# Why does socionics (model A) only have 16 types?



## Yitzi (Jan 12, 2018)

According to Socionics model A, there are 8 functions, matched with 8 information elements, according to 3 rules (going by Socionics Model A, the only source I found that lists any such rules): Accepting functions must be all rational elements or all irrational, mental elements must be all static or all dynamic, and each block must pair an introverted element with an extroverted one.

Using these rules, we can consider the possibilities. For the leading function, we have 8 possibilities; without loss of generality, say it's introverted logic (Ti). Then the creative function must be extroverted, irrational, and (superfluously) static, meaning Ne or Se, so we have 16 possibilities so far, the same as Meyers-Briggs. WLOG again, say it's Ne. Then the role function must be another static irrational (hence Se), and the static must be the other static rational (Fi). So far, so good; we have our 16 types.

But we're not done. We still have the vital functions to consider. The suggestive function must be irrational, but otherwise is unconstrained; it can be Si like in the standard 16 types, but it can also be Ni. Likewise, the mobilizing function can be Fe or Se; thus, we multiply the number of types by 2X2 again, for 64 types (and 63 Reinin-dichotomy equivalents). So is that site wrong (and there are extra rules), or what? And if there are extra rules, is there evidence for them or other theoretical reason to believe in them?

This is of particular interest to me, since I find I am best described by LII with Extraverted Logic for my mobilizing function and Extraverted Ethics (a name I find troublesome considering how heavily ethical systems seem to be affected by the Logical side of things, but I suppose that's just the historical name) for my ignoring function.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Yitzi said:


> Socionics Model A


That website is not a good source for Socionics. I'd suggest looking up type descriptions by Socionics professionals (like Filatova).



Yitzi said:


> is there evidence for them or other theoretical reason to believe in them?


It goes back to the original Jungian theory, where the cognitive functions were T, F, N and S. Te and Ti were the same function. So it's not possible to have one weak and one strong.

In Socionics, it's basically just a dichotomy. Logical or Ethical. Strong Logic (Te and Ti) or Strong Ethics (Fe and Fi).



Yitzi said:


> This is of particular interest to me, since I find I am best described by LII with Extraverted Logic for my mobilizing function and Extraverted Ethics (a name I find troublesome considering how heavily ethical systems seem to be affected by the Logical side of things, but I suppose that's just the historical name) for my ignoring function.


It's very important to first grasp the intent behind the descriptions. What they mean and how they are supposed to be applied. After that you might find yourself equating with a type better. Trying to move things around within Socionics to match your own self-perceptions is not exactly the point of Socionics.


----------



## Yitzi (Jan 12, 2018)

Thank you. I've looked at quite a few of Filatova's descriptions, and many have some elements that resonate with me, so I think I'd better post in the "what's my type" subforum.


----------



## thehotelambush (Apr 26, 2018)

Yitzi said:


> According to Socionics model A, there are 8 functions, matched with 8 information elements, according to 3 rules (going by Socionics Model A, the only source I found that lists any such rules): Accepting functions must be all rational elements or all irrational, mental elements must be all static or all dynamic, and each block must pair an introverted element with an extroverted one.
> 
> Using these rules, we can consider the possibilities. For the leading function, we have 8 possibilities; without loss of generality, say it's introverted logic (Ti). Then the creative function must be extroverted, irrational, and (superfluously) static, meaning Ne or Se, so we have 16 possibilities so far, the same as Meyers-Briggs. WLOG again, say it's Ne. Then the role function must be another static irrational (hence Se), and the static must be the other static rational (Fi). So far, so good; we have our 16 types.
> 
> ...


Actually the suggestive function must be rational because it's accepting. But you're right, those rules don't completely determine Model A. It's just a minor oversight. You could add the rule "exactly one of the leading and suggestive function is internal."


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Yitzi said:


> According to Socionics model A, there are 8 functions, matched with 8 information elements, according to 3 rules (going by Socionics Model A, the only source I found that lists any such rules): Accepting functions must be all rational elements or all irrational, mental elements must be all static or all dynamic, and each block must pair an introverted element with an extroverted one.
> 
> Using these rules, we can consider the possibilities. For the leading function, we have 8 possibilities; without loss of generality, say it's introverted logic (Ti). Then the creative function must be extroverted, irrational, and (superfluously) static, meaning Ne or Se, so we have 16 possibilities so far, the same as Meyers-Briggs. WLOG again, say it's Ne. Then the role function must be another static irrational (hence Se), and the static must be the other static rational (Fi). So far, so good; we have our 16 types.
> 
> ...


Socionics considers, but does not address, the reality that the structuring of Model A, as well as Model B, necessitates more types than are considered.


----------

