A Shorthand for Model A

This is a type map, a shorthand layout of the personality. I made this map to group together various information regarding the different function positions (Leading, Vulnerable, etc) within which the Information Elements (IEs) are laid out. For any type, the structure of the map is the same, but the colored parts, the IEs, correlate to different functions. 

The parts that are especially interesting are the words grouped to the bottom of each function position. Most of those are dichotomies: Strong vs Weak, Valued vs Subdued, etc; here's an article on function dichotomies. Here's an article regarding function dimensionality. 

Here's my page of type maps for all the types in the Socion. 

INTP/ILI - Intuitive Logical Introvert

Reciprocal functions and self-sufficiency

Here's the complete Socion with the reciprocal relationships of Duals' leading vs suggestive functions highlighted blue, and duals indicated by colored pairs:



A lot of Socionics materials considers the way functions inter-correlate between dual pairs, and there is similarly a lot of discussion on the expression of each information element in any given personality type: how the leading manifests vs the creative, etc.

Socionics tends to look at different kinds of information elements as operating distinctly but combining their expression to create the 'flavor' of the type. Socionics also has as one of its base assumptions the belief that among the various kinds of information types process, each type has a preference for receiving some forms--via suggestive function--and expressing others--via leading function, for example.

But perhaps types are not collections of specifically arranged information elements so much as those expressed qualities are conferred to individual types by the 'shape' of the personality, where function dimensionality and positioning really just describes the peaks and valleys of the personality. Perhaps where there is a Ti PoLR as a valley, the valley arcs up into an Ne Leading as a cliff. Perhaps those are not distinctly functioning information elements but are given the quality of information elements in the way the personality shapes itself: making functions more like gradients on a scale rather than individual bits in different positions.

What does this shift in thinking mean for individual types? It means that regardless of the interconnected relationships via function processing, types can exist in a vacuum. Being a landscape of peaks and valleys--positive functioning elements vs under-functioning elements--is not the same as thinking of types as being half of a whole duality pair. It means each type can be an individual flavor, good entirely on its own, without the need for a complement or admirers. In short it means an individualized instead of inter-complimentary view of the personality.

MBTI already does something like that in that it looks only at what Socionics considers the valued functions (check out a previous post about the PoLR/Inferior functions). That supports the idea in MBTI that in order to self-develop, one must develop all 4 of the functions in one’s type, even though they are of various strengths. Perhaps Socionics can learn something from this perspective: where instead of thinking of the activation and suggestive functions as functions on which we seek information externally, they can be self-developed.

To some extent this is already a commonly, albeit silently, understood fact that people naturally come to learn how to take care of themselves on their weak functions, especially their valued weak functions, as they mature into adulthood and self-sufficiency. ILEs learn to cook for themselves; IEEs learn to keep their homes clean; ILIs learn to stand their ground; EIIs learn efficiency and exactness in their work. But I think that despite these ways people grow into their personalities and come to terms with themselves, it is not well-enough discussed in the community. Instead there is a hopeful focus on relationships with potential duals--or dualization of a sort with other types--as a means of getting what one is missing from the world or themselves.

There are too many people living on their own these days--both functionally and emotionally--for us in the Socionics community not to account for the ways they are self-sufficient. There are too many people engaged in intensive self-development for us not to accept the ways they are growing into themselves, their whole selves.

Finally there is also a way in which Socionics supports a static view of self, giving types a chance to say “That’s just how I am” about their weak functions, without seeking ways to support real self-transcendence by remaining content with coping mechanisms. Instead there is value in seeking to find as many ways of applying our strengths through and upon our weak functions as possible.

Besides: a landscape doesn't have inherently better or worse parts to it. It is simply that people find it is nicer to build their self-identity upon shores and not in lakes, or on cliffs and not beaches. But it is the whole that is beautiful. 

'Acting out' through dual-seeking functions

In discussion with an LSE friend, we compared notes on ways that we 'act out' for a specific kind of attention from the world. Both ways happened to reflect dual-seeking function expression...

I find myself play-acting toughness. An easy example: when I was in high school, I started a fight club to fight and grapple with lots of people who eventually became friends. In college, I would invite people to fight me as a tongue-in-cheek form of flirting. Secretly, I always hoped to lose--hoped for someone to show me that I was right to merely pretend to power and strength because I in fact had neither of these things. I wanted someone around to whom I would lose time after time, who would kindly and forcefully push me in other ways towards fulfilling my goals.

Unfortunately, in my own way I am single-minded and driven, and I come from a long line of powerful matriarchs; my pretending to be tough did a lot of convincing to others that I was, in fact, tough. I became tolerated among my friends as a willful, strong person. I routinely was told not to push or pressure people. 

Nothing could be further from the truth than the sense of me being tough or heavy-handed. Internally, the experience is one of 'stepping up to do my part' in the absence of a stronger personality. This twisting and play-acting quality of acting out for attention from a dual--which perhaps expresses itself more manipulatively or pitifully in other personality types--is one of the ways personalities can become warped in their self-expression over time; spend enough time laughingly protesting that you really are tough, or any other suggestive-function quality, and you'll find that with enough practice at those qualities, you might come to resemble quite a different personality than your own. 

PoLR/Vulnerable vs MBTI's Inferior function

MBTI functions, loosely translated to Socionics, go something like this, where pink is MBTI cognitive functions and black are Socionics' function positions:

1: LEADING	2: CREATIVE
DOMINANT	AUXILARY
4: VULNERABLE	3: ROLE
6: ACTIVATION	5: SUGGESTIVE
TERTIARY	INFERIOR
7: RESTRICTIVE	8: DEMONSTRATIVE

You can deduct this lining-up of structures when you consider an MBTI type vs the same Socionics type (where introverted MBTI types switch the J/P determination for the purposes of this review). Take an MBTI ESTJ vs a Socionics LSE for example:

1: LEADING	2: CREATIVE
Te	Si
DOMINANT	AUXILARY
4: VULNERABLE	3: ROLE
Ni	Fe
6: ACTIVATION	5: SUGGESTIVE
Ne	Fi
TERTIARY	INFERIOR
7: RESTRICTIVE	8: DEMONSTRATIVE
Ti	Se

Clearly, the functions that are considered weakest are not identical in their positions in each typology system. MBTI's inferior function--the least evolved, sometimes called the shadow function--is considered an area of neglected needs; a weak point in the personality with which there is a love-hate relationship:

"People don't focus on information coming from their Inferior Function because they know that it isn't their strong point - they cannot discern information well in this area. It feels strange and unfamiliar. People may feel like they are being childish when trying to express themselves in grip of their inferior function, and no one will take them seriously. They feel like they are not going to make much of an impact...People don't rely on information coming from their Inferior Function directly because they don't want to compromise their world view and how they perceive and feel about themselves." ~  "Form of the Inferior Functions"

Reading about MBTI's inferior function sounds as though it is anticipating constant support externally, which is really how the Suggestive function is structured. Yes, that could apply to the Socionics relationship of a type's vulnerable function correlating with their dual's demonstrative function, but MBTI's inferior function also carries with it a sense of unmet needs: that this function's information is needed for their health and wellbeing, but they are unable to themselves provide it; that is far more in line with Socionics' suggestive function than vulnerable. In MBTI the idea that each individual is a complete personality and is capable of reaching ideal functioning without external support is an individualistic perspective, while Socionics assumes the interconnectedness of relations as a base: that people are meant to fit together a certain way and express various functions in tandem. I can see how MBTI supports a needs-unmet paradigm for characterizing the inferior function, and therefore frames it as something that individuals can cultivate to positive ends; but I find more value in thinking of Socionics' Vulnerable function as being the Achilles' heel of personality, where no real improvement is lasting and coping mechanisms are defensively justified as personal evolution. This isn't the way the Inferior function's correlation, the Suggestive function, is described in Socionics. However MBTI considers it to be the weak point in personality, so it isn't improper to contrast MBTI's inferior function with Socionics' vulnerable function.

Socionically speaking, considering a type's vulnerable function is a particularly direct way of determining whether a person has been accurately typed. It is 1-dimensional, which can, among other things, denote a stripped-down quality. Its dimensionality also can be interpreted as having for a reference only one's personal experience in using it, as well as a limited and simplistic personal perspective on the way others use it. In the function dichotomies, the Vulnerable function is considered to be weak; mental; producing; inert; subdued; evaluatory; cautious; unvalued; and hated. To extrapolate, the literature suggests that one spends time thinking painfully about incompetence on this function; attempts to use it in the world but in ways that are found to be inappropriate, too little or too strong, anxiously underachieving or stressfully overachieving, even though one is cautious in its use; and one certainly prefers not to use it if not forced by circumstance.

MBTI thinks of the inferior function as a blind spot, an overlooked spot, an internal position which puts the personality at a particular disadvantage in a way that blocks growth and personal development. But Socionics suggests that the vulnerable function is a painfully conscious one. It is not ignored, however much one would like to--instead, it is consciously and painfully worked through or around, circumstance after circumstance.

The vulnerable function: the place of least resistance: it's the major flaw in personality. As a type with Te in the PoLR position, I find that I [guardedly] relate to this:

"A type with Te PoLR tends to reject facts given from a source which they are personally unfamiliar with, firmly believing they can make their own decisions that are solely based on their own perspective and reasoning about it. They will tend to become defensive when questioned about their rationale or efficiency, pointing out that there is no such thing as objective "fact". Also, these types experience a significant level of stress in tending to day-to-day must do's and responsibilities in life (like routine maintenance or working productively), manifesting itself as a general laziness or hyper-diligence." ~ "Super-Ego Block Functions"

In working with information on the vulnerable function, it's especially clear when other functions come into play: faced with a string of factual data, for example, the most effective method of working with it for me is to consider emergent patterns--that is, consider it through an Ni lens. Or, 'surrender' to it as an inevitable requirement--Se+Ti lens. Still there is an impulse to turn away, move away from it somehow, to be minimalist in its use.

But, similarly to how the inferior function and the suggestive function is perceived, there is also a nagging experience of lack when there is no constant, subdued, high-quality information coming in from the world on this function--or perhaps when there is no demonstrative function working externally, supplying the missing qualities. If only someone would come and take the burden off. If only circumstances were not so demanding of me, one might silently think.

I think types generally are given to thinking of negatives in their worlds through the lens of their vulnerable functions. I know my experience of it is a world filled with a silent shaming demand that I improve my work productivity, my general production...that I carry out the details of work with precision and exactitude, that I say exactly what I mean, that I achieve factual accuracy and accept information as it is given.

The light in all this is the realization that one's weaknesses, Socionically speaking, cannot ever improve to become our strengths; however, one can use one's strengths to cover the inadequacies of one's weaknesses. 

New card

I got tired of meeting people at fantastic meetups (such as the NYC Socionics and NYC MBTI group meetups) and having to try to quickly mention Socionics resources, or telling people to find me on Facebook. Hopefully having these lovely cards will make it easier to help connect people with Socionics. :)

Typology without self-definition

It’s common for people to look to Socionics (and to other typology systems) to find encapsulating ideas or structures from which to understand themselves and their world. One can use those structures in order to understand yourself, your stories about who you are, what this means about your preferences and needs, about your ideas on how to meet those needs with like-minded people…

It’s common to want a set of ideas to cleave to, so that you know how you should behave in everyday life in order to be internally and externally consistent and liked by the people you like. And it is straightforward to look to Socionics for a circumscribed explanation of self and others. There is this sense that as long as you come to structurally understand yourself and others, you will come to know yourself; find a place to fit in; understand other people; recognize the best relationships, which will be similarly aligned with you and without conflict; and generally, become happy.

But there comes a point, sooner or later, where every seeker must move past structure, labels, and concepts, to accept that neither they nor anyone else fits neatly into a pre-made package. It isn’t enough to just say that as the commonplace saying it has become; it deserves to be really understood. The things people know about themselves—their likes and dislikes, their past behavior, the things they are drawn to and the types of ways they think about it (in short, their stories about themselves)—those things themselves do not adequately describe who that person is, nor can they fully predict their behavior.

Typology is all about understanding ourselves and other people by attaching an encapsulating or structural label. This label is by definition well understood; from there, it is up to the person making that determination to explain the way in which a person’s behavior lines up with the given type, or explain away behavior that does not line up.

Joe is always full of ideas, often shows an almost-childish excitement, finds it easy to start new things but boring and difficult to finish things he’s already started. According to those behaviors, Joe types himself as an ILE (ENTp).

But now one of the great silent issues rears its head as Joe asks himself: is it normal for an ILE to brood, have doubts, become loud and excited? Am I still an ILE if I am not interested in new things? If the type description says x, y, and z, and I am not these things, does that mean I am not an ILE?

Now, I am not saying that it is a problem for people to question. Not at all. And in fact mistyping is a common occurrence. I am speaking now about people who struggle with these questions, who continue to seek answers, clarity, and explanations, and for whom this goes on and on.

This is about people who are trying to find themselves within their type.

Many people who are struggling with these questions of labeled identity often seek ways to become more sure of their typing: they speak to their friends and loved ones, they read about other types and compare their traits against them, they try to gain a stronger understanding of the system, they post videos of themselves for other people to type them, they get involved in various Socionics groups, etc.  At the heart of all these different ways a person might try to answer the question ‘Who am I?’ is a set of problematic assumptions.

• Assumption #1: The question ‘Who am I?’ can be answered satisfactorily by a standardized, external system of types. This is the basis of seeking: the assumption and silent belief that you can find yourself in an external entity. But it is impossible to find yourself in anything but within yourself: your qualities, possibilities, inclinations, values; your personal history and potential future; your genetic and biological and psychological parameters; your self-stories about what kind of person you are, what you strive towards and what you use to meet your goals and needs: all these together might be able to define and describe you, although even these cannot predict you 100%; but no external system made by another human being can do more than give you ideas and resonating insights on who you are. Socionics, as any typology system, is great at describing what is already there and drawing insight for that type to consider, but it cannot itself explain who you are.
• Assumption #2: the type a person uses must explain and predict the core and detail experiences of their personality. This builds off the first assumption in that it suggests anyone can be satisfactorily and fundamentally explained by an externalized system. But no external system can be expected to be so thorough when you as a person is not truly bound by any imperative to act or not act in a certain way; to think or not think certain thoughts; to feel or not feel certain feelings. No such imperative, no such definitive line really exists except where the mind or your history tries to self-impose it; you generally express your most common personal habits and values as behavior, but you are not truly bound by anything you have ever done, thought, or felt previously. And if you are not bound, then an external system like Socionics can only describe what you are presenting to the world and to yourself in the moment. It assumes that you will continue to present this and attempts to type you so that your type reflects the changes you choose to make in the future, but while it is a great and useful descriptor of what you already show, it cannot define your potential or put boundaries on your behavior.
• Assumption #3: as soon as a person catalogues themselves fully, they can determine who they are. What does it mean to catalogue yourself? It means to think about what you know about yourself and to try to make that knowledge complete. You ate cereal this morning, you ate cereal yesterday morning, you ate cereal the day before, and you liked cereal all those times, so you can conclude that you are the kind of person who likes cereal. This is a data point you can use in cataloguing yourself, and you can repeat this until you have incorporated all of your recurring themes, experiences, and interests. But all that you will have done is formalize and recognize the stories that you tell yourself about who you are. We tell ourselves these stories in order to have a continuation between one moment and the next. We tell ourselves these stories in order to remember the reasons in the past that we have done or said or felt something, and to stay true to that in the future. We tell ourselves these stories so that we can have an address in the universe: I am Joe, son of Jane and Adam, brother of Sarah; I am an engineer; I am a baseball fan; I like the color blue; I live in New York City; I am 35 years old; I am a happy, unhappy, wealthy, poor, driven, unmotivated, perceptive, uncaring, normal, special human being.

You can put yourself into these parameters. You can use typology to create an extraordinary and complex map to yourself. But if you are driven by this as self-definition, you will seek for the type you choose to 1) fully explain you, which it cannot do, and 2) set boundaries on your behaviors, perceptions, interests, beliefs, and feelings. Instead of finding yourself, you will be trying to engrave yourself in stone.

If you accept that the stories you tell yourself about who you are ARE who you are, then you can continue to type yourself as best as you can and keep yourself within the parameters of that type as a way to establish and understand your self-identity. But if you move away from that kind of typology, that kind of approach to self-knowledge, you can release the hold that answering ‘Who am I?’ has on you.  You can simply be the person you already are.

So here is what I said before: There is a common yearning in people coming into Socionics for a circumscribed notion of self and others. There is this sense that as long as we come to structurally understand ourselves and others, we will come to know ourselves; find a place to fit in; understand other people; recognize the best relationships, which will be aligned to us and without conflict; and generally, become happy.

This feeling, that structurally understanding ourselves and others using these systems can lead to all these great outcomes, is, unfortunately, false. That is not to say that people don’t reach that outcome: they certainly do. But how can a system teach us about who we are? The system can only teach you through the proxy of a type. Being exposed to typology can teach you interesting ideas to which you may respond by growing into or because of them, but no structured type arises from inside your own head and heart. You only find solace through seeing commonalities between your perceptions of yourself and the types that are described in the systems.

That solace, as my generic Joe showed, can be easily disturbed. This is because once you attach yourself to a label, you begin to ask yourself whether what you do and think aligns with this label. You may assume the label is more valid and more important than your own thoughts and behaviors, and try to change outlying behavior or thought patterns to fit more comfortably inside the parameters of the type. Although plenty of people find themselves also changing their idea of the type to fit their personal parameters, either way there is a constant strain towards alignment with the abstract.

You may assume the label is more valid and more important than your own thoughts and behaviors, and try to change outlying behavior or thought patterns to fit more comfortably inside the parameters of the type. 

That ongoing struggle makes it both less important and less noticeable when you don’t accept things in yourself or others. This is especially problematic in relationships, where it’s often the case that one or both partners try to change the other to suit their own concepts of who that person should be like. Typology only makes that more structured and valid—it is one step further from honest acceptance of reality for what it is. The urge towards wanting to feel happy, to feel connected and aligned and loved for your strengths and supported in your weaknesses can be especially difficult for people who earnestly subscribe to Socionics, which talks about Quadra and duality relationships as being just the places where you may feel all those great things. Once you are in such a relationship, you might come to police yourself in order to not step outside of the acceptable parameters of the type’s behaviors, strengths, and weaknesses: playing a role instead of opening up to who you are in every moment.

All of this is about attachment: attachment to good things; connections; being accepted; understanding your stories about yourself; staying firmly within the boundaries of your known self; staying within relationships with people you’ve typed as compatible; structuring your home or your life to suit what your type would prefer; attaching yourself to the system as a way to get your needs met, and as a way of finding and keeping a particular role or position in your life.

It is when attachment is threatened by circumstance that any of it becomes a struggle. When you don’t align your ideas of reality to reality—that is what suffering is. You cannot stick to one or more systems or method of understanding yourself and your world when reality changes despite whatever story you may tell yourself to explain it.

So to those who are seeking to find or explain themselves through these systems: don’t put yourself in bondage. Gaining insight through the proxy of a type into the way your inner structures of self work is a wonderful thing and it is clear that Socionics is an extremely useful system for just that sort of thing. But don’t ask yourself whether a type would act this way or that, or if a type wants this or that, or feels comfortable among this or that. Ask yourself that question first. Seek to understand your own behaviors, your own stories about yourself, your own choices without any explanatory lens. This is the process of becoming aligned internally, and once you shift your focus to that, you might find that your questions finally have satisfying answers.

Paradoxically, once you begin to accept your behaviors and your expressions of self, it might make it that much easier to then find a type within one or both of these systems that will adequately describe these behaviors. At that point, it becomes much more easy to find a resonating type within these or any psychological systems, and you can begin to learn about that type without being impeded by your own doubts, fears, and needs.