# Socionics Dichotomies and Personality



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

*Socionics Dichotomies and Personality*​
Here is a Table i made to easily track your Type, it works in various ways, depending on your knowledge of Socionics:

Attribute to dichotomy 
Dichotomy to attribute.
Cognitive function to Dichotomy
Cognitive function to Attribute
etc.

Please notice that the Dichotomies and Cognitive Fucntions in Socionics differ form those in Myers Briggs; it may be wise to go for the attributes first. 
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6112/socionicstable1.png










enjoy!roud:


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2009)

*You are a witch?*

The systems of personality, can they really depict people to such fine points? Could this cult be all ecompassing withing time? It can replace athiesm, religion, mystism, magic -----because we'll know who is most likely to support either subject. Any case--are there those rare few who almost switch to being the opposite of what they were born as personality wise? I guess that would be the mystical aspect of this new cult I'm glad to be a part of it, along with all the type specific forums on the internet. God hoping more people break through to evolve their types in accord with what's most beneficial for society or even the indivuals own fantasies. Yeah, i'm barley grounded. Not forgetting that is too specualative. We'll all be the most efficient little pikmen we can be. Hurrah---or not?


----------



## bcruel2bkind (Nov 23, 2009)

*Socionics*

I really have a problem with Socionics ...does anyone else?


----------



## Arachnophobia (Nov 15, 2009)

everything below the first dichotomy made exactly 0 sense to me ^^


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

bcruel2bkind said:


> I really have a problem with Socionics ...does anyone else?


What kind of problem, is there anything you doubt in specific or just too lazy.



Arachnophobia said:


> everything below the first dichotomy made exactly 0 sense to me ^^


Well you surely didn't give it a try. It's not that complicated, simply if for example you pick dichotomies E and F in the 1st Tier, then on the 2nd Tier you would look for F+E and find your personality to be obstinate (like L+I) in contrast to someone who picked I and F who would be yielding (like L+E), and so on.

You could also look for the trait and then check for your dichotomy; for example if you have a need to pick interests and hold them true to yourself for a long period with difficult changing them, then you would have a tendency towards Statics and your dichotomies should be either I+J or E+P... and that's basically it.


----------



## Arachnophobia (Nov 15, 2009)

Marco Antonio said:


> What kind of problem, is there anything you doubt in specific or just too lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry but im not that much into socionics and it isnt easy to make sense of when you dont know wth the dichotomies etc are about. So I basically choose the 2 strongest traits in the first dichotomy and then I get my function order and an attribute that describes me? So when I choose N and P im a tactical person and basically an ENTP? That doesnt fit...

Ok so the ^ is meant to be a logical and in the meaning of "F+E and L+I make obstinate". But what does the = and the >| in the information metabolisms mean?


----------



## Ben (Aug 23, 2009)

I'll need to research Socionics before I can even attempt to understand the graph.


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

Arachnophobia said:


> Sorry but im not that much into socionics and it isnt easy to make sense of when you dont know wth the dichotomies etc are about. So I basically choose the 2 strongest traits in the first dichotomy and then I get my function order and an attribute that describes me? So when I choose N and P im a tactical person and basically an ENTP? That doesnt fit...


Well if you want to go and choose N and P (you need to remember, although if u didn't knew before you wouldn't be able to do so, that in Socionics the dichotomies are different), then yes you are rather tactical in contrast to strategic; but you could be an ENTP, ENFP, INTP or INFP, depending on your other choices of dichotomies.

But you could go ahead and choose ENFP and then you would be basically:
*1st Tier*
Intuitive (because of N): Abstract thinking.​Attention to the fact
Ethical (because of F): The ability to feel the mood and attitude of people and manage it.
Irrational (because of P): Do not try to plan everything in advance.​ There are spontaneously on the situation.​The efficiency and the mood varies greatly.
Extrovert (Because of E): Interest mainly to the outside world.​The priority of the external world in front of attitude.​The desire to change the world around us.​ Initiative.
*2nd Tier*
Aristocratic (because of F+N): Supporters of a clear division of roles and subordination. Conservatives.
Obstinate (because of F+E): Defense attack. ​It is easy to operate with resources, tighten to the desired objectives.​ Objectives poorly understood.
Carefree (because of N+E): Linked to the comfort and convenience. In need of diversity, the change of sensations.
Emotivist (because of F+P): Communicate to build sympathy. ​Inclined to comfort, emotional support.
Tactical (because of N+P): They know how to act in each controversial situation, without delving into the problem as a whole, and not making general conclusions.​Advice given on the situation.
Static (because of E+P): Thinking static images, states.​ Memorization mostly fragments of time, "frames".
*3rd Tier*
Objectivist (because of Fi+Te): Discuss love and hate, deeds and actions.​ Expressed emotion together. 
Judicious (because of Ne+Si): Appreciate the good feeling.​ They love to discuss the state of health, aesthetics, opportunities and options.​ They find the explanation unintelligible.
Negativist (because of Carefree + F): Notice the first negative moments, no.​ The results of their work reported achievements.​ Often use "NOT".
Involutory (because of Aristocratic+P): In case the result is important.​Summarizing the interim results. ​Can easily switch between multiple affairs.
*4rth Tier*
Declaring (because of Judicious + F): In speech assertive tone. ​Tendency to monologue.​ Control of attention look. ​Sight focus.



> [From:
> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%259F%25D1%2580%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B7%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25A0%25D0%25B5%25D0%25B9%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0&langpair=ru|en&hl=en&ie=UTF8
> ]





> Ok so the ^ is meant to be a logical and in the meaning of "F+E and L+I make obstinate". But what does the = and the >| in the information metabolisms mean?


If we take the "Tactical" example above; a tactical personality is characterized by:

1 )having dominant Ni or Auxiliary Si (meaning Ni>|Te,Fe|>Si depending on whether you are an INTP or INFP; ESTJ or ESFJ).

or

2) having a dominant Ne, or Auxiliary Se (meaning Ne>|Fi,Ti|>Se depending on whether you are an ENFP or ENTP; ISFJ or IST).


----------



## Arachnophobia (Nov 15, 2009)

Ok thanks for clarifying that and for the link, now it makes sense to me. Ok so

Ni>|Te,Fe|>Si

means we get either Ni,Te (INTP) or Ni,Fe (INFP) or Fe,Si (ESFJ) or Te,Si (ESTJ) from that one. So basically, every attribute can be used to describe half of the types?


----------



## Arachnophobia (Nov 15, 2009)

Ok most of the descriptions of the attributes dont make sense to me ^^


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

Arachnophobia said:


> Ok most of the descriptions of the attributes dont make sense to me ^^


:crazy:
Well... you'll have to blame Rennin or the Russian-English translator for this roud:

It is a bit odd at first when you don't clearly know your type, or anything about Socionics, but it gets easier as you understand the usefulness of learning to contrast all 15 Dichotomies.

In Real life scenarios, noticing if someone is a positivist or negativist might be easier then seeing through extroversion/introversion. 

This link has all of the dichotomies described more profoundly: Dichotomies - Wikisocion


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

bcruel2bkind said:


> I really have a problem with Socionics ...does anyone else?


Yes, it seems inconsistent with what it is attempting to convey as it's basic principles. But in defense it's no different than a system claiming to be MBTI when it's not.


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

Functianalyst said:


> Yes, it seems inconsistent with what it is attempting to convey as it's basic principles.


Interesting thought, can you point out the discrepancy?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I can respond but will not get knee deep into the discussion of Socionics. I always come across as being anti-Socionics and pro MBTI which is furthest from the truth and there is never a real reason for the discussion. Both systems have their pros and cons. 

Over the eight years that I have known about Socionics there has been a continued reinvention of the system. This is what I know and respect of the system. They believe that contrary to MBTI, the dominant function is noticeable in introverts equally as in extraverts. Thus the change from INTP to INTj is warranted. I think they are correct in their assertion that introverts should also be distinguished by their dominant function, not auxiliary. 

Where the system goes awry is trying to be better than MBTI instead of being itself. I lost respect for it’s followers who argue that the four letter codes are something other than what they are. So they change the description of what being Ni-Te, etc means by making it sound like it’s Ti-Ne. That’s insane especially if you are going to say that the system is also based on Jung. At a point they stop referring to their types by the four letter codes, instead of creating their own. Sorry if it walks like a duck…. They start on this craze approximately three to four years ago to re-write their descriptions which were a joke when claiming that you can type someone from their physical features. 

The most recent descriptions are actually quite good, although lengthy and hard to interpret since they are written in some form of broken English or Russian. As I started out, I hate getting into discussions about this system because the followers start attacking with ad hominem arguments and denial of how the system is or was. It continues to go through growth spurts or suffers from identity crises. I personally thought they should have maintained their original argument that MBTI got it wrong when considering introverts and left it at that. Not only was it viable, but most likely correct since regardless of what you call my type, I am prefer Ti-Se per Jung.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Where the system goes awry is trying to be better than MBTI instead of being itself. I lost respect for it’s followers who argue that the four letter codes are something other than what they are. So they change the description of what being Ni-Te, etc means by making it sound like it’s Ti-Ne. That’s insane especially if you are going to say that the system is also based on Jung. At a point they stop referring to their types by the four letter codes, instead of creating their own. Sorry if it walks like a duck….


IIRC, the four-letter codes are not part of the original theory; a socionist living in Britain(?) started using them for socionic types so that the westerners would have something familiar to look at. While it's a good starting-point, the practice can also be much more trouble than it's worth, because people may assume that the theories and types are interchangeable, which they aren't. There is no absolute rule of conversion between the two.




Functianalyst said:


> They start on this craze approximately three to four years ago to re-write their descriptions which were a joke when claiming that you can type someone from their physical features.


Agreed, that kind of VI isn't particularly solid. Not everyone in socionics believes in using it.


----------



## agv (Nov 26, 2009)

Thank you Marco, this is very cool. It's taken me a few days to take this in and now getting into Socionics should be easier than ever. 




Bruce Lee said:


> Too much horsing around with unrealistic stances and classic forms and rituals is just too artificial and mechanical, and doesn't really prepare the student for actual combat. A guy could get clobbered while getting into this classical mess. Classical methods like these, which I consider a form of paralysis, only solidify and constrain what was once fluid. Their practitioners are merely blindly rehearsing routines and stunts that will lead nowhere.
> I believe that the only way to teach anyone self-defence is to approach each individual personally. Each one of us is different and each one of us should be taught the correct form. By correct form I mean the most useful techniques the person is inclined toward. Find his ability and then develop these techniques. I don't think it is important whether a side kick is performed with the heel higher than the toes, as long as the fundamental principle is not violated. Most classical martial arts training is a mere imitative repetition - a product - and individuality is lost.
> When one has reached maturity in the art, one will have a formless form. It is like ice dissolving in water. When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style.


Too much? ^^


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Kanerou said:


> IIRC, the four-letter codes are not part of the original theory; a socionist living in Britain(?) started using them for socionic types so that the westerners would have something familiar to look at. While it's a good starting-point, the practice can also be much more trouble than it's worth, because people may assume that the theories and types are interchangeable, which they aren't. There is no absolute rule of conversion between the two.


Thanks for the information Kamerou. Where can we locate the original codes? Are you referring to the three letter codes (i.e. SLI, LSI, etc.)?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Thanks for the information Kamerou. Where can we locate the original codes? Are you referring to the three letter codes (i.e. SLI, LSI, etc.)?


Yup, those.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Those are good codes and I have even listed them as three letters, as they pertain to MBTI. Do you believe that the words mean something different as opposed to MBTI, i.e. Logic vs Thinking.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Those are good codes and I have even listed them as three letters, as they pertain to MBTI. Do you believe that the words mean something different as opposed to MBTI, i.e. Logic vs Thinking.


Mmm... *shrugs* Not entirely sure how to answer. I'm trying to find something but am currently having a bit of trouble locating it on the site. I can tell you, though, that the functions of MBTI are not necessarily the same as the IM elements of Socionics, being defined differently (and, once again, I believe that the terms Se, Ni, Fe, etc, are something that MBTI converts brought into theory terminology; the theory technically uses symbols for the IM elements). Does that answer your question, or were you looking for something else? If so, I can try again. ^_^


----------

