# INFP with a deliberate lack of knowledge in Socionics



## gyr (Dec 21, 2016)

Hi all,

New to this forum thing, do be nice! 

I am fascinated by type and have a reasonable grip on the MBTI — INTJ friend has given me an invaluable understanding of the cognitive functions that of course aid more than letters sequences alone — but I deliberately stayed away from Socionics so as not to get fatigued by even more information I know could be useful for self-betterment one day.

Now having decided to approach Socionics, a quick glance at the Wiki page makes me think IEI off the bat. Of course, I may have (definitely) assumed, and would love to be corrected. But what I'd appreciate more than a few simple letters are:

1. A good explanation from a human to a beginner of what that means;
2. Information I should be able to glean from a Socionics result that I hitherto couldn't have from MBTI alone; and 
3. Anything you think I/people like me should do with this information.

Hope it's a sick one for you all, 

—gyr


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

@gyr
Welcome to the forum! May I ask where you got your user name from?

I started learning Socionics not so long ago (two months ago, I believe). I'm also a male INFP 4w5 IEI.
And in the beginning, yes it is confusing. But now it's rewarding: the structure is similar to MBTI, but the meaning is very different.
MBTI is about processing information, Socionics is about social interactions.
The theoretical system of Socionics is also a lot more complicated than MBTI, so it will be a challenge at first.
I'll try and give you an explanation that isn't too abstract. It will also be an exercise for myself.

The functions are different, but it's often hard to pinpoint the difference. I get the feeling that while I'm using it more, I get a hang of it. Also, what we would call functions in MBTI, are called elements in Socionics. Some examples of differences:
MBTI Fi - trying to understand and harmonize own inner feelings. Can be somewhat self-indulgent.
Socionics Fi - trying to determine right and wrong. often strive towards a strong moral code.
MBTI Si - storing concrete information and thus creating an inner database. Try to estimate new situations by comparing them to this database
Socionics Si - awareness of surroundings and condition of own inner body
MBTI Ni - trying to grasp the essence of something
Socionics Ni - developing ideas in your mind. These types often seem to be stuck in their mind.
Unfortunately I can't find a specific difference for all functions/elements. Just keep in mind that they are not the same.
As an INFP, my main functions are Fi and Ne. As an IEI, they are Ni and Fe.

Now, all eight elements have their place. Confusingly, the place they have is called their function.
Just as you have a dominant and auxiliary function in MBTI, these exist in Socionics, given the names main function and creative function. These elements are strong, conscious and valued. The combinations possible are the same as for dom-aux in MBTI. For example an IEI has Ni as a main function and Fe as a creative function. You can use both well, but you use your main element mostly all the times, and your creative element only in certain cases, when you want to. So IEIs will most often appear contemplative and dreaming, but in conversation/groups they can show a lot of attention to the mood around them, and can actually influence the atmosphere.
So remember, the main and creative functions are strong, conscious and valued. So where do the other elements come into play?
- Two of these elements are conscious, but weak and not valued. For someone who values Ni and Fe, these are Si and Te. For example, as an IEI, I can be attentive to my own inner physical state (Si, e.g. health, hygiene ...) but have difficulty making this into a routine. These functions exhaust quickly and are difficult to maintain over a long period of time.
- Two of these elements are strong, but unconscious and not valued. For someone who values Ni and Fe, these are Ne and Fi. You're capable of them, and subconsciously you'll start using them, but you generally dislike them. I prefer Fe, which try to harmonize and adapt to other people's moods, over Fi-ethics, which tries to set ethical standards.
- The remaining two elements are valued, but weak and unconscious. For an IEI, these are Se and Ti. You have great difficulty mustering them, but as a result, you greatly admire them in others. For example, I have a hard time dealing with confrontation and taking quick action (Se), but I'm attracted to those who can.
Each of these function has individual names, but I'll just leave it at this for a while

That's a quick basis, though there are still many aspects I left out, such as how the names are given to each type. If you want an explanation of that, or of anything else, just ask and I'll see what I can do, though I am aware that especially here I don't know everything.
To respond to your question 2, there's one thing that has no equivalence in MBTI, and those are quadra's.

In the quadra's the types that have the same valued functions. Each type values four functions: its main and creative function, and two functions who are weak and unconscious. The types in quadra have in common the way they like to organise groups. As a consequence, people usually get along better with members of their own quadra.
Here's a quick introduction to the quadra's. They are named after the four first letters of the Greek alphabet:
1. Alpha. They value Ti-Ne, and Si-Fe. They value harmony: they prefer not to address too sensitive topics, and like laces where there's a positive vibe, where everyone is simply happy or enthusiastic with no hard feelings. They often like to talk about absurd and unrealistic what-if topics, rather than topics connected to the real world.
2. Beta. They value Ti-Se, and Ni-Fe. They value passion: they want to speak from a very personal and emotion angle and dislike talking about dry facts and numbers. They are idealistic and constantly mobilised to start realising these plans, but might not as easily finish them. They are particularly interested in making a group reach a common emotional atmosphere, often by performing the same activity. They look up to people with a strong personality.
3. Gamma. They value Fi-Se, and Ni-Te. They value loyalty: they are most often distrustful and will trust others once they have proven themselves. They often prefer small groups where they have a personal connection with everyone. They like to look to plans with a guaranteed long-term efficiency.
4. Delta. They value Fi-Ne, and Si-Te. They value equality: they like activity where they all perform something useful at a calm, relaxed pace. They encourage others to speak their mind, and prefer to do this in a level-headed, calm way. They generally want to take things one step at a time.

This post is getting long and I'm getting sleepy. On the question why you should learn it: it's a completely different system, though it might look similar, and it has a lot more 'extra's' MBTI doesn't have, like Quadra's, Reinin traits, intertype relationships... 
I basically learn it for fun, because I like to find some explanations for people's behaviour. I think it might also help to study social dynamics (especially quadra's - I only told a minimum just now).

Oh, and senior Socionics experts, if there are mistakes in my explanation, don't be shy to correct them!


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

ColdWindsRising said:


> MBTI Si - storing concrete information and thus creating an inner database. Try to estimate new situations by comparing them to this database
> Socionics Si - awareness of surroundings and condition of own inner body


In what version of MBTI is Si a 'database'?



ColdWindsRising said:


> Unfortunately I can't find a specific difference for all functions/elements.


MBTI has no specific definitions of what the functions are; they are ambiguous at best.



ColdWindsRising said:


> They value harmony
> They value passion
> They value loyalty
> They value equality


'Harmony' is an MBTI Fe stereotype. Not sure how you managed to transfer it into Socionics.

Why exactly do you think Alphas can't value equality or Deltas loyalty or Beta's harmony or whatever? None of these things are type related.



ColdWindsRising said:


> 3. Gamma. They value Fi-Se, and Ni-Te. They value loyalty: they are most often distrustful and will trust others once they have proven themselves. They often prefer small groups where they have a personal connection with everyone. They like to look to plans with a guaranteed long-term efficiency.
> 4. Delta. They value Fi-Ne, and Si-Te. They value equality: they like activity where they all perform something useful at a calm, relaxed pace. They encourage others to speak their mind, and prefer to do this in a level-headed, calm way. They generally want to take things one step at a time.


Fi types have the general attitude that people are individuals and can't be grouped together.


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

@Fried Eggz
Thanks for the feedback!

It might be true that there are no real definitions of functions in MBTI, but still, we receive and form ideas of how they function, so it must be possible to find differences

About those four words I chose (harmony, passion, loyalty, equality): these are not from a site, but when I was discussing quadra's with a friend, we tried to describe each quadra in one word, trying to find an essence.
For example, the main trait I notice when I look at Alpha's, is that they try to avoid conflict and keeping a pleasant, encouraging atmosphere. That's something I would call harmony. I didn't take it from an MBTI source, simply from the common use of the word. 
Similarly, Gamma's tend to put emphasis on trust: they want to be around people who they know well and who have been proven trustworthy over time. Hence, I said they valued loyalty.
I tried to use my own assessment and I tried to visualise them.
I did a similar thing for Si calling it a database. Simply trying to visualise it and make it less abstract. I hope it wasn't too incorrect.

Ok, the last thing you said was interesting, and makes sense, since Fe basically believes the opposite. Although it does make it harder for me to understand Delta aristocracy (not maybe the right topic to discuss here)


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

ColdWindsRising said:


> It might be true that there are no real definitions of functions in MBTI, but still, we receive and form ideas of how they function, so it must be possible to find differences


With unclear definitions comes functions overlapping with each other and disagreements on what functions are. To find differences between MBTI and Socionics would require clarity from both sides.



ColdWindsRising said:


> About those four words I chose (harmony, passion, loyalty, equality): these are not from a site, but when I was discussing quadra's with a friend, we tried to describe each quadra in one word, trying to find an essence.


Trying to summarise a concept in one word is unproductive.



ColdWindsRising said:


> For example, the main trait I notice when I look at Alpha's, is that they try to avoid conflict and keeping a pleasant, encouraging atmosphere. That's something I would call harmony. I didn't take it from an MBTI source, simply from the common use of the word.


That depends on the person and also the type. A lot of ESEs start conflicts constantly and most IEIs don't.



ColdWindsRising said:


> Similarly, Gamma's tend to put emphasis on trust: they want to be around people who they know well and who have been proven trustworthy over time. Hence, I said they valued loyalty.


So do deltas. Alpha/Beta feelers can be very strong on loyalty too. Fe-doms are often loyal to other people's opinions.



ColdWindsRising said:


> I did a similar thing for Si calling it a database. Simply trying to visualise it and make it less abstract. I hope it wasn't too incorrect.


What does 'database' have to do with introversion or perception or sensation? What makes you think that word describes Si but not other functions?


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I've definitely seen the database concept for Si in MBTI
That you store memories/internal perceptions which forms a database, from which the world is experienced
i.e. "I'm decorating my new house for Christmas, I shall access my database of different houses I've seen decorated for Christmas before, and try to replicate these to create a similar atmosphere" [or whatever]


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> With unclear definitions comes functions overlapping with each other and disagreements on what functions are. To find differences between MBTI and Socionics would require clarity from both sides.


As much as the opinions disagree, I have the impression that the teaching of Socionics are still further removed from these opinions than that they are from each others. (Possibly with the exception of the MBTI-Socionics unionists, who believe they are the same thing). It is still useful to distinguish between the ideas they generally receive from MBTI and what they will get from Socionics. If people suddenly start explaining Socionics, their MBTI ideas will probably stick in their head (in my case anyway), unless you tackle them.
Clearing out differences might be not be entirely objective, which does not take away that it is helpful.



Fried Eggz said:


> Trying to summarise a concept in one word is unproductive.


I think it is useful. Especially in the early stages, where you have to get from random three letter words to what they mean. Maybe it doesn't have to be one word, but I think it's important to find the essence of a concept, and an essence can best be expressed as short as possible. If things don't have an essence, then I don't see a reason why these different traits are in one category.
It doesn't mean that once I think I found an essence, I will stop exploring it.
In Enneagram, for example, I think it's important to find the one idea where everything revolves around, otherwise it is just as heap of unrelated traits.



Fried Eggz said:


> That depends on the person and also the type. A lot of ESEs start conflicts constantly and most IEIs don't.


Ok, but when there is an Alpha Group (with an equal division between members) Alpha's are conflict-avoidant, while Beta's not so much. I think that if I clearify that it's about behavior in groups, not individuals, my statement wouldn't be that bad. 



Fried Eggz said:


> So do deltas. Alpha/Beta feelers can be very strong on loyalty too. Fe-doms are often loyal to other people's opinions.


In a different way from Gamma's, I have the impression. Gamma's seem very focused on others proving their loyalty, knowing that the other can be trusted. No matter how self-confident they are, only then do they seem to open up. I might also have named it 'trust', or maybe I should have found another word, but I think this describes Gamma fairly well. 



Fried Eggz said:


> What does 'database' have to do with introversion or perception or sensation? What makes you think that word describes Si but not other functions?


Glad you asked.
Creating a an inner database is focused on taking in information rather than putting them to use to make decisions/draw conclusions. Perceiving.
Is focused on storing the information they take in internally rather than taking in as much as possible from as many different sources. Introverted Perceiving.
The storing in a database focuses on concrete rather than abstract information. Sensing > Intuitive.
@gyr - you were hoping this would be a sick one, and I think you succeeded


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

ColdWindsRising said:


> As much as the opinions disagree, I have the impression that the teaching of Socionics are still further removed from these opinions than that they are from each others.


So what about Linda Berens (MBTI professional) who (from what I've seen) is closer to Socionics than to the forum MBTI you use?



The Night's Queen said:


> I've definitely seen the database concept for Si in MBTI
> That you store memories/internal perceptions which forms a database, from which the world is experienced
> i.e. "I'm decorating my new house for Christmas, I shall access my database of different houses I've seen decorated for Christmas before, and try to replicate these to create a similar atmosphere" [or whatever]


I am familiar with it too. AFAIK it is a gross misinterpretation of something Linda Beren's said about Si.



> Is focused on storing the information they take in internally rather than taking in as much as possible from as many different sources. Introverted Perceiving.


For something to be an internal process requires subjectivity, which abandons the actual object altogether. What you're describing would be better described as a broken/lazy extroverted function.



> The storing in a database focuses on concrete rather than abstract information. Sensing > Intuitive.


So why call Si a database when you have basically called Ni a database too? How does storing abstract information change anything?



> Ok, but when there is an Alpha Group (with an equal division between members) Alpha's are conflict-avoidant, while Beta's not so much. I think that if I clearify that it's about behavior in groups, not individuals, my statement wouldn't be that bad.


Then you have the problem of Gammas and Deltas not thinking in terms of groups.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@ColdWindsRising

I don't agree at all with simplifying entire frameworks to single words. That's how you end up with unreliable measures such as vibe-typing, which may be abstract and fun for casual learners but definitely does not capture the complexity of the system or even follow reliable methods of arriving at a type conclusion.

As a result of not following the right methods of assessing type and IEs in a person, the simplification itself becomes flawed. If one were to assess IEs and types according to their definitions and not according to some vague abstract concept put together from the concepts mentioned in the offing, one would realize that these concepts themselves cannot be solely attributed to any specific type because there is no logical or systematic precedent for them apart from a "vibe". 

So no, gammas cannot be simplified to loyalty, nor betas to passion, or anything like that. These are all concepts that can manifest in different ways in different individuals and can definitely be processed by ALL types. To attribute any specific abstraction to solely one quadra is to oversimplify the immense range of human behavior and emotion.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

ColdWindsRising said:


> I think it is useful. Especially in the early stages, where you have to get from random three letter words to what they mean. Maybe it doesn't have to be one word, but I think it's important to find the essence of a concept, and an essence can best be expressed as short as possible. If things don't have an essence, then I don't see a reason why these different traits are in one category.
> It doesn't mean that once I think I found an essence, I will stop exploring it.
> In Enneagram, for example, I think it's important to find the one idea where everything revolves around, otherwise it is just as heap of unrelated traits.


Finding a simplified essence sounds like stereotyping pretty much. There are schools of Socionics that do use archetypes, common roles of a type and stuff like that, but for the most part, I believe, Socionics tries to remove itself from typology. So as to be ILE, for instance, you just have to consciously process Ne information in 4D and Ti information in 3D. That's pretty much about it. You don't have to think randomly or have lots of ideas, or be an asshole, or whatever other traits are commonly associated with an ILE.


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

@Fried Eggz - @Night Huntress - @To_august
Ok, I might have been way too soon in calling it an essence.
I think it is possible in Enneagram (we can debate that), but I think I've been too quick in transfering this to the Quadra's. Apologies. Let's just call it the impression I have of them, and then I think there's no harm done.
I don't know if this matters, but those names I give, I don't use them to actually type people, but for building a kind of theoretical model in my mind.

I'll look into Linda Berens. Would it be fair to say that I wanted to clear out differences between Socionics and commonly seen 'forum MBTI'?
For something to be an internal process requires subjectivity, which abandons the actual object altogether. - could you tell me what you mean by this? I think I get your point on the first half, but why does it 'abandon the object altogether'?
The way I imagine a database, it consists of concrete pieces of information - names, dates etc. You might also make the comparison with Ni and a database (I don't see where I would have done that), but since a database normally creates concrete info, the comparison with Si seems more useful.

To August, what did you mean with Ne in 4D and Ti 3D? I don't think I've come across these terms.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

ColdWindsRising said:


> To August, what did you mean with Ne in 4D and Ti 3D? I don't think I've come across these terms.


I meant dimensionality of functions, i.e. quality of information processing.
1D is information processed with 1 parameter of experience, 2D is information processed with 2 parameters of experience and norms, 3D is information processed with 3 parameters of experience, norms and situation, 4D is information processes with 4 parameters of experience, norms, situation and time.
More information below:
Dimension one | School of System Socionics
Dimension two | School of System Socionics
Dimension three | School of System Socionics
Dimension four | School of System Socionics


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

ColdWindsRising said:


> could you tell me what you mean by this? I think I get your point on the first half, but why does it 'abandon the object altogether'?


Introverted functions focus on the subjective factor. They react to objects, but they're actually focusing on something that only exists in the mind and are completely out of touch with actual reality.

With Si, it enjoys the impressions/personal impact that experiences bring about. It contrasts against Se, which focuses on the actual objective experience.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Put another way.

Si looks at a painting, is struck with an impression that can be summed up as and expressed as another idea without every referencing the original painting. The impression they are looking at, inside, is not the original impression at all. One led to another. The mind moved along, changed from looking outward to looking inward.

Like feeling the sensation of loam underneath your feet, the wind blowing through your hair, the sun streaming down through the trees, and the breathless anticipation of the hunt...because you saw a plain picture of a forest with none of those details. The perception is related to but is not the original sense impression. Its introverted.


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Put another way.
> 
> Si looks at a painting, is struck with an impression that can be summed up as and expressed as another idea without every referencing the original painting. The impression they are looking at, inside, is not the original impression at all. One led to another. The mind moved along, changed from looking outward to looking inward.
> 
> Like feeling the sensation of loam underneath your feet, the wind blowing through your hair, the sun streaming down through the trees, and the breathless anticipation of the hunt...because you saw a plain picture of a forest with none of those details. The perception is related to but is not the original sense impression. Its introverted.


That's beautifully put.

Does this concept refer to Socionics or MBTI Si? Or both?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Put another way.
> 
> Si looks at a painting, is struck with an impression that can be summed up as and expressed as another idea without every referencing the original painting. The impression they are looking at, inside, is not the original impression at all. One led to another. The mind moved along, changed from looking outward to looking inward.
> 
> Like feeling the sensation of loam underneath your feet, the wind blowing through your hair, the sun streaming down through the trees, and the breathless anticipation of the hunt...because you saw a plain picture of a forest with none of those details. The perception is related to but is not the original sense impression. Its introverted.


Well fine then. Just outclass my description. 



ColdWindsRising said:


> Does this concept refer to Socionics or MBTI Si? Or both?


Jungian: Yes.
Socionics: Yes, by extension, because it's based on Jung.
MBTI: Depends on which version you're using. Some are more Jungian than others.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> Well fine then. Just outclass my description.


Erm...sorry about that...*rubs back of head slightly embarrassed*

(I know you aren't mad, playing along)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

ColdWindsRising said:


> That's beautifully put.
> 
> Does this concept refer to Socionics or MBTI Si? Or both?


I would argue both, but I am in the group that thinks that all of these systems are trying to get at the same truths from different angles. And I am also in the group that thinks that the systems can never be fully accurate because people change over time, and the system won't ever cover all people at any one time.

It's more Socionics than MBTI, but that's mostly because people in MBTI just trivialize Si as memory databanks and other forum fanfiction XD


----------

