# New way to find your socionics type!



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Nonsense said:


> Okay...^^;
> 
> In the end, I don't think using the dichotomies would be the easiest way for me to find my type. Maybe it does work for some people, though.
> 
> Edit: Read the manifesto. That's definitely different from my usual mindset, lol.


Yeah maybe cognitive functions are better for you!? 
I arrive at the same type either way, so it really is two paths that lead the same place.
We are after all talking about the same reality in either case.
Though it seems like a lot of people pretend that each theory live in it's own world. xD

Nice to know that it is out of your headspace.
Then ESTp (SLE), INFp (IEI), ENTj (LIE) and ISFj (ESI) should be out of the question.

Would recommend looking more at ENTp (ILE), ISFJ (SEI), INFj (EII) and ESTj (LSE).
Since these are the opposite approach in many ways.

But being a 6 will you ever stop doubting this? :tongue:


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

hornet said:


> But being a 6 will you ever stop doubting this? :tongue:


To be honest I often wonder if I'm a 6, or if I'm core 9 after all. >_> At least I'm in good company though. (Damn attachment triad)

Anyway, I do eventually want to figure out how well each dichotomy fits me, but I'm not finding it the most reliable typing-method right now indeed. Although understanding the cognitive functions can be difficult too, but I'm pretty sure of using Si and Ne rather than Ni and Se. So that's something. And of course I've talked with some other people who has their opinion of my type, which can be useful as I still don't 100% understand the theory.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Nonsense said:


> To be honest I often wonder if I'm a 6, or if I'm core 9 after all. >_> At least I'm in good company though. (Damn attachment triad)
> 
> Anyway, I do eventually want to figure out how well each dichotomy fits me, but I'm not finding it the most reliable typing-method right now indeed. Although understanding the cognitive functions can be difficult too, but I'm pretty sure of using Si and Ne rather than Ni and Se. So that's something. And of course I've talked with some other people who has their opinion of my type, which can be useful as I still don't 100% understand the theory.


So you are left with in MBTI terms.
ENFP
INFP
ESTJ
ISTJ
ENTP
INTP
ISFJ
ESFJ

I guess you should look at dichotomy axises that invalidate one of the quadras.
Merry vs Serious Merry and serious - Wikisocion
and
Aristocratic vs Democratic Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion
do just that!


----------



## woollysocks (Dec 18, 2013)

Bad, BAD, VERY BAD!!!

Stick to Model A and you'll be safe. Reinin himself said that his dichotomies should not be taken as seriously as the fundamentals.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

GreenCoyote said:


> OK. this way is pretty simple.
> 
> first you have to look into dichotomies on wikisocion. Now you only need to look into four of them.
> 
> ...



I’m not sure about the first one but the other three seem to be consistent with my type of LII. I’ve highlighted parts of descriptions that are particularly true for me.

Asking/Declaring:

*Askers*
1. tendency to dialogue
*2. **much of what an asker says seems more question-like, even statements*
*3. *always, as the other person talks, *affirm the receipt of information with yeah, mhm, etc.*
4. can talk to an audience as a whole very well
5. starts talking at times expecting someone to get interested and start paying attention
6. has a *tendency to interrupt* and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said later if necessary
*7. **quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself*
8. often just asks questions to fill in time, without serious need to actually find the information asked
*
Declarers*
*1. **tendency to monologue*
2. much of what a declarer says seems more statement-like, even questions
3. listens attentively and silently to others' speeches to return to a long speech
*4. **finds it easier to talk to one person at a time*
*5. **before starting to talk, first ascertains that attention is grabbed*
6. is very patient in terms of others speeches in terms of letting finish
*7. **prefers to finish the speech before letting others talk, likes closure and that their point was conveyed*
*8. **questions are often either rhetorical or only strictly motivated by serious need for certain information*

Not sure where I’d place myself on this one. I’ve had to curb my tendency to interrupt others and I’m not very patient in letting others finish their speeches. At the same time I can go on and on with a monologue and I get annoyed when others interrupt me. Sometimes what I say sounds rather tentative, more question like rather than more certain, statement like. I tend to ask questions because I genuinely seek out the information, not for the sake of asking them. I can speak to groups just fine but generally prefer one person at a time. Could be an introverted thing though. If forced to pick, I’d go with a weak preference towards declarer. (not consistent with LII). 

Process/Result
*
Process types*
1. Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
2. Immersed to a process and inclined to single-tasking.
3. Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end.
5. "Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."

*Result types*
1. Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
2. Detached from processes and *tends to multitasking.*
3. Focus on the beginning and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
*5. **"Of course we followed the correct procedure, since we got the right answer."*

I think I lean slightly toward result (consistent with LII) but not entirely sure. I tend to be more interested in the end result than the process in the sense that I don’t really care so much what process I or other people do as long as its not harmful and gets an optimal result efficiently. Regarding books, if it’s something like a novel I will read it from beginning to end. I don’t like spoilers and I guess you can say that I get immersed in the process of reading. If its an informational book though, I’ll skip and jump a bit, focusing on the parts that interest me or the information I need and ignoring the rest. I tend to multitask fairly well and can easily remember where I left off on a task and resume right there. Yet if I’m really engrossed in something, I hate being interrupted and forced to change gears. 

Yielding/Obstinate
*
Yielding types*
1. Resources are 'sacred', but ideas are freely shared and manipulated.
*2. **Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' interests.*
3. Protect their resources to the point of conflict, and their reaction may be unduly strong.
4. “If I know I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it.”

*Obstinate types*
*1. **Ideas are 'sacred', but resources are freely shared and manipulated.*
*2. **Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.*
*3. **Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.*
*4. **“I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”*

Pretty clearly an obstinate type if I’m understanding this properly. I’m pretty generous with my resources as long as I can pursue my interests. In fact, resources like money and personal belongings don’t really even mean that much to me. They are more a means of being able to pursue my interests. If I have the money, I can pursue my interests. My computer isn’t valuable in itself. What it can do is though. It access a bunch of websites that are of interest. 
To me interests can be rather sacred and I’m reluctant to share them with people that I think aren’t likely to understand them or will put them down. My interests seem to define who I am as a person.

I may put certain interests on the backburner if I lack the money, time, or space but I don’t forget them. I am pretty realistic about my interests though and if something is truly not feasible in terms of the high cost of resources, I will likely forget about it. 

Then again I’m not sure how much value I place in this dichotomy. Doesn’t everyone care about pursuing their interests? 

Positivist/Negativist
*
Positivists*
1. More inclined to optimize already functional systems of things and processes.
2. "This glass is half-full", "We have already collected $438,000 for that project"
3. Usually more complimenting than reprimanding.
*4. **Socially and intellectually more trusting.*
5. Explains what things are (irrationals) or *should be (rationals).*

*Negativists*
*1. **More inclined to solve problems in systems of things and processes.*
2. "This glass is half-empty", *"We need $62,000 for that project"*
*3. **Usually more reprimanding than complimenting.*
4. Socially and intellectually more mistrusting.
5. Explains what things are not (irrationals) or *should not be (rationals).*

Another one I have trouble placing myself on. If I had to pick, I’d say I lean very slightly toward negativist but I could be wrong. I think this is another dichotomy people mistype on because they interpret it as optimist vs. pessimist. With optimists being positivists and negativists being pessimists. It’s more complex than that. 

I both think and speak in terms of shoulds as well as should nots. I guess what makes me think negativist is that I easily see what is missing in things or that I have a natural tendency to criticize things that I have learned to control. 



cyamitide said:


> Asking-declaring is very easy to mess up. Many think themselves to be the "asking" type because asking questions is inherent to everyone.
> 
> I'd use tactical-strategic instead because it's easier to understand and see in application.


I agree with what you say on asking/declaring. 

Tactical/Strategic
*
Tactics*
1. Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2. Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
*3. **Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.*

*Strategy*
*1. **Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.*
*2. **Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.*
*3. **Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.*

Pretty clearly a strategic type. I usually know what it is I want to do and accomplish but oftentimes I’m not sure of the best way of going about it. Or I don’t care so much about the method as long as I get the result I’m after. (I explained about this in process/result- how is it different in tactics/strategy?) 

On the other hand, when there isn’t a clear goal in mind, I can get attached to certain methods- especially if they feel easy or comfortable to me and I can be reluctant to switch methods. And if the goal involves being forced to use methods that are uncomfortable or unenjoyable, I can abandon the goal. 

Overall, I think I’m more strategic though.


----------



## Transience (Sep 26, 2013)

Now let's see.
I just tried this out and here's what I got:
[The dominant ones are in bold]

Asking/*Declaring
Process*/Result
Yielding/*Obstinate
*Positivist/*Negativist
*
That puts me as an ILI
...


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

If one is going to use Reinin dichotomies to find their Socionics type, they should simply mark the dichotomies they feel are the most strong for them. That means one _couldn't_ be the other dichotomy, there is no confusion. No need to pussyfoot around with dichotomies you're unsure of. You know the ones you're certain of.

This is logic. But not everyone is saying that Reinin dichotomies are actually accurate. You're using the most vague and roundabout way to type yourself into a dominant function and quadra.

Best way to type yourself is to type lots of others into a consistent and balanced system, lots of famous people and acquaintances, then figure out where you fit among the established majority. Typing yourself from someone's word or type description, aka a "theory," is just like joining up into a random religion. You have no way of verifying if this theory is true. Instead, type lots of people and see if and how the system actually works first.

I don't really care if you've been indoctrinated into Socionics for several years. Most people never think of this stuff, or try to be as objective as possible.

Socionics typings are one of the most imbalanced manifestations I have observed on the internet. Most individuals overtype people as Fe/Ti-valuing and have little clue what an Fi dom is really supposed to be, leaving them as a rare and disliked categorical shade left for the most ambiguous and rigid personalities. This is due to the founder of Socionics being highly biased about the strengths and interpretations of her own type and values. Ti is also given a much more favorable definition than Te.


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

Static/Dynamic is a very important one to consider.


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

I took this test and only answered the questions I was absolute sure of (which was most of them.) The results are pretty bad.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

NostalgicWizard said:


> Best way to type yourself is to type lots of others into a consistent and balanced system, lots of famous people and acquaintances, then figure out where you fit among the established majority. Typing yourself from someone's word or type description, aka a "theory," is just like joining up into a random religion. You have no way of verifying if this theory is true. Instead, type lots of people and see if and how the system actually works first.
> 
> I don't really care if you've been indoctrinated into Socionics for several years. Most people never think of this stuff, or try to be as objective as possible.
> 
> Socionics typings are one of the most imbalanced manifestations I have observed on the internet. Most individuals overtype people as Fe/Ti-valuing and have little clue what an Fi dom is really supposed to be, leaving them as a rare and disliked categorical shade left for the most ambiguous and rigid personalities. This is due to the founder of Socionics being highly biased about the strengths and interpretations of her own type and values. Ti is also given a much more favorable definition than Te.


How are you gonna verify that those celebrity/acquaintance typings are accurate and reinforce a "consistent and balanced system"? As Socionics is rather clearly defined in its information aspects, intertype relationships, and whatnot, it's fairly straightforward to have an understanding that is as "objective" as possible simply by reading up on a lot of Socionics sources and finding the common denominator or the essence evident in all those writings. 

That said, the system still has no empirical or truly scientific basis. There's no reproducible way to test if all those people you've typed are correctly typed or not. You can't run a scientific experiment and find out if the type you've assigned someone matches their "true" type, because it's simply not possible in the current iteration of the system. So technically, everyone is still operating off their own interpretation of Socionics theory. These interpretations can be aligned, if people read the same sources and apply the same degree of abstraction and realism to them where necessary. But it is impossible to entirely align them, because there is no objective method that determines an individual's true type.

We can only get close to objectivity and consensus via adequate knowledge, adequate discussion, and looking out for different perspectives while keeping the core definitions and postulates of the system intact. But typing tons of people -- although likely good practice -- isn't a surefire way to become good at Socionics, especially if the definitions and assumptions you're operating with are incorrect in the first place and you're not open to other interpretations and sources. I think someone new to typing who understands the system well can be just as capable of typing others, regardless of how much practice they've gotten. Practice opens your mind to more perspectives, though, and sharpens your logic.

I also don't think people are overtyped as Fe. There used to be a time when pretty much 99% of this Socionics board was Fi types, for example. It's just that now, the primary demographic is Fe-Ti types, so they may seem overrepresented. I agree that some of Augusta's definitions for Fi (and Se) are wonky, but that's why we have so many other lovely sources to compare and sharpen our knowledge. Like Stratiyevskaya, an ESI Socionist.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I might add aristocratic/democratic here, but I think most people don't understand how to apply it though it is a very powerful and good trait to look for if you know how to look for it.


I find Aristocratic vs. Democratic to be a very frustrating dichotomy. I feel like I am both and can never nail it down in others, either. How do you identify it? How do you define it? What exactly do you (personally) look for when using this dichotomy?

@thread
On decisive. I'm pretty sure I am Decisive. I do have a marked tendency to complete tasks all at once, and I certainly have a hard time settling down. I simply can't relax just by sitting down, period. I have to do something that is relaxing, and even then it takes awhile. My relaxant of choice is either reading or video games. I find after about an hour of gaming or reading my muscles will unlock and I'll be relaxed for real instead of superficially "relaxed" in that I'm just not out doing things. So assuming I am actually a Decisive type...can you relate? If you can, that should help.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I find Aristocratic vs. Democratic to be a very frustrating dichotomy. I feel like I am both and can never nail it down in others, either. How do you identify it? How do you define it? What exactly do you (personally) look for when using this dichotomy?
> 
> @thread
> On decisive. I'm pretty sure I am Decisive. I do have a marked tendency to complete tasks all at once, and I certainly have a hard time settling down. I simply can't relax just by sitting down, period. I have to do something that is relaxing, and even then it takes awhile. My relaxant of choice is either reading or video games. I find after about an hour of gaming or reading my muscles will unlock and I'll be relaxed for real instead of superficially "relaxed" in that I'm just not out doing things. So assuming I am actually a Decisive type...can you relate? If you can, that should help.


I had some ideas around Aristocratic vs. Democratic. For aristocratic where you live, what you own and your situation in life, your friends and such reflect your identify. You are what where you are in life I guess. If it was a function then aristocratic would be the extroverted function. Aristocratic could be a farmer or plummer or billionaire. at least I think they take the labeling of those professions or whatever more seriously. For what the status of it is? 




Strategic/Tactical Dichotomy is very interesting. One is that you have already thought out things so all the time you reach to that place you do your tactic. EII have to be Tactical. It is when you always stop up and then go the next step by a tactic. From my POV it is smaller steps. In chess it would be that you do not focus all the time on killing key players like the king or queen but at each turn one just go for the most desirable outcome one step at the time.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Is there something that some Reinin is more apparent in some types then others?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I find that Merry vs. Serious as a dichotomy is often pretty apparent, especially around introductions.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Sensible ones are about the IEs themselves, the rest is garbage.

Static/Dynamic
Merry/Serious
Decisive/Judicious
+ the four jungian dichotomies


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Sensible ones are about the IEs themselves, the rest is garbage.
> 
> Static/Dynamic
> Merry/Serious
> ...


How do you identify Static/Dynamic?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> How do you identify Static/Dynamic?


Statics and dynamics - Wikisocion


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Statics and dynamics - Wikisocion


ya?


----------



## Nothing1 (Jan 22, 2014)

Links to these charts and information would be very helpful.


----------

