are elsewhere ascribed to the other, and reading about one of them by itself does not leave me with a very cohesive impression (I could say the same thing about a few of the other socionics functions, like Fi, which seems like an awkward marriage of MBTI Fe and Fi). I'm slightly more confident about placing myself on the Se vs. Si spectrum. If I were to look at Si by itself, it would be difficult for me to decide whether I value it or not. In favor of valuing it, I'm slightly health-nuttish, I have limited tolerance for unpleasant sensory experiences, and my self-esteem is largely based on my appearance. But I often ignore Si-related things; I let myself go cold and hungry and thirsty, while other people express their concern over my physical comfort, to which I respond with assurances that I'm fine, rather than with the enthusiasm that would be expected of an Si-valuer. This contradicts what I said--that I have little tolerance for unpleasant sensory experiences--but it's true. I explain that by saying that my awareness of Si is very off-and-on. Whether Si is more positive or negative to me is difficult to say. I find it to be a cause of great stress, to have a body that is subject to ugliness, pain and ruin; my body is really my Achilles' heel. On the other hand, I do love sensory beauty, on occasion, although I often ignore it. As for my feelings toward Se, they're less ambiguous, and I'm prone to say that I value the function. The people who are active, confident, and strong-willed are the ones whom I tend to admire the most. And the thing I want more than anything else is to be powerful.

If I value Se over Si, it follows that I value Ni over Ne. If I also value Ti and Fe over Fi and Te, it follows that I'm in Beta Quadra, which is a conclusion that I'll gladly accept. Delta Quadra seems a little boring to me; Gamma Quadra seems a bit unfriendly and slightly too serious; Alpha Quadra is somewhat more child-like than where I would feel at home; and Beta Quadra strikes me as being full of cool and exciting people.

 

[Thalassa]

Does me telling you that it's actually the INTP (in MBTI terms) who wants the ISFJ caregiver, not the INTJ, change your mind on this issue?

Caregiver makes a lot of sense with Ne types. INTJ in MBTI is an INTp or Ni type in Socionics. They don't want a Care Giver. They supposedly want an Aggressor. An SP. Someone sexually confident, or forward, or has a more "one upping" Gamma style or a passionate Beta style, with Se given priority over Ni.

Now that I actually understand Socionics, and read varying sources, I really am starting to respect it. It's just complicated, and you have to study it, I only understood it by reading multiple sources, for the longest time it frustrated me.

Same with Jung though. You can't make Socionics be Jung, though; it's its own theory and is more based in inter-relational things.

For me it helped to compare Beta/Gamma and ENFj and ESFp and realize that ENFj Beta actually BUGS ME on some level, although I appreciate their morality on the surface, and have even in the past tried to fulfill an ENFj role or saw them as kindreds, Socionics is actually the theory that explained to me why it's always "off"...once I finally saw how much I'm a Gamma SEE I was impressed.

It took me a long time to get there. Take two types that seem most like you and learn all about them and what makes them different, and what makes them the same.

 

[Thalassa]

Does it bother you that your MBTI type is completely functionally different from your Socionics type?

MBTI's ISTP is Ti,Se,Ni,Fe while SLI is Si,Te,Fi,Ne
MBTI's INFP is Fi,Ne,Si,Te while IEI is Ni,Fe,Ti,Se

Socionics information elements differ somewhat from MBTI's but they haven't flipped the whole system around to get such different results. I dunno, but it looks suspicious to me when someone chooses such different types.

It's not suspicious. JTG is a questionable Jungian ISFJ, decided on ISTJ instead because of Te/Fi, and descriptions of ISTJs as children...but he is a breathtakingly perfect Socionics ISFj.

Which people would say is ISFP. Which is actually what I said his type was when I first encountered him, but he said um no. And I agree...Jungian Si/Fi, not Se.

But boy, is he a Socionics ISFj. And we're both Gamma types, which would explain why we had a certain level of unspoken understanding or something, why we tolerated each others ridiculous shenanigans and competitive games, why we enjoyed each others company.

Yet I was beating my head against the wall trying to make Socionics fit Jung, like he was a Socionics Si type...no, it didn't make any sense.

But he was like "ISFj yes that's me." And it is him. CRZY HIM. And we're both Gammas. No need for explanations about duals or Ne and Si or Ni and Se.

The mistake people make is trying to be the same type in Socionics as Jung or MBTI, or trying to make it matchy-matchy with Jungian anima/animus or Keirsey pairs.

 

[Such Irony]

The socionics functions are defined in a somewhat vague, inconsistent fashion (I've seen awareness of essences ascribed to both Ne and Ni, being a good judge of character ascribed to both Fi and Fe, etc.), and none of the socionics types are entirely good descriptions of my personality, so I've had difficulty settling on a type and quadra for myself. The types that I've eliminated as possibilities are INTp and INFj, because my experiences with ESFjs and ESTps make it clear that they're not my Conflictors. I also have doubts that I'm an INTj, another of the types that would initially seem plausible, because, while I haven't interacted much with ESFps, the profile I read for that type on Wikisocion described what sounded to me like an awesome person. I'm also disinclined to think that I'm someone who, like an INTj, is looking for a Caregiver, because I tend to feel uncomfortable when people take care of me, and my physical, Si-oriented needs seem to be something that I'm at least as capable of handling as anyone else would be.

I have alot of doubts too about my socionics type even though I've tentatively settled on INTj (LII). Quadra too, except for me it's between the two Si/Ne valuing ones- alpha and delta. Both seem to be describe me about equally well. It's the Fi vs Fe that I'm less sure of. For example I want some emotional expressiveness in others but yet I'm left uneasy and off guard when there's too much of it. So I guess it's a balance between expressive vs. subdued. Ti/Te, I seem to value both. I guess I value Ti a little more, which would imply Fe valuing.

Regarding conflictors, one reason why I doubt INTj as my sociotype is that I'm not so convinced ESFp is my conflicting type. Take [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] for example. It's clear we are two very different people, but I don't see it as a relation of conflict. Maybe if we physically got together, it would be a different story. Who knows. There are other people as well who claim to be ESFp who seem like really enjoyable and pleasant company and it's hard to see a conflict relation with. Perhaps they're mistyped as ESFjs? Or I've mistyped myself. Or the relationship thing doesn't really work that well. Actually, I find that I'm much more likely to clash with ESTp or ISFj, which are the conflictors of INFj and ENTp, respectively. INFj and ENTp are other possible socionics types I've considered for myself.

I'm pretty skeptical of the whole erotic attitudes thing. I guess if I had to pick, infantile would come the closest for me, which means that I would be attracted to caregivers. Which is partially true. Aggressors scare the shit out of me and infantiles I just don't know how to deal with. So caregiver is preferable to those two types and in a way they complement me. Yet they can be really annoying, when they insist they know what's best for me from an Si perspective and can't just let me be. Actually, I most prefer the company of my fellow infantiles. Hmmmm

This is another reason why I doubt I'm socionics INTj. I don't really seek help in the Si realm. I value Si but I'm more than capable of deciding for myself what's physically comfortable for me and making myself physically comfortable. I'm likely to get annoyed if I get unsolicited help in this area. On the other hand, I do like getting help with Fe but also with Se even though I don't value it. Basically, I want someone to deal with the Se elements so I don't have to.

So yeah, I'm just as confused as you are.

Getting more in-depth on functions, and putting the focus more on specifically quadra-oriented matters. The one thing that is immediately clear to me is that I'm more Fe+Ti than Fi+Te. I enjoy outward emotional expressiveness, and if someone possesses it, that, to me, is one of the strongest points that they could have in their favor. Another point against socionics Fi is that it tends to strike me as being intrusive; Fi-valuers are especially prone to expect you to conform to their personal morals, and when you don't, they can be over-willing to express their disapproval and drag down a good social atmosphere. Also, perhaps by its nature, Fi is prone to have scruples about the kinds of things that seem, to me, to be largely irrelevant to anyone except the Fi-valuer himself. I do not enjoy being held to someone else's standards when there's no clear external benefit to being in that position.

For me, Fi/Fe is less clear. As I said before, I generally like emotional expressiveness yet at the same time it can feel sort of unsettling like there's some sort of expectation to match their level of expressiveness. Also if someone is overly expressive and gushy with their emotions, I sometimes wonder if they are actually being sincere. At the same time, I'm also left uneasy with people who aren't expressive enough and seem emotionally cold and indifferent to everything. I'm very sensitive to emotional atmosphere, which I guess suggests Fe. Yet I like having some emotional independence. For example, I don't like being pressured to participate in some celebration just because it's what the others are doing, like certain holidays. I value moral and ethical integrity, which points towards Fi but I hate it when people are overly preachy about it or try to push their values on others.

As far as Ti vs. Te, I do value practicality, like a Te-valuer, and I'm generally a methodical person, but at the same, I'm prone to disregard the facts, laws, and statistics of physical reality, viewing them as shallow and frequently deceptive. On the other hand, there's not really much I could say against socionics Ti--it's something that I clearly use and value, and being good at it is important for my self-esteem--except that I have limited patience for internal logic as an end unto itself. The beauty of numbers, grammar or a musical tuning system are meaningless to me unless I think familiarizing myself with them will help me to achieve a goal dependent on an understanding of them. It could be argued that that is a case of Ti working at the service of Te, but since it's clear that I value Fe, and all of the more plausible Te-valuing types have been eliminated as possibilities, it may as well be considered as clear evidence that I value Ti.

Like you I value the practicality and pragmatism of Te and doing 'what works' for the given situation. I don't deny the facts of reality. Yet I think value Ti a little more because I'm most into my own internal subjective logic. I have my own ways of logically understanding the world and ordering the data into my own crazy theories. Oftentimes I greatly admire logically coherent, internally consistent systems even if they don't have a whole lot of bearing on external reality.

As far as Ni+Se vs. Ne+Si, I'm not nearly as sure which of them I value. The difference between Ni and Ne, and what each of them means independently, is not especially clear to me; many of the key traits ascribed to one are elsewhere ascribed to the other, and reading about one of them by itself does not leave me with a very cohesive impression (I could say the same thing about a few of the other socionics functions, like Fi, which seems like an awkward marriage of MBTI Fe and Fi). I'm slightly more confident about placing myself on the Se vs. Si spectrum. If I were to look at Si by itself, it would be difficult for me to decide whether I value it or not. In favor of valuing it, I'm slightly health-nuttish, I have limited tolerance for unpleasant sensory experiences, and my self-esteem is largely based on my appearance. But I often ignore Si-related things; I let myself go cold and hungry and thirsty, while other people express their concern over my physical comfort, to which I respond with assurances that I'm fine, rather than with the enthusiasm that would be expected of an Si-valuer. This contradicts what I said--that I have little tolerance for unpleasant sensory experiences--but it's true. I explain that by saying that my awareness of Si is very off-and-on. Whether Si is more positive or negative to me is difficult to say. I find it to be a cause of great stress, to have a body that is subject to ugliness, pain and ruin; my body is really my Achilles' heel. On the other hand, I do love sensory beauty, on occasion, although I often ignore it. As for my feelings toward Se, they're less ambiguous, and I'm prone to say that I value the function. The people who are active, confident, and strong-willed are the ones whom I tend to admire the most. And the thing I want more than anything else is to be powerful.

I could have written most of that myself. Maybe I'm not as clear on Si valuing as I thought. I really enjoy physical comfort and have virtually zero tolerance for unpleasant sensory experiences and care alot about my health. Yet, I often do things that jeopardize my physical comfort like not getting enough sleep or not dressing warm or cool enough for the occasion. I'll think I'm comfortable at first and then all of a sudden I'm freezing or I have sharp hunger or thirst or be very tired and then there will be the sudden sense of urgency- must do something about this now. Like you, my Si has a very on/off quality.

Active, confident, and strong-willed people, I also greatly admire. What makes me think I'm not an Se valuer is that things like aggression and pushiness greatly turn me off. I don't like to have to constantly go, go, go. I'd like to be able to relax more and take more time to 'smell the roses.'- literally and figuratively.

I also think I'm more Ne than Ni valuing, which would imply Si valuing. I like both Ne and Ni and I'm strong in both. I guess what it comes down to is that I just have alot more fun with Ne. Thinking about all sorts of possibilities, including the more crazy, out there ones, brainstorming, expanding rather than just settling on one.

If I value Se over Si, it follows that I value Ni over Ne. If I also value Ti and Fe over Fi and Te, it follows that I'm in Beta Quadra, which is a conclusion that I'll gladly accept. Delta Quadra seems a little boring to me; Gamma Quadra seems a bit unfriendly and slightly too serious; Alpha Quadra is somewhat more child-like than where I would feel at home; and Beta Quadra strikes me as being full of cool and exciting people.

I kinda see the quadras in the same sort of way even though it is a rather over-simplified way of looking at it.

Most of alpha fits except I get the impression that they are a little less serious and less future-oriented than I tend to me.
Beta- interesting people but also seem rather pushy and overbearing. This description seems to fit me the least.
Gamma- Yeah, a bit too serious and seem like they could be hard to get to know and not very approachable at first (except maybe for SEE), also sometimes a bit too concerned with practical reality.
Delta- on the surface they may seem boring, but this description I can also relate too. I'm probably not quite as practical as they are though.

 

[Polaris]

Active, confident, and strong-willed people, I also greatly admire. What makes me think I'm not an Se valuer is that things like aggression and pushiness greatly turn me off. I don't like to have to constantly go, go, go. I'd like to be able to relax more and take more time to 'smell the roses.'- literally and figuratively.

I love a little bit of pushiness, as long as someone's not pushing me to do something I don't want to do, which I suppose goes without saying. It's worth noting that Socionics Se is usually far more subtle than starting a physical fight because someone looked at you strangely. It often doesn't even involve any direct application of force.

I also think I'm more Ne than Ni valuing, which would imply Si valuing. I like both Ne and Ni and I'm strong in both. I guess what it comes down to is that I just have alot more fun with Ne. Thinking about all sorts of possibilities, including the more crazy, out there ones, brainstorming, expanding rather than just settling on one.

Yes, I was going over Socionics Ne earlier, and, as you hint at here, it sounds a lot like MBTI Ne. Personally, I don't relate much to either form of Ne. Multiplying possibilities is the opposite of what I like to do (I want certainties and likelihoods and focal points, not a sea of scattered possibilities), and I'm not a particularly curious person outside of areas that I think will be helpful for me to learn about.

As a base function, Ni generally manifests itself through a lack of direct attention to the world around oneself, and a sense of detachment or freedom from worldly affairs. This can lead to a highly developed imagination and very unique mental world, but it can also result in a great deal of laziness and apparent inactivity. Because the individual gets his or her primary information about the world through imagination, a person with leading Ni may be able to thrive in situations where data are scarce, or where he or she lacks the usual prerequisite experience. However, this may also become a disadvantage if the person ignores real data about the world too much. The ability to transcend the axis of time and understand the cause and effect relationships that occur is also a feature, sometimes resulting in the ability to accurately predict general future trends and outcomes of certain events.

This sounds much closer to a description of my thought processes.

I could have written most of that myself. Maybe I'm not as clear on Si valuing as I thought. I really enjoy physical comfort and have virtually zero tolerance for unpleasant sensory experiences and care alot about my health. Yet, I often do things that jeopardize my physical comfort like not getting enough sleep or not dressing warm or cool enough for the occasion. I'll think I'm comfortable at first and then all of a sudden I'm freezing or I have sharp hunger or thirst or be very tired and then there will be the sudden sense of urgency- must do something about this now. Like you, my Si has a very on/off quality.

It sounds to me like you would be well-complimented by a Caregiver type. The needs you describe here are just the sort of needs that ESxjs like to tend to. Does the description below sound like you?

The individual has difficulty producing pleasurable sensory experiences for others and for himself, but likes to talk about pleasure, enjoyment, and relaxation, hoping that someone nearby will take the hint and take the lead. The individual tends to periodically get wound up and uptight and is generally unable to resolve these sensations himself. He needs someone to help him relax and take an internal look at whether he actually needs or enjoys what he is doing, and what might be the source of the tension that has built up. He can tend to extremes in this area, either depriving or indulging the senses to an unhealthy extent.

It's a description of an INXj's experience of Si. Notice that it isn't all roses, because while INj's value Si, they aren't good at providing themselves with it. For me, it was a clue that I'm not an INj; the only thing about the description that I particularly relate to is being high-strung; I'm definitely not looking for relaxation, though, or help reassessing my priorities. And Si as a conversation topic isn't really my cup of tea; it often has an unpleasant self-fondling quality about it.

Every weekend, I roleplay with a group that is, overall, very likely Beta. There's lots of storytelling (outside the RPing itself), laughter, boisterousness, and an obviously positive attitude toward Se. I enjoy the atmosphere very much. Last weekend, as we were wrapping things up, someone said that they don't talk much unless people ask them personal questions, and I thought to myself, "That's so out-of-place here; we're not about these subdued, personal discussions; we're about the general good feeling." I think that, in a group setting, that's often how Fe-valuers view the actions of Fi-valuers.

I value moral and ethical integrity

From what I understand, this can be a sign of valuing Socionics Ti (Ti-valuing is associated with acting according to rules and striving for consistency in one's thoughts and behaviors), which would be consistent with you being an LII. As for myself, I'm pretty confident that I'm in Beta and probably an IEI. It was especially helpful for me to read how a function operates when playing a certain role in the psyche. The function descriptions listed in the type profiles are colored by exaggerated stereotypes about what the personalities look like.

 

[Such Irony]

It sounds to me like you would be well-complimented by a Caregiver type. The needs you describe here are just the sort of needs that ESxjs like to tend to. Does the description below sound like you?






Originally Posted by Wikisocion

The individual has difficulty producing pleasurable sensory experiences for others and for himself, but likes to talk about pleasure, enjoyment, and relaxation, hoping that someone nearby will take the hint and take the lead. The individual tends to periodically get wound up and uptight and is generally unable to resolve these sensations himself. He needs someone to help him relax and take an internal look at whether he actually needs or enjoys what he is doing, and what might be the source of the tension that has built up. He can tend to extremes in this area, either depriving or indulging the senses to an unhealthy extent.

Most of this doesn't fit me that well, which is partly why I wonder if I've typed myself correctly.

I don't have problems producing pleasant sensory experiences for myself or others.
I sometimes like to talk about pleasure and relaxation but mostly I'm more interested in more intellectual type topics.
I sometimes have trouble relaxing. Sometimes I can resolve it myself other times I seek help in this.
I don't see myself as going to sensory extremes. I'm neither an overindulgent nor an underindulgement sort.

 

[Azure Flame]

Beta here *waves*

/donkey punch

 

[sulfit]

The mistake people make is trying to be the same type in Socionics as Jung or MBTI, or trying to make it matchy-matchy with Jungian anima/animus or Keirsey pairs.

I am same type across all of these systems. There's no mistake in this.

I find it strange how some people like me can be the same type, while others will choose 3-4 very different types across MBTI/Kiersey/Jung/Socionics. Especially when I can easily see the inconsistencies in their choices.

 

[sulfit]

Beta here *waves*

/donkey punch

I have trouble telling beta vs. alpha for my friends sometimes. How would you disgusting yourself from alphas?

 

[Stansmith]

Based on the descriptions:

Alpha>Beta>Delta>Gamma.

I'm definitely democratic. When I evaluate my personality separately from the wikisociondescriptions, I can sort of see how I could be Gamma.

 

[chubber]

I'm so Gamma, it's not even funny. INTp/ILI for me it is.

 

[011235813]

Either Gamma or Delta. One of the serious quadras for sure. Neither fits perfectly though.

 

[Amargith]

^ I have that same problem for Beta and Delta.
I can even relate quite a bit to Alpha.

All I know is that I aint Gamma

 

[wolfy]

Alpha. Some Delta. The others I don't really see.

 

[Evo]

Can't choose between Gamma or Delta. I relate to both.

 

[jixmixfix]

Delta. ISTp Ti subtype. I don't understand ENFJs at all.

 

[garbage]

I do relate to pretty much all of this Gamma description.

All I know is that I aint Gamma

Oh it's on now

 

[Amargith]

Oh it's on now

Don't even

 

[Forever_Jung]

The term "quadras" sounds like some sort of cult title. Or like we're in a sci-fi novel and we all live in districts (known as Quadras) based on personality test scores to ensure maximum harmony. Some scenarios that spring to mind:

Get out of here, you Alpha Quadra, scum! This is Beta territory.
A Gamma and a Beta in love? But it is forbidden!
My mom was a Delta, so y'all know she drove like this. While us Betas, we drive like THIS.

That's all I can contribute really, since I have no notion of what quadras are.

 

[LadyLazarus]

*sweats nervously*
I-I don't know!

Gamma I think...mostly because it sounds like a deadly ray like,"Igor, lock the Gamma ray onto the White house" or something.