# Socionics Type development (theory)



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Socionics Type development​ 
*Ego*
Stage 1: Leading function
Stage 2: Creative function
*ID compensation*
Stage 3: Ignoring function(Perfecting the Leading function)
Stage 4: Demonstrative function(Perfecting the Creative function)
*Super ID*
Stage 5: Suggestive function
Stage 6: Mobilizing function
*Super Ego compensation *
Stage 7: Role function(perfecting the Suggestive function )
Stage 8: Vulnerable function(perfecting the Mobilizing function)

Stage 1: Leading function
The individual begins to develop the “lead function”. This is the home of the individual’s psyche, a fortress of solace. Relations with the function work very well where ever its use is appropriate. However where difficulty exist when handling all the other relationships since it is largely handicapped in all other matters. 

The creative function serves very little purpose beyond confirming the hunches felt by the lead. Its a one directional relationship thus analysis is very distorted. Relations with the function are not as good in comparison to the lead since largely its existence is a backdrop to the lead, so when expert engagement is required the individual falls short of expectations.

The attitude to the “ignoring function” is pure mockery. The perception is that there is nothing to learn since the perspective’s approach to the same task undertaken by the “lead function” is naturally suppressed and never developed remaining deep in the subconscious part of the mind. As a result the merits of the ignoring attitude can’t be attained by the ego.

“Demonstrative function” is viewed with mild amusement, finds it difficult to critique yet it is not respected either. Like the “ignoring function” the merits of this attitude are underestimated and remain largely ignored. 

The “suggestive function” is detested due to the shear incompetency resulting from the fact it opposes the “lead function” in function (matching either perception/judging) and attitude (opposing the introversion/extroversion). At the early stage it's difficult to accept the opposing ( extroversion/introversion) attitude of the creative function which happens to be a necessary evil since the introversion is paired with extroversion with one being_ judging_ and the other a perception function, so hostility is largely the attitude. There is no interest in the dual as on first contact a negative judgement is cast stemming biased attitude against the suggestive function.

“Mobilizing function” receives better treatment from the psyche since it matches the _attitude_, introversion/extroversion, of the lead function. However the outlook remains negative due to how the rational (judging/perceiving) opposes the creative’s function’s preferences. The individual is hopelessly incompetent with matters of this attitude, its largely an embarrassment.

The “Role function” attitude largely exists as an irritant at this stage, because of the fact that lead offers a similar role, the individual is shielded psychologically. Though what remains is the fact that it is only a facade since the incompetence of the leadership function is not shielded. Due to how the nature of the role function is naturally suppressed and trapped in the subconscious, the individual perceives those who value this attitude as committing a crime since it never sees the light of day. The “suggestive function” is valued better compared to this due to the fact that it is valued by the psyche.

And finally the “vulnerable function” is the psyche’s achilles heel, unlike the role function, for this job psychological protection from incompetent attitude is not provided. The flaws in operating in this manner are easily apparent and intense hatred to this attitude is felt. Due to being suppressed in the subconscious in a pure entrapment resulting from the mobilizing function being valued by the psyche.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

"Compensation"

What I mean by compensation there is that people don't develop their *super ego *or *ID* since those attitudes are suppressed by the preference of the *ego *and *super ID*. The function in either its extroverted or introverted format is merely an attitude, not behaviours or capabilities. Its a lot more in line with the way Jung describes people as either preferring to subject or object information.Therefore stating that "Fe" types understand social graces or that "Fi" types can only value interpersonal bonds is a distortion of the difference. Thus interpreting people as valuing both and conflicts with Socionic's theory on the Super Ego and ID function (both of which are suppressed).


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

you understand the superid and superego blocks very poorly, and you understand quadra values very poorly, in my opinion.

here is my interpretation of model A: Model A - WSWiki


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> you understand the superid and superego blocks very poorly, and you understand quadra values very poorly, in my opinion.
> 
> here is my interpretation of model A: Model A - WSWiki


That is crap, this is more sound:
Function dichotomies - Wikisocion


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> That is crap, this is more sound:
> Function dichotomies - Wikisocion


that is crap, this is more sound: Model A - WSWiki

oh no, whoever shall we believe, when such cogent rebuttals are given


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> that is crap, this is more sound: Model A - WSWiki
> 
> oh no, whoever shall we believe, when such cogent rebuttals are given


Which ever manages to meet the criteria for sound argument in which ever subjective weltanschauung.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> that is crap, this is more sound: Model A - WSWiki
> 
> oh no, whoever shall we believe, when such cogent rebuttals are given


Functions 7 and 8 are merely suppressed but easily understood, its merely a perspective difference. For example ILIs see Ne as useless possibilities without the subjective focus to assign meaning to abstract phenomena. When Ni is developed, greater appreciation is paid to the merits of that Ne viewpoint, being more open minded to abstract phenomena. And similar Ti "_ILIs naturally possess a strong command of logical systems such as formal logic and mathematics, but may find them uninteresting. They also tend to be very skeptical of overly systematic explanations of real-world phenomena. While they readily acknowledge the utility of many proven systematic, mathematical, and scientific systems, they tend to criticize theories that describe an absolute reality or that do not have any empirical basis. _"

Functions - Wikisocion

Your personal negative experience with "Ne" types has distorted your view of the function.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Information elements all exist only in respect to one another because they are dichotomous constructs (N does not exist by itself, only in respect to S, same goes for T and F). So I think of all valued IEs as carrying positive (valued) sign and all unvalued elements as carrying a negative (unvalued) sign. Thus one cannot "use" unvalued IEs in any manner, because they exist _only_ to define the opposite poles of valued elements. This is something that many Socionics profiles don't take into account. When they describe unvalued IEs they are supposed to describe the kind of perspectives and attitudes that are _lacking_ in the person in favor of the valued ones. Profiles on Wikisocion commit this same mistake.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Functions 7 and 8 are merely suppressed but easily understood, its merely a perspective difference. For example ILIs see Ne as useless possibilities without the subjective focus to assign meaning to abstract phenomena. When Ni is developed, greater appreciation is paid to the merits of that Ne viewpoint, being more open minded to abstract phenomena.


obviously i don't agree, and i reiterate your view is extremely inconsistent with the classical literature.



> And similar Ti "_ILIs naturally possess a strong command of logical systems such as formal logic and mathematics, but may find them uninteresting. They also tend to be very skeptical of overly systematic explanations of real-world phenomena. While they readily acknowledge the utility of many proven systematic, mathematical, and scientific systems, they tend to criticize theories that describe an absolute reality or that do not have any empirical basis. _"


i wrote the vast majority of the ILI description from wikisocion that you are referring to; my comments about the demonstrative function are entirely consistent with the view you are spitting out.



> Your personal negative experience with "Ne" types has distorted your view of the function.


what the fuck are you talking about? insane.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> obviously i don't agree, and i reiterate your view is extremely inconsistent with the classical literature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm awed and amused concurrently, why did you change from that viewpoint then? Your wiki has a worse version of the article and I'm inclined to take the wikisocion version instead.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> Which ever manages to meet the criteria for sound argument in which ever subjective weltanschauung.


Aside from a few differences (namely in the Ignoring and Vulnerable functions), his interpretation widely matches the commonly accepted one. Socionics is built on the interaction of complementary or opposing IM elements; your interpretation of the functions, especially the Dual-Seeking and Mobilizing functions, screws that all to hell. Others are just plain wrong. I recommend reading up on the Model A and finding out how it really is supposed to work.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> Except aside from a few differences (namely in the Ignoring and Vulnerable functions), his interpretation widely matches the commonly accepted one.


I do not agree that my interpretation is at all different from the classical literature with respect to the ignoring function; almost nothing is said about the ignoring function in the classical literature and basically i parrot the ideas -- where it differs is most prominently in the vulnerable function, and also sort-of-ish in the super-id block where i don't think augusta had very deep insights, and sort of in the role and demonstrative functions for saying they are partially valued which go against what is described about the blocks rather than the functions themselves.


other than the vulnerable function, everything i say is pretty much consistent with the way the functions were thought of, if not the precise nature of what is said. i think in the vulnerable function it is pretty clear that augusta describes it as painful, and i don't think it is painful at all.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Aside from a few differences (namely in the Ignoring and Vulnerable functions), his interpretation widely matches the commonly accepted one. Socionics is built on the interaction of complementary or opposing IM elements; your interpretation of the functions, especially the Dual-Seeking and Mobilizing functions, screws that all to hell. Others are just plain wrong. I recommend reading up on the Model A and finding out how it really is supposed to work.


Its because its presenting the function development theory, and I have explicitly noted that at stage 1, its all about the "lead function" and the others are unbearable. Socionics even states that when there is no interest in the dual's attitude then its a ground for a failed interaction. There are many iterations of Socionics and the perspective I'm working on is the one strongly leaning to Jung (seeing his functions as innate), the theory is so broad and several bits of the theory are largely in dispute; the facial recognition is just a beginning of the broad set of diversions existing. 

I had a hostile attitude to sensors and feelers before life forced to accept the need to develop that side, plus that is in line with cognitive functions research by Jung and some MBTI authors who expanded on it. The validity of the argument is sound which why I incorporate it into the Socionics theory I'm building. The masses will be the ones to judge, based how they value its utility.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

*scratches head*


----------



## Lady Lullaby (Jun 7, 2010)

Yeah! Who are newbies supposed to belieeeeeve?


----------



## Zeit (Dec 24, 2012)

Lady Lullaby said:


> Yeah! Who are newbies supposed to belieeeeeve?



They both have their ..... awkwardness in representing their views, as far as I'm concerned. 



As far as the OP, it seems more or less unnecessary to think about things in that way. I don't think people 'develop' into a type .....


First and foremost, the OP has poor usage of the terminology. Nobody ever develops a function, that's the wrong usage of the word function, one that is very popular. Function is basically a slot that the IM, information element, fits into.


I actually don't like talking about socionics at all in this way, as it appears like something you can adjust by working out a function or focusing on it mentally, or that your type is dependent upon certain stimuli or how it develops. Maybe that's the case at a very very very young, in the womb sort of stage, but I more or less avoid talking about socionics in this way, at all.

It seems like a very unuseful and misleading way to present someones type or what socionics can reveal about human interaction. 



I think it's much better to start with trying to associate the information elements, as per their functional alignment, and what that means for how people process information. Trying to suggest that there is a clear cut path for 'functional development' as it is referred to in the OP is, IMO, very misleading; to me there are countless factors, many of them not at all (directly) related to socionics, that influence how someone fits into their 'type'. 


OP reminds me too much of 'chakra' systems - which is good for chakra kind of stuff, but not a useful way to talk about socionics.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm awed and amused concurrently, why did you change from that viewpoint then? Your wiki has a worse version of the article and I'm inclined to take the wikisocion version instead.



I'd agree that aestrivex's site is hardly a replacement for Wikisocion. If anything I think he would do well to give his contributions to that Wiki rather than set up his own echo-chamber to submit Socionics beginners to.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Zeit said:


> They both have their ..... awkwardness in representing their views, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


POH-TAY-TOH POH-TAH-TOH, the goal of language is to communicate information and it doesn't matter in which whatever way it is done. Words and their meanings are arbitrarily invented and what sticks language are the popular definitions. Making something easy to understand is more important than being anal about word usage, its all about knowing your audience. 

The reason for the type development theory is based on the fact that people change in their course of life especially with regards to competence in the "functions", IM of the f#ck anyone else prefers to call it. I don't relate to the ethics and sensing incompetence as my attitude towards that information has changed with time (the process I ascribe as "type development", my type never changed I just became more proficient with my weak spots Super Ego and Super ID). 

BTW socionics' type relations forecast are biased and broken in more ways than you can imagine especially if you are to test them out empirically. There is a high level of interpersonal voodoo at play with real relationships with people, some times they work and other times they don't. It helps to read this blog if wondering about the pitfalls behind the theory: The [Ex-]Socionist: Why this Blog is Now Called "The [Ex-]Socionist"


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> I'd agree that aestrivex's site is hardly a replacement for Wikisocion. If anything I think he would do well to give his contributions to that Wiki rather than set up his own echo-chamber to submit Socionics beginners to.


rick delong and i had some differences of opinion about the way wikisocion should be run in 2008. i haven't edited it since. i think its a good thing in the long run.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

aestrivex said:


> rick delong and i had some differences of opinion about the way wikisocion should be run in 2008. i haven't edited it since. i think its a good thing in the long run.


Well, he's an 'ex'-socionist now, isn't he?


----------

