Our Model of Development in Socionics

Written by and

There is a popular misconception that individuals always have innate, “strong” Ignoring and Demonstrative functions. Instead, these functions are developed through exposure to the information elements.

One’s abilities with one’s lead and creative functions are not limited by socionics. These first two functions of a type are the ones with which that type naturally has most ability, and the role and vulnerable are the ones with which a type naturally has the least ability.
One justification for this: The ability to use role and vulnerable is suppressed because of dichotomies with Lead and Creative respectively. The aspects in these functions are opposite sides of the Logic-Ethics and Sensorics-Intuition dichotomies. They contradict each other, and cannot be used at the same time: using one’s Role actively goes against using one’s Lead. Example: Punching an opponent in the face (Se) closes off one’s options (Ne) in any future dealings.

Unlike the first four functions, the abilities with the aspects in the last four functions are flexible. In these functions of model A, changes of ability occur due to exposure to various information elements.

A Tradeoff between Opposite Aspects

Let’s define the following terms: Development of an aspect is the acquisition of new abilities with the aspect, Degeneration of an aspect is the loss of abilities with the aspect. Development and Degeneration are always “of abilities with aspects”. Development occurs as a consequence of exposure to information elements. Degeneration is not spontaneous; it only occurs because the opposite aspect is developed.

Note also that these terms are value-neutral: there can be developments of the abilities one happens to disvalue, in the strict Socionics sense that the abilities developed are of aspects in a disvalued function. Similarly degenerations can be of abilities that one happens to disvalue.

Development of one aspect is always at the expense of another. Similarly, the aspect in the suggestive function is opposite to the aspect in the ignoring function, and therefore you cannot develop abilities in both: they are fundamentally conflicting ways of acting/thinking/being.

Consequently, you cannot develop both of the Mobilising+Suggestive block and the Ignoring+Demonstrative block. Although you always have abilities with aspects in your Lead+Creative, you might develop either your Ignoring+Demonstrative or your Mobilising+Suggestive, but never both.

However, you can develop aspects independently of blocks: If you’ve developed e.g. your suggestive function, then you might develop either your demonstrative or your mobilising. The question here is — to what extent?

Exposure and Levels of Development

Aspects are part of reality that we can perceive. More precisely, reality has aspects in all combinations, but according to Socionics, we perceive them both individually and in blocks of two.

If you perceive your lead aspect, you have your lead blocked with your creative. There are two variations of creative for any lead (your blocking and your kindred’s blocking).

You might get highly unequal exposure to various information elements. For aspects in the first two blocks this is not formative of personality, because they exhibit no development. On aspects in the last two blocks, this unblocked exposure limits your development: you might not have the occasion to learn to process them in a blocked way (one of the elements of a block might simply be absent). Therefore, we can establish two levels of ability:

  • a primary level of ability derived from the base, unblocked aspect, and a secondary level of ability derived from the aspect as it appears in its block.
  • a secondary level of ability can only be acquired if both elements in the block have been developed to a primary level; the secondary level “builds upon” the first level with abilities that require simultaneous use of primary abilities.

Directions of Development

An individual starts with ability in their Lead+Creative, with blind spots / disabilities in their Role and Vulnerable, and with equally undeveloped abilities in their Suggestive, Mobilising, Ignoring, and Demonstrative. With exposure to these aspects, individuals begin to develop them.

They first gain primary level of ability with two aspects and then, if these are aligned with their model A blocks, they gain a secondary level of ability.

Because of blocks and the existence of opposite aspects, there are four developmental “directions” open to each type. There are two directions that align with a type’s blocks and can result in all levels of ability (development of Suggestive and Mobilising, or Ignoring and Demonstrative). There are also two directions that do not align with a type’s blocks, and therefore can lead only to primary levels of ability (development of Mobilising and Ignoring, or Suggestive and Demonstrative).

If individuals with developed aspects subsequently begin to develop abilities along a different direction, it is always at the expense of the abilities along the first direction. For instance, developing Ti causes degeneration of Fi (because these are opposite aspects).

Case Studies

In order to illustrate the above, consider the following case studies:
A) Illusory Parenting

Consider a parent-child relation between two Illusory types, in particular an ILE parent raising an IEI child. By exposure to the parent’s Lead and Creative, the child develops both Ne (their Ignoring) and Ti (their Mobilising). This development is not aligned with the IEI’s natural blockings, so their development is stunted at a primary level of ability. The child’s constant exposure to and use of Ne prevents them from developing Se, just as their exposure to and use of Ti prevents them from developing Fi. In fact, the ILE parent has role Se: they might actively prevent their child from being exposed to Se (which they abhor), even though it is the child’s Suggestive.
The child cannot acquire secondary level abilities aligned with their own psychology, until they gain some degree of independence from the parent.

Similar dynamics exist in Semi-dual and Request relations.

B) Dualisation and Extinguishment as developmental processes

Consider a friendship between two Dual types, in particular an ILI and an SEE. By exposure to the ILI’s Lead and Creative, the SEE develops both Ni (their Suggestive) and Te (their Mobilising). By exposure to the SEE’s Lead and Creative, the ILI develops both Fi (their Mobilising) and Se (their Suggestive). These developments are aligned with both types’ blockings, and in fact they develop each other’s valued functions. They are able, with mutual interactions, to break through from primary to secondary levels of ability. This mutual development is known as Dualisation.

There is a similar alignment between two Extinguishers. Consider an LSI with a secondary level of ability with Ni and Fe, and consider their prolonged exposure to an LSE. The LSI might develop Te and Si as a result, not only losing their abilities with Ni and Fe in the process, but also (eventually) gaining a secondary level of ability with their Ignoring and Demonstrative functions.
Extinguishment and Dualisation are both aligned to the types’ blockings, but they pull in opposite directions.

Conclusion

There are developmental patterns in Socionics that are a consequence of the structure of Model A. Because aspects are pairwise opposites (Te vs Fe, Se vs Ne), development of one aspect entails degenerescence of the other. Because aspects appear both as individual functions and as blocks, there are two levels of development, and there are four directions along which a type can develop. However not all levels are accessible in all directions; only directions that align with a type’s natural blockings offer theoretically unrestricted development.

In light of this, we can show why the notion of innate, “strong” abilities with Ignoring and Demonstrative functions is a misconception: It does not support the idea of dualisation. If you had innate abilities with these aspect, you would perceive your dual as half-dual and half-superego/conflictor. Indeed, as well as satisfying each others’ suggestive and mobilising, duals would be hitting each others’ (unvalued) role and vulnerable. But (and this is key) they would not dualise in response to exposure to one another. On the other hand our model guarantees that Dualisation is possible.

Please follow and like us:

One Song – Two Quadras: I’m Gonna Live Till I Die (Frank Sinatra vs Frankie Laine)

Written by

Gamma (Frank Sinatra – LIE)

Beta (Frankie Laine – IEI)

Frank Sinatra sings it in a cool, sophisticated manner (Te + Se + Fi + Ni), as if he is sipping champagne while casually leaning on the bar counter of a private members club.

Frankie Laine replaces the sophistication with directness and emotional engagement (Se + Fe + Ti) – he sounds like a man who’s got the urge to shout from a rooftop (Fe + Ni). He sings meaning every word in the most literal sense, living through every statement and infecting the listeners with the vigour (Fe + Se).

Sinatra’s sleek even vocals make the main statement of the song – that of “living the life to the fullest” – to mean “I am going to be extraordinary successful” (Te + Se), while Laine’s version is literal and screams “I am going to have the greatest time!!”

 

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:

Why The Social is in the Fi domain

Written by

Introduction

There is a predominant idea in modern socionics that attributes collective values to Fe and individualism to Fi. This (mis-)understanding of Fe-Fi dichotomy links Fe to social and political activism, political ideologies, as well as claims the importance of traditions, social standing, appropriateness of one’s behavior in social situations and perceiving people as members of groups as features of Fe-valuing types.

In this article I will argue that since Fi is the ethics of relationships, then it would be inconsistent for Fe to be the ethics of social and political relationships. I will leave out the notions of collective vs individualistic for now and will explore those in a future article.

An illustration of attribution of social and collective to Fe and non-social and individualistic to Fi can be found for example on the Wikisocion website that is considered by many the main source of information on the socionics theory.

From Wikisocion’s description of Fe:

Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.

Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people.

From Wikisocion’s description of Fi:

Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how “the big picture” is affected (such as groups of people.)

The same approach appears on the Wikisocion’s information elements themes section:

Extraverted Ethics: emotional atmosphere, romanticism, cooperation, treatment, qualitative judgement of behaviour, sympathy, ethical estimations of observable actions, “ethics of actions”

Defining the scope

The traits under scrutiny here can be grouped into a dichotomy of social vs non-social. This dichotomy covers traditions, social standing, appropriateness of behaviour and so forth.

Let’s define the first dichotomy.

Social vs non-social

The word non-social proved to be easier to define than the word social:

Of undeveloped social instincts and habits; socially indifferent.

( https://www.wordnik.com/words/non-social )

The best suited definition of the word social for the purpose of this article is:

Relating to society or its organization.

And including:

Relating to rank and status in society.

( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social )

This entity – social – can also be broken down and narrowed down to representative instances for the purpose of further analysis.

One of those instances we can use is the concept of norms. The definition of the norms:

A standard or pattern, especially of social behavior, that is typical or expected of a group.

( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social )

Social norms can be collective (not to be confused with the term collective of our second dichotomy) or perceived. Collective norms are typically unwritten rules of a social group, perceived norms is an individual’s understanding of the collective norms.

(“An Explication of Social Norms”, Communication Theory, Volume 15, Issue 2, 1 May 2005, Maria Knight Lapinski and Rajiv N. Rimal, p. 129)

Another concept is society, which can be defined in multiple ways:

[…] a system of relationships that exists among the individuals of the groups.

[…] the largest group in which individual have relationships.

( this and more at http://www.studylecturenotes.com/social-sciences/sociology/133-what-is-society)

Mapping the Ethics (Feeling) Information Elements (Fe/Fi)

Fi in socionics is the ethics of relationships, which in itself points to the fact that this is the aspect that is responsible for inter-personal connections and that constitutes the social. It is also responsible for the moral, good/bad judgements and understanding what motivates others.

As shown in the previous section, the very term society is differentiated from a generic aggregation of people by the presence of relationships between them. It is natural to think that Fi is the aspect that would take interest in information that relates to society.

Putting emphasis on being part of society is essentially maintaining and managing relationships with other agents of society (or the society itself, depending on what sociological model you support). Hence thinking in terms of social groupings (societies, cultures, communities) equals to perceiving the world as a collection of relationships.

Another way of looking at it is to come back to the first instance of social we used – the norms. From the previous section we know that adhering to social norms means to behave in compliance with the groups’ expectations. In order to comply with these expectations, individual’s perceived norms need to match as closely as possible the collective norms. That would require solid understanding of motivations and inner wants of people of that group. Of course, one can understand those inner wants and go against them, consciously, but in order to comply the correct understanding is a necessary factor. In socionics the inner wants and motivations are in the Fi domain.

In other words to behave appropriately one needs to understand what is considered appropriate – to understand the inner workings of the value system of the group he is in. Same with a one-to-one interaction – it is a pre-requisite of being considered appropriate to be able to ‘read’ the other person.

Let’s contrast it with Fe. Fe in socionics handles moods and emotional atmosphere. In no way it relates to any of the social definitions and is inherently non-social.

Now if we go back to the Wikisocion description of Fe:

[…]and build a sense of community and emotional unity.

Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people.

This description and the rest of them quoted in the first section are meaningless without the Fi – the bonds between people, the relationships that they have created and managed. The Fe as they describe it is a mere framing for the Fi.

What does the original socionics theory say on the topic

In fact Ausra Augustinavicute’s original descriptions of Fe and Fi are consistent with my argument above.

Fe as described by Aushra deals with moods and emotional states and has nothing to do with the social level:

Extraverted ethics. Perceives the information about processes that happen in the object: mainly, about the emotional processes in people, their agitation and depression, moods. This aspect allows to have knowledge of what, for example, agitates people and what depresses them. The ability to control one’s own emotional state as well as the emotional states of others is defined by this aspect.
When this aspect is leading, the person has the ability to induce or transmit one’s own moods onto others, charge others with one’s own emotions: activate the spiritual life of others, their emotional readiness for activity. One may say, that this person is capable of infecting others with one’s own mood and tendency to force the emotional states he finds useful for the life-activity of these people.

[Russian language: Черная этика. Воспринимается информация о процессах, которые происходят в объектах: в первую очередь, о происходящих в людях эмоциональных процессах, их возбужденности или подавленности, настроениях.14 Этот аспект восприятия дает способность разбираться в том, например, что людей возбуждает, а что подавляет. Им определяется способность или неспособность человека управлять своим эмоциональным состоянием, а также эмоциональным состоянием других людей. Когда этот аспект восприятия ведущий, человек
отличается способностью индуцировать или передавать свои настроения другим людям, заряжать других людей своими эмоциями: Способен активизировать духовную жизнь других людей, их эмоциональную готовность к активности. Можно сказать что у такого человека есть способность заражать других своими настроениями и склонность навязывать другим именно те эмоциональные состояния, которые он считает полезными для жизнедеятельности этих людей.]

(“Socionics Introductions” [“Соционика. Введение”], 1998, p. 48-49)

Fi as described by Aushra deals with the needs of people, their relationships, and importantly is capable of understating and modifying one’s own wants and needs as well those of others, even more importantly she attributes ethical norms to Fi:

Introverted Ethics. Is a subjective relation between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy, that shows the attraction (or repulsion) of one object or subject by other objects or subject. Thanks to this IE the person feels what objects are attracting him and what objects are repulsing him. One may say that this aspect of perception brings in the information on usefulness or lack of uselessness of one object for another, on presence of absence of shared or one-sided needs.
Direct information about this aspect of objective reality, information received by the first signal system, an individual cognates as the need of particular objects, that satisfy the physical wants, wants of cultural or spiritual sort, the need in others. Those are wants and interests of people, directed at animated and non-animated subjects. That includes the feelings of sympathy – antipathy, love – hate, wanting to obtain some thing and so forth.
The higher feeling of this sort are called ethical, because the relations between the needs of people are usually regulated by ethical norms.

When this is a leading aspect, a person has the ability to see and evaluate wants – both one’s own and that of others, he always knows, who wants what from whom. [He is] capable to contrast his knowledge of the subjective world with that of the others, [to contrast] his wants with those of others.

He is capable to form and change not only his own wants, but those of others.
He has the ability to provide oneself with the required relationships, the certaninty in one’s ability to influence other people. A correct evaluation of human needs gives [them] the ablility to avoid risky clashes and satisfy own needs at the same time. This also creates the ability to manipulate the attachments of others to oneself, a skill and tendency to manipulate ethical feelings of other people, attempting to bring those feelings closer to the social ideal.

[Russian language: Белая этика. Это субъективное отношение между двумя носителями потенциальной или
кинетической энергии, показывающее притягиваемость (или отталкиваемость) одного объекта или субъекта с другими объектами и субъектами. Благодаря этому элементу ИМ человек чувствует, какие объекты его притягивают, какие — отталкивают. Можно сказать, что этот аспект восприятия приносит информацию о нужности или ненужности одного объекта другому, о наличии или отсутствии взаимных или односторонних потребностей.
Непосредственную информацию об этом аспекте объективного мира, информацию, получаемую по первой сигнальной системе, индивид осознает как потребность в определенных объектах, удовлетворяющих физические желания, желания культурно-духовного порядка и потребность в других людях. Это желания и интересы человека,
направленные на одушевленные и нео/:ушевленные предметы.
В том числе чувства симпатии — антипатии, любви — ненависти, стремление приобрести какую-то вещь и т. п. Жадность или отсутствие жадности.
Высшие чувства этого рода называют этическими, потому что взаимоотношения между потребностями людей в основном регулируются этическими нормами.

Когда этот аспект восприятия ведущий, человек отличается умением видеть и оценивать желания как свои собственные, так и других людей, он всегда знает, кто от кого и чего хочет. Способен противопоставлять свое познание субъективного мира познанию других, свои желания желаниям других.
Отличается умением формировать и изменять не только свои желания, но и желания других людей. Он отличается и умением обеспечивать себя нужными отношениями с людьми, и уверенностью в своих возможностях влиять на других людей. Правильная оценка человеческих потребностей дает возможность избежать рискованных столкновений
при удовлетворении собственных. Это порождает и способность манипуляции привязанностью других людей к себе, умение и старание манипулировать этическими чувствами других людей, старанием привести эти чувства к социальному идеалу.]

(“Socionics Introductions” [“Соционика. Введение”], 1998, p. 54-55)

Looking for the roots of the misconception

The roots of this view might go back to Jung and his descriptions of extroverted and introverted feeling attitudes and types.

Jung on Extraverted Feeling:
I may feel moved, for instance, to say that something is “beautiful” or “good”, not because I find it “beautiful” or “good” from my own subjective feeling about it, but because it is fitting and politic to call it so, since a contrary judgment would upset the general feeling situation.
[…]
In precisely the same way as extroverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extroverted feeling has to undergo a process of differentiation before it it finally denuded of every subjective trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or accord with traditional and generally accepted standards.

(The portable Jung Edited by Joseph Campell 1971, p. 207)

In Jung’s original understanding of the two Feeling types, Fe being the extroverted attitude avoids the subjective and internal judgments and instead goes with the “objective” external evaluation (one that comes from outside). Consequentially Fe is understood as inherently social (impersonal).

On the other hand Fi is described by Jung as personal and is disinterested in social influences:

Their outward demeanor is harmonious, inconspicuous, giving an impression of pleasing repose, or of sympathetic response, with no desire to affect others, to impress, influence, or change them in any way.

(The portable Jung Edited by Joseph Campell 1971, p. 247)

Similar understanding of Fe and Fi is found in MBTI which might be another possible cause for confusion as many people came to socionics from MBTI:

Extraverted Feeling: Seeks harmony with and between people in the outside world. Interpersonal and cultural values are important.

Introverted Feeling: Seeks harmony of action and thoughts with personal values. May not always articulate those values.

( https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm )

Conclusion

In this article I’ve demonstrated that the social realm relates to the ethics of relationships (Fi) rather than the ethics of emotion (Fe).

Please follow and like us:

Beta Quadra on Screen

Written by

Beta Quadra is heavily underrepresented on screen. Therefore for the sake of illustrating the Beta protagonist I will use some examples where Beta story is a subplot of films of other Quadras.

Beta Protagonist

Beta presents their protagonists as larger-than-life characters, who don’t surrender in the face of overwhelming obstacles and defy the reality or die trying. Beta protagonists are strong-willed, passionate and single-minded individuals with an absolute focus on what they want.

In the course of the film they might be:

1. Fighting for a goal The protagonist has a certain goal and goes after it despite the hardships on the way. An example of this kind of protagonist is Jack Sparrow (EIE) from the Pirates of Caribbean. It’s an Alpha film in the sense that it is story driven (Aztec gold curse and plot twists and turns are at the heart of it), but Jack Sparrow’s storyline is very Beta. He has one goal – to get back the Black Pearl.

2. Finding a driving force This is normally an unexpected epiphany,  “being-hit-by-something” that drives the protagonist, puts the hero in danger and paves the way for the final conflict. This is usually the case for a love story – when the hero endangers himself for the sake of love.

This can be seen in the romantic storyline of the Music Man (1962). It’s another Alpha film with Beta subplot and even a Beta protagonist – Harold Hill ( SLE ). He achieves what seemed to be his goal – successfully conning the people of River City, but surrenders it all when he realises he is in love. What is important here is that there is no change to his character – he doesn’t surrender because he sees the err of his ways, but purely because of his emotions towards the girl. 

3. Losing the vision of themselves The obstacles try to sway or force the protagonist and trick him in betraying who he believes he is. The ‘vision’ here has a holistic meaning (Ni) and is also Fe (I am this cause I like this) and should not be confused with Fi social identity.

In Warlock (1959) the protagonist Clay Blaisdell ( LSI ) is swayed from his image of being the shootist and starts thinking he should settle down and effectively surrender his personality.

Antagonistic force in Beta films

Obstacles in beta films are hostile agents that are to be overpowered in order to preserve one’s character intact, because change equals defeat.

Antagonistic force in Beta films will be often ‘faceless’ – represented by a crowd, gang, community or society rather than by an individual. This is the case for the Fighting for a goal narrative as in this narrative the antagonistic force is there purely to provide obstacles preventing the protagonist from reaching their goal. In the Pirates of Caribbean both other pirates and the British navy are the antagonistic force.

In the Finding a driving force narrative the antagonistic force is again usually ‘faceless’, but in this case to create a danger that the protagonist chooses to confront or accept as inevitable rather to avoid. In the Music Man (1962) the protagonist chooses to stay on and face the mob of people he has conned rather than skip the town while he still can.  

In the case of Losing the vision of themselves narrative the antagonistic force will be more often represented by a particular individual who is a carrier of the idea of what the protagonist should become. Since change of an admirable character (and the protagonist in Beta films has to be one to be admired – Ni, Fe) equals defeat, it is in itself harmful – regardless of whether the antagonist’s agenda is indeed to hurt the protagonist, or the antagonist has the best intentions at heart. The antagonist is often able to sway the protagonist because the protagonist falls for the antagonist. In “Warlock” 1959 Blaisdell (LSI) believes he is in love with Jessy (EII). Jessy wants him to change by settling down and abandoning his life as a gun for hire. Protagonist’s ally Tom Morgan (IEI) braces her trying to show Blaisdell that this life is not for him. In a Beta dramatical way Tom Morgan sacrifices himself to prove his point. The death of his friend opens Blaisdell’s eyes to who he himself is and he realises ‘he is nothing’ without the life he had with Tom Morgan.

There are also ‘false’ antagonists. This case can be seen in Justified TV series where the protagonist Raylan Givens (LII) has a sort of brothers-in-arms relationships with the seemingly antagonistic character Boyd Crowder (EIE). Both of their stories are equally important and not in direct conflict. They are literally on the different sides of the law, but they have an obvious respect for each other. In the course of the series they join forces more than once, even though there is also a lot of tension between them that wouldn’t exist between two Beta characters.

Beta Tragic Narrative

Beta tragic narrative follows the same three options as above, but results in the protagonist’s death. However despite the fact that protagonist parishes, his death is invariably shown as noble and never equals defeat. The example of it is Sundowners (1950) where Kid Wichita (SLE) is not killed in a fair fight, but rather is shot in the back.

Please follow and like us:

Why the founder of socionics Aushra Augustinaviciute is mistyped

Written by

Recently, in my bid to find the roots of the contradictions and disagreements that plague Socionics, I reverted to Aushra’s original work.

Previously I thought that the source of total lack of consensus must have been the result of myriads of Socionics schools (as they often chose to call themselves) that sprung up in the Russian-speaking countries, each trying to find their own unique approach. I remember me and my friend entertaining ourselves by doing “tours” to different schools to see what they are going to type us – and they rarely disappointed – our supposed types were scattered all over the Socion.

The desire of those schools to be different, I thought, must have been the reason for the variety of opinions on Socionics.

I was wrong, at least to the extend that it was not a sole reason. Aushra’s own work and public speeches are filled with contradictions and inconsistencies, which really deserve an article of it’s own.

But what I would like to state now is that I find it impossible to believe after reading her work that it is written by a Ticreative type as she considered herself to be an ILE.

In support of the reasons for my astonishment, please see these quotes from a book by Aushra Augustinavicute “Socionics. An introduction” (1998, pp52-54) where she provides the description for Ti:

RU: Белая логика. К логическим относим чувства, которые возникают при сравнении одного объекта с другим на основе какого-либо объективного параметра.

EN: White Logic. We consider sensations [ feelings – is the other meaning of these word (translator)] logical if they arise when we compare one object to another by an objective parameter.

I doubt a Ti-creative type would describe introverted logic as sensations or feelings, especially since these terms are core to the language of the Socionics theory. Just to confirm it’s not some sort of framework she is using – she doesn’t call Te a feeling – same book, pp 49-50:

RU: Черная логика. Воспринимается информация о физической активности, поступках; о деятельности одушевленных и неодушевленных объектов. Это восприятие дает способность разбираться в происходящей.

EN: Black logic. Perceives information about physical actions, activity; about actions performed by animate and inanimate objects. This perception allows to understand that what is happening.

This and the rest of her description of Te even though relatively short compared to some other aspects, is solid.

Let’s carry on with her views on Ti (same book, pp52-54), the very next phrase:

RU: Например, чувство расстояния, веса, объема, ценности, силы, качественности.

EN: For example, a sense of distance, weight, dimensions, value, force and quality.

Here we have 4 sensory categories (distance, weight, dimensions, force) and 2 classically Te ( value and quality ).

A bit more from her description of Ti (same book, pp52-54):

RU: Непосредственную информацию, получаемую посредством первой сигнальной системы, индивид осознает как чувство соразмерности и несоразмерности объектов, чувство равновесия или неравновесия между ними, как чувство понимания или непонимания преимуществ одного объекта перед другим. Сюда относятся все чувства, которые вытекают из познанности или непознанности объектов и явлений: любознательность, уважение, страх, чувство логичности-алогичности. И в том числе — чувство собственной силы или бессилия перед тем или другим объектом. Всю группу этих чувств назовем логическими. Их сумма — чувство логики человека. Есть люди с более или менее развитым чувством логики. Можно сказать, что логические чувства несут информацию о познанности или непознанности, сравнимости или несравнимости объектов, о наличии или отсутствии равновесия между ними. Как и о пространстве и месте объекта в нем.

EN: The information from the first signal system is interpreted by an individual as a sense of commensuration or non-commensuration of objects, a sense of balance or lack of balance between the objects. As a sense of understanding or lack of understanding of advantages of one object over another. All senses that come from something being known or unknown: curiosity, respect, fear, a sense of something being logical or illogical. Including the sense of one’s strength or weakness before an object. This group of senses [ the word she uses is really sensations or feelings (translator)] we will call logical. And their sum is the sense of logic of a person. There are people with more or less developed sense of logic. One can say that all logical senses carry the information about something being known or unknown, comparability or lack of comparability, balance or lack of balance. As well as space and the place of the object in it.

Additionally to the fact that this description is very repetitive ( as in lacking a clear structure, which seems strange for a Ti-creative ), it actually describes pretty much everything but Ti. At least I can spot Ne, Te and Fi /Fe in it.

This looks suspiciously close to a vulnerable Ti – a blind spot that comes out so glaringly when she describes the aspect. In fact, no other aspect description she provides is that far off.

In the same book she also gives a lengthy description of an ILE, which she believed to be her type, and this provides more insight.

Here she seems to also have a difficulty describing Ti (same book, p 331):

RU: Структурное мышление. ИНТУИТИВНО-ЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ЭКСТРАТИМ отличается способностью видеть потенциальные возможности любых явлений и предметов. Его мышление структурное, то есть, когда он мыслит об объектах, то мыслит структурами. Поэтому отсутствует образное мышление. Допустим, сказав себе «я вижу голубое небо», он этого неба без специальных долгих терпеливых тренировок не увидит, как это обычно легко происходит у сенсориков.

EN: Structured thinking. ILE is distinguished by his ability to see the potential of any occurrence or subject. His thinking is structured which means when he thinks he thinks in structures. Let’s say, he tells himself – “I see the blue sky”, he won’t be able to see the blue sky without long period of patient trainings as a sensory type would.

So in the first sentence of the paragraph dedicated to structured thinking of ILE she talks about Ne. In the second sentence she states that when someone’s “thinking is structured” it means that someone “thinks in structures”. And in the third sentence she contrasts what supposedly should be Ti with sensorics. I’d say it’s utterly unbelievable this could be written by a Ticreative type.

Another chapter in the ILE description (same book, p 329):

RU: «Открывание» людей. Дон Кихот избегает поверхностных людей. Его тянет к людям с большими нереализованными возможностями, к личностям, которые ждут своих открывателей, которым можно открывать их самих, направить на путь, где они смогли бы наиболее полно реализовать свои способности.

EN: Discovering people. ILE avoids shallow people. He is attracted to people with a lot of unrealised potential, people who are waiting for their explorers to come; those that can be discovered, help them to find their path and realize their potential.

This is Ne + Fi not Ne + Ti – the classic Delta trait of growth and development.

More Delta values on the same page:

RU: Дон Кихот привязывается лишь к тем, с кем у него есть общее дело. Если ничего больше — хоть раскрытие способностей данного индивида.

EN: ILE gets attached to people with whom he shares a productive endeavour. If nothing else – it’s opening up the talents of this individual.

That’s Te and Ne + Fi.

More on the same topic (p. 330):

RU: А при том нужно учитывать, что Дон Кихот исключительно чуток к неуважению достоинства людей, а тем более по своей сути духовно сильных; людей, могущих благодаря своим исключительным способностям войти даже в историю науки или искусства.

EN: Keep in mind that ILEs are extremely sensitive to any disrespect towards people, and even more so in case of spiritually strong people, people, who could make the history of science or art because of their exclusive talents.

My best bet would be that she was a Delta ethical type. Judging by her complete lack of understanding of TiIEE.

*all translations into English are done by the author of this article

Please follow and like us:

Our Very Own Theory of Functions Development

Written by

Unexpectedly emotional EIIs, SLE who is preoccupied with efficiency or an SEE busy creating comfortable environment… We take it upon ourselves to explain this variance within the types.

A note for the skeptics: Nope, it’s still a model. It does not mean that borders between types are blurred. The aspects of a type remain exactly where they are supposed to be. It’s not a change of type, but it’s something that can change within the type. The type doesn’t change. Never ever.

The development of functions

The term dualization was coined by Aushra Augustinaviciute to describe the process of the Duality relations. In her work «Дуальная Природа Человека» ( “The Dual Nature of A Person” ) she writes:

Original Russian text:

«Отношения между двумя типами ИМ, когда второй имеет нужные дополняющие качества, назовем отношениями дополнения, сам процесс дополнения — дуализацией.»

English translation:

“Relations between 2 types of Information Metabolism when one has the supplementing qualities to the other we will call the Relations of Supplementation, and the process – Dualization”.

The concept of self-dualization ( development (strengthening) of Suggestive and Accessing functions) has been around for quite some time too. The idea is that if conditions are right the Suggestive and Accessing functions can start generating output as well as accepting input.

These conditions being getting enough information of the aspects that are in the Suggestive and Accessing functions of a type and at the same time the lack of someone taking care of these for the person.

For example: An IEI with developed Se+Ti can use straightforward pressure to achieve a goal or successfully exercise control over a situation.

Hypothesis 1: Suggestive and Accessing can only be developed by a type with both aspects in first two positions

We argue that self-dualization is only possible by obtaining the information on both Suggestive and Accessing functions from a type that has them both as either Lead or Creative.

For example: An IEI can self-dualize from SLE or LSI, but cannot develop Se from SEE/ESI or Ti from LII/ILE. Neither can IEI strengthen these functions from another IEI who has more developed Suggestive and Accessing than the first one.

Hypothesis 2: 4 aspects of the Socionics Model can be developed (become stronger)

We claim that there is also another possible process – development of the last 2 functions of the Model – Ignoring and Background. By default, these functions accept the information well and send the information over to the lead and creative to generate the output, but do not generate the output themselves. If these functions get developed, they start generating output as well.

For example: An IEI can develop Fi and Ne to the point where IEI’s statements and behavior will resemble those of an EII. Or an EII can develop Ni and Fe to the point where EII will come across a lot more emotionally expressive and dreamy than a default type.

Hypothesis 3: Only one of the pair of the antagonistic aspects can be developed at a time

There are pairs of aspects that are mutually exclusive or as we call them antagonistic. We will provide further information on the antagonistic aspects soon.

For example: An EII can not have Te and Fe developed at the same time, nor can it have Ni and Si. But it is possible for an EII to have Te and Ni or Fe and Si developed at the same time – if one was first self-dualized and then developed one of the last functions.

A quick summery and comments:

And in the end…

We believe these observations are potentially groundbreaking in defining the variable variations within types, and can be applied to things like understanding difficulties in dualization for some, as well as help with Socionics typings by interview and observation.

We will provide more information and case studies in the future articles.

Please follow and like us:

Can an MBTI type be translated into Socionics?

Written by

It is the time to put it plain – No, it can not be translated.

Socioncis and MBTI share the roots and both theories can be traced back to Carl Jung’s works, and therefore seem superficially similar, especially as they have common names for terms.

But this seeming similarities only create confusion.

To prove this it is enough to compare the MBTI functional attitudes to Socionics aspects. The terms are the same (Introverted Feeling, Extraverted Sensation etc), but that’s where the similarities end for the most of them.

MBTI Fi (Introverted Feeling):

Seeks harmony of action and thoughts with personal values. May not always articulate those values.”

Socioncis perspective:

  1. Articulating values ( or anything else ) is by definition a Logical (Thinking) trait rather than an Ethical (Feeling) one. Therefore any Fx type will not have a great natural ability at that, unless they also have a developed (dualized) Logic (Thinking). That is if we are talking about “articulation” and not inner understanding of a phenomena.

  2. Fi in Socionics is also known as Ethics of Relationships, and as such it covers the relationships of a person with another person, a group or society. Fi also covers understanding the internal drives, the motivations of people and not just oneself. ( read full description of Fi here: http://socionics.world/aspect/Fi )
  3. Seeking harmony” in particular seems to be a pretty narrow slice of what one will do with an aspect ( functional attitude ). Socionics maintains that an aspect covers particular type of information, but what it is used for is outside of the spectrum of Socionics. E.g. Ethics of Relationships doesn’t mean that one seeks harmony in Relationships, it means that one has ability to understand how relationships work, ability to influence them and has interest in relationships between people.
  4. If we attempt to compare it with the Socinics Fe – it won’t make any sense at all, as Socionics Fe (aka Ethics of Emotions) deals with understanding and valuing emotions, understanding mood and how to create one; the ability to adjust the emotional atmosphere ( read full description of Fe here: http://socionics.world/aspect/Fe )

MBTI Fe (Extraverted Feeling):

Seeks harmony with and between people in the outside world. Interpersonal and cultural values are important.

Socioncis perspective:

  1. Ultimately it seems that Feeling types in MBTI always have harmony as a main agenda, which again is super-narrow.
  2. Interpersonal and cultural values are important” – even the word “interpersonal” implies connections between people and that will be in the domain of Fi, although it will not nearly cover all types of information Fi deals with. ( read full description of Fi here: http://socionics.world/aspect/Fi )

(The source of the MBTI function attitudes descriptions is: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm )

Please follow and like us: