# Introduction to Socionics



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> There’s a male and a female, but I don’t recall the names.


Ah that's probably the members I was referring to. Probably Word Dispensor, ToAugust or Entropic.



> There are, but they are still normalized with gender, either by normalizing the types overall, or normalizing them into a normalized set for males and a normalized set for females.


If there is a high proportion of ethical types for women and vice versa, then there's no way the types could be evenly distributed. They must have been looking at people as a whole. Makes it seem like a system very little categorising if that's the case, so I can see how that classifying of people is a weak point in the theory. 



> That is a difficult decision to make for which way to classify, being that relationships, which typically connotates a male and a female, and classifications are both weak points of ILE.


Yeah I wondered about that at some point as well. Thought it was strange that a theory so focused on duality would have a disproportionate number of ethical/logical types between genders. That why I was confused when you said the types are evenly distributed. 



> Both. Although classifications is Si, one with Norms at something should at least be able to recognize the lack of norms. In example, I can recognize the norms of a closed group while also recognizing if the norm of the closed group is also a norm of society at its other various levels. If the closed group exists contrary to the norms of society, the likelihood of critical failures increases. In the previous examples, if a closed group applies pressure to the PoLR of the minority sociotype in the closed group, the minority sociotype will be effectively placing the strength of their PoLR vs the PoLR of many others. Following such, the failure of the PoLR of the minority, and simultaneously their removal from the closed group, causes the critical failure of the closed group by some means, as the group cannot exist without the various sociotypes. When they attempt to, the external pressure of society at large presses on the PoLR of the closed group when treated as a whole aggregate singular sociotype.


And you recognise this because of 4D Si? To recognise norms in other closed groups sounds more like a 3D at least. How can a group exist contrary to societal norms? The only I can understand that is by thinking of the founder effect, which is when a small population is separated from the population at large, and as a result only have certain characteristics of the gene pool. So then the norms (basically the averages) will be different. This sounds similar to what you're describing as a closed group existing outside the norm. 

I can imagine an imbalance of sociotypes would be problematic for many reasons. Is what I mentioned earlier about Fe+ types an example of that? That's why I wondered about Fe PoLR or types that don't use Fe+. 



> Everyone has a TIM, however, the differences for most people between types is negligible, and it is really just splitting hairs. Take for example a hypothetical typology of only two types: tall or short. Virtually everyone is going to be tall or short, because there are probably very few people who are exactly average down to multiple decimal points. However, 60% of the population will be within several inches (or a dozen centimeters) from each other. So you can have a tall person who is only 1 inch or several centimeters from someone who is short. Then you have another 30% of the population who are double this gap, with the individuals being a half a foot (or a couple dozen centimeters) from the average height. Then another 10% of the population are either near giants or near midgets. So, you can say that one individual is tall and another is short, even though they are only an inch or few centimeters from each other, while simultaneously saying two individuals are short because they are less than the average, even though they are an entire foot or dozens of centimeters different in height. It is in this way that although two individuals who both seem to be very average can actually be just barely over the line of say SLE and EII, however, these two would be far more similar and get along far better than a very average individual who is just barely over the line of EII and another individual who is very very far over the line of EII. Type is how a person varies from the average, but not how much a person varies from the average, and two average people will always get along better than an individual who is average and an individual who is not average of any type.


That makes sense. It's a case of not being able to measure the extent of the differences. What is it that actually causes an individual of a sociotype to different from average? Is it because of existing in a situation that is different from the norms, or at least the norms being considered by socionics? Why would that EII be very far over the line? Is it because the dimensionality of their functions is more extreme, or they're using certain functions? Anyway, measuring personality types is probably difficult, no idea how socionics could actually take this variation into account, unless studying the norms of different cultures and societies (or what exactly causes this variation).


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> If there is a high proportion of ethical types for women and vice versa, then there's no way the types could be evenly distributed. They must have been looking at people as a whole. Makes it seem like a system very little categorising if that's the case, so I can see how that classifying of people is a weak point in the theory.
> 
> Yeah I wondered about that at some point as well. Thought it was strange that a theory so focused on duality would have a disproportionate number of ethical/logical types between genders. That why I was confused when you said the types are evenly distributed.


You can have one set of objective rules for determination which would make men more likely to be Logical types with the same increase in probability decreasing the likelihood of females to be Ethical types while keeping the overall distribution amongst people equal. You can also have another set of objective rules which first splits males and females into their roughly equal 50/50 split and then have an equal distribution amongst all types within one sex based upon one set of objective criteria, and have another set of objective criteria for the other sex creating equal distribution for it, making the end distribution equal.



> And you recognise this because of 4D Si? To recognise norms in other closed groups sounds more like a 3D at least. How can a group exist contrary to societal norms? The only I can understand that is by thinking of the founder effect, which is when a small population is separated from the population at large, and as a result only have certain characteristics of the gene pool. So then the norms (basically the averages) will be different. This sounds similar to what you're describing as a closed group existing outside the norm.


It depends upon the element in question. For my own personal scenario, I’m too average to chock anything up to being type related. I haven’t lived in a closed group for a significant period of time, which makes it simple to see normal groups and non normal groups.



> I can imagine an imbalance of sociotypes would be problematic for many reasons. Is what I mentioned earlier about Fe+ types an example of that? That's why I wondered about Fe PoLR or types that don't use Fe+.


 Honestly I am not sure what you’re referencing here. Could you make the statement/question again as a whole?




> That makes sense. It's a case of not being able to measure the extent of the differences. What is it that actually causes an individual of a sociotype to different from average? Is it because of existing in a situation that is different from the norms, or at least the norms being considered by socionics? Why would that EII be very far over the line? Is it because the dimensionality of their functions is more extreme, or they're using certain functions? Anyway, measuring personality types is probably difficult, no idea how socionics could actually take this variation into account, unless studying the norms of different cultures and societies (or what exactly causes this variation).


Socionics is TIM, which is genetic aptitude strengths and weakness relative to the average individual. This is easily measured. However, when you measure something, it is not easily denied, so there is a propensity to reject this reality on these forums. Personalities are more like individual elements that someone utilizes more than other elements, and changes over time or based upon situation. The existence of the types and the degree of differences is just genetic differences compared to the norm. An individual could have highest Fi and Ni for their genetics while having lowest Se and Te, making them an EII, but another individual could have the same type of genetic differences but to a far greater degree.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

@Indiana Jones Fan Show yourself :tongue:

Curious to know your thoughts if you have any, and I've never seen you post before.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> You can have one set of objective rules for determination which would make men more likely to be Logical types with the same increase in probability decreasing the likelihood of females to be Ethical types while keeping the overall distribution amongst people equal. You can also have another set of objective rules which first splits males and females into their roughly equal 50/50 split and then have an equal distribution amongst all types within one sex based upon one set of objective criteria, and have another set of objective criteria for the other sex creating equal distribution for it, making the end distribution equal.


I don't get it. Do you mean the criteria they used to measure result in a higher number of logicians for men even though there wasn't?Have you read through The dual nature of man by Augusta? There's a table there showing the distribution with the sexes sepated into different columns. When you add the total numbers for each TIM, the number is roughly the same for each TIM (except for a higher number for SEI and SLI). There was only 100 people used for each of them though, that might not be enough people to measure the sociotypes. 

It's on table 2 here: Socionics - the16types.info - Dual Nature of Man by Ausra Augustinaviciute. 



> It depends upon the element in question. For my own personal scenario, I’m too average to chock anything up to being type related. I haven’t lived in a closed group for a significant period of time, which makes it simple to see normal groups and non normal groups.


Oh right ok, thought you were referencing Si specifically because it seemed related to classifications. If you're Lsi you're not _too_ average surely! What type of places are an example of a closed group, just somewhere that is out of the ordinary? Having a majority of liberal politics was one example, but I can't think of any other scenario. In other words what type of groups are these that you recognise are outside social norms? 



> Honestly I am not sure what you’re referencing here. Could you make the statement/question again as a whole?


I mentioned earlier that I noticed the majority of people here seem more "extroverted" or Fe+. You said I was only considering a certain environment and there isn't really a majority of Fe+ types, which sounds similar to the idea of a closed system. I might be getting confused with "closed system" though because I learned that for something not people related. To me it means literally a substance being contained so nothing escapes. 



> Socionics is TIM, which is genetic aptitude strengths and weakness relative to the average individual. This is easily measured. However, when you measure something, it is not easily denied, so there is a propensity to reject this reality on these forums. Personalities are more like individual elements that someone utilizes more than other elements, and changes over time or based upon situation. The existence of the types and the degree of differences is just genetic differences compared to the norm. An individual could have highest Fi and Ni for their genetics while having lowest Se and Te, making them an EII, but another individual could have the same type of genetic differences but to a far greater degree.


Ah so it's simply the genetic make up that can vary. That makes sense, can't deny that everyone's different.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> @Indiana Jones Fan Show yourself :tongue:
> 
> Curious to know your thoughts if you have any, and I've never seen you post before.


Who, me? Yeah, I don't post often, mainly because I don't know Socionics very well (although it definitely seems preferable to the elitism- and stereotype-ridden MBTI), but I enjoy reading about it. Still trying to figure out what my type is. That being said, I'm glad you made this introduction to the system. I shall read over the Model A-related in more detail soon, since that's something I don't know very well. If I had to offer any suggestions, perhaps more information on the quadras would be nice? Or are quadra values something that don't actually exist? Are descriptions of the individual types planned for some time in the future?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> I don't get it. Do you mean the criteria they used to measure result in a higher number of logicians for men even though there wasn't?Have you read through The dual nature of man by Augusta? There's a table there showing the distribution with the sexes sepated into different columns. When you add the total numbers for each TIM, the number is roughly the same for each TIM (except for a higher number for SEI and SLI). There was only 100 people used for each of them though, that might not be enough people to measure the sociotypes.
> 
> It's on table 2 here: Socionics - the16types.info - Dual Nature of Man by Ausra Augustinaviciute.
> 
> ...


Semantics of personality systems determines the distribution. MBTI for example is very disproportionate on population percentage of intuition and sensing. However, a slight modification of semantics for both intuition and sensing would cause a more even distribution. The semantics utilized are evidence of the bias of the originator towards making intuition more of a rarity. Socionics is similar. Feedback from scientific observation, such as the tables from the Dual Nature of Man, reveal the presence of bias. Socionics as a whole since then has become aware of this bias, which decreases its validity as a scientific system, and audits itself to return to an even distribution and increase scientific accuracy, lack of bias, and scientific validity.

Look up and read into “False Consensus Bias.” It will save me some time trying to explain it, and probably do a better job of it. False Consensus Bias is how the forums turned MBTI into cognitive functions.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Indiana Jones Fan said:


> Who, me? Yeah, I don't post often, mainly because I don't know Socionics very well (although it definitely seems preferable to the elitism- and stereotype-ridden MBTI), but I enjoy reading about it. Still trying to figure out what my type is. That being said, I'm glad you made this introduction to the system. I shall read over the Model A-related in more detail soon, since that's something I don't know very well. If I had to offer any suggestions, perhaps more information on the quadras would be nice? Or are quadra values something that don't actually exist? Are descriptions of the individual types planned for some time in the future?


Descriptions of the types often end up being descriptions of people utilizing an information element the majority of the time, rather than being descriptions of the actual types.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Indiana Jones Fan said:


> Who, me? Yeah, I don't post often, mainly because I don't know Socionics very well (although it definitely seems preferable to the elitism- and stereotype-ridden MBTI), but I enjoy reading about it. Still trying to figure out what my type is. That being said, I'm glad you made this introduction to the system. I shall read over the Model A-related in more detail soon, since that's something I don't know very well. If I had to offer any suggestions, perhaps more information on the quadras would be nice? Or are quadra values something that don't actually exist? Are descriptions of the individual types planned for some time in the future?


Thanks, I hope it gave you a better idea of the theory  I'm aware there is a lot of terminology and in things that people might not understand, so is there was a point in my post where it just didn't seem like I was speaking english, I don't mind if anyone needs to ask for clarification. I realize that the meaning "information processing" isn't entirely clear for example, but I didn't want to make the post really long by explaining all the terminology. 

Yes there is descriptions available for quadras and socionics type descriptions, but I wouldn't rely on those to type yourself from, and I also think they're more behavioural related than type related. You might relate to a description but that doesn't mean those will be your Ego functions necessarily. It can indicate which elements you are using though (Fe-Si, Fi-Ne, etc). As for quadras, I find the descriptions very stereotypical tbh. Do you know how the Quadras values work? 

I was thinking of posting a resource thread with links of useful forum threads and websites. I found this page which might be useful (the introduction post is coincidentally similar to mine!): Socionics - the16types.info - Introduction to Socionics 

Do you know what your MBTI type is from the MBTI assessment, or have any idea what your socionics type could be?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> Semantics of personality systems determines the distribution. MBTI for example is very disproportionate on population percentage of intuition and sensing. However, a slight modification of semantics for both intuition and sensing would cause a more even distribution. The semantics utilized are evidence of the bias of the originator towards making intuition more of a rarity. Socionics is similar. Feedback from scientific observation, such as the tables from the Dual Nature of Man, reveal the presence of bias. Socionics as a whole since then has become aware of this bias, which decreases its validity as a scientific system, and audits itself to return to an even distribution and increase scientific accuracy, lack of bias, and scientific validity.
> 
> Look up and read into “False Consensus Bias.” It will save me some time trying to explain it, and probably do a better job of it. False Consensus Bias is how the forums turned MBTI into cognitive functions.


Strange how that bias was there in the first place. I wonder who realised the bias and how they improved that accuracy. 

Ah sorry, I'll try to research into things when possible. False consensus bias/effect seems to be when a person assumes the majority shares their personal opinion and beliefs. It seems like something that every person can be prone to doing, but it becomes more extreme in certain situations. It could be a reason for the heavy focus on cognitive functions on this forum. People believe the theory is more accurate because they prefer it. I used to do that as well actually (until discovering socionics). Just became more interested in the depth of the functions theory over the basic dichotomies.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Thanks, I hope it gave you a better idea of the theory  I'm aware there is a lot of terminology and in things that people might not understand, so is there was a point in my post where it just didn't seem like I was speaking english, I don't mind if anyone needs to ask for clarification. I realize that the meaning "information processing" isn't entirely clear for example, but I didn't want to make the post really long by explaining all the terminology.
> 
> Yes there is descriptions available for quadras and socionics type descriptions, but I wouldn't rely on those to type yourself from, and I also think they're more behavioural related than type related. You might relate to a description but that doesn't mean those will be your Ego functions necessarily. It can indicate which elements you are using though (Fe-Si, Fi-Ne, etc). As for quadras, I find the descriptions very stereotypical tbh. Do you know how the Quadras values work?


I think I know that quadra values are reflected in the four information elements valued by said quadra (and sometimes the Reinin dichotomies).



Wisteria said:


> Do you know what your MBTI type is from the MBTI assessment, or have any idea what your socionics type could be?


I don't really trust MBTI, but I think I might be an ISTJ in that system. However, I don't relate to either LSI or SLI in Socionics. In fact, I think I may be a Gamma introtim (ESI or ILI). More information about me, in the context of Socionics, can be found here and here.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Indiana Jones Fan said:


> I think I know that quadra values are reflected in the four information elements valued by said quadra (and sometimes the Reinin dichotomies).


Yes that's pretty much all i'm aware of with the quadras as well. They share valued IEs and some dichotomies. 



> I don't really trust MBTI, but I think I might be an ISTJ in that system. However, I don't relate to either LSI or SLI in Socionics. In fact, I think I may be a Gamma introtim (ESI or ILI). More information about me, in the context of Socionics, can be found here and here.


Ok I skimmed your 80Q on that thread (I really don't like the philosophical questionnaire, surprised anyone can actually patiently fill that in), noticed a lot of people saying EII and it's pretty clear why. Birdsofafeather is cute but I have to disagree with ESI and ILI, at least her reasons for it. She also said Enneagram 1, I agree with that. You have a very 1-ish streak and the attitude that is typical of a 1 based on what i've read about them.

Your answers are heavily focused on morals and personal values, but that mean doesn't Fi I don't think. Actually noticed some Fe in your many of your responses. Not Fe Ego though, probably more like Id Fe. You even defined Se through Fe I think. Se seems low dimensional, but you showed some awareness of Se norms, so it looks 2D (2 Dimensional, experience and norms). In general, your answers seemed like intuition and ethics. Is ISTJ actually the result you got in mbti? 

I think you should learn about the theory, especially the function dimensions, blocks and information elements.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Ok I skimmed your 80Q on that thread (I really don't like the philosophical questionnaire, surprised anyone can actually patiently fill that in), noticed a lot of people saying EII and it's pretty clear why. Birdsofafeather is cute but I have to disagree with ESI and ILI, at least her reasons for it. She also said Enneagram 1, I agree with that. You have a very 1-ish streak and the attitude that is typical of a 1 based on what i've read about them.
> 
> Your answers are heavily focused on morals and personal values, but that mean doesn't Fi I don't think. Actually noticed some Fe in your many of your responses. Not Fe Ego though, probably more like Id Fe. You even defined Se through Fe I think. Se seems low dimensional, but you showed some awareness of Se norms, so it looks 2D (2 Dimensional, experience and norms). In general, your answers seemed like intuition and ethics. Is ISTJ actually the result you got in mbti?


Well, I think I get different results from different MBTI tests. I think I've gotten every I__J type at least once, but the stereotypes of ISTJ are the ones I relate to most. Yes, I'm aware that one's not supposed to type based off of those, but that's what I did anyway. I fit almost all the MBTI ISTJ stereotypes to a fault: I'm colorless, humorless, rule-bound, horrified of trying things in a new or different way, thoroughly uncreative, pretty good at memorizing stuff, intimidatingly robotic, cold as ice, ultra-serious, scared of all things unconventional, awkwardly silent, predictable, by-the-book, and close-minded. Anyway, I feel that MBTI and Socionics are completely different systems, so I could be one thing in one typology system and something else in another, but I understand that I'm probably in the minority on that one.



Wisteria said:


> I think you should learn about the theory, especially the function dimensions, blocks and information elements.


Will do. Those are perhaps are my weak points when it comes to learning about Socionics.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

I don’t think an EII would not know it’s an EII. It should be self-evident and instantaneous.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Indiana Jones Fan said:


> Well, I think I get different results from different MBTI tests. I think I've gotten every I__J type at least once, but the stereotypes of ISTJ are the ones I relate to most. Yes, I'm aware that one's not supposed to type based off of those, but that's what I did anyway. I fit almost all the MBTI ISTJ stereotypes to a fault: I'm colorless, humorless, rule-bound, horrified of trying things in a new or different way, thoroughly uncreative, pretty good at memorizing stuff, intimidatingly robotic, cold as ice, ultra-serious, scared of all things unconventional, awkwardly silent, predictable, by-the-book, and close-minded. Anyway, I feel that MBTI and Socionics are completely different systems, so I could be one thing in one typology system and something else in another, but I understand that I'm probably in the minority on that one.
> 
> Will do. Those are perhaps are my weak points when it comes to learning about Socionics.


You read my mind on that one. It's probably not a good idea to type from stereotypes. You're also describing the ISTJ type in a negative way, like "close minded", "predictable". MBTI and socionics both involve the Jungian dichotomies, or at least have the same idea. You're either more like a sensor or an intuitive, and so on. If you're using Fi and Se for example, you will be more likely to type as an MBTI SF. So there can be some correlation if you look at the theories in a certain way.

Ah they're probably everyone's weak points. Also it's easier for people online to type you, after getting to know you on the forum.



DavidH said:


> I don’t think an EII would not know it’s an EII. It should be self-evident and instantaneous.


Now i'm just jealous of EIIs to be honest.


----------



## The Veteran (Oct 24, 2018)

I think Socionics is full of trash. It should be binned. It doesn't make sense. Logical intuitive introvert would be same as intuitive logical introvert. even as I understand it there is no logic that makes sense.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

You don't understand it so you say it's a load of crap. Ok -_-


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

khanrumell1 said:


> I think Socionics is full of trash. It should be binned. It doesn't make sense. Logical intuitive introvert would be same as intuitive logical introvert. even as I understand it there is no logic that makes sense.


I'm willing to give it a shot... But I have to say I'm sceptical due to it its origins in the Soviet Union. Soviet science was... iffy... it did achieve success in some fields, but in others, it was... not good (e.g. Lysenkoism which was against genetics and claimed that by manipulating the external conditions... technically a woman could give birth to an apple... because that would be a possibility if genetics is wrong).

But I'm willing to give it a shot. However, from what I've noticed there are few resources online. So a question to those more advanced:

Is there a "socionics for dummies"? I'm looking for some resources... books, websites, etc. which would explain it from 0 in an accessible manner. Because I usually get lost in weird geometrical shapes, Greek letters, Freudian id/ego/super-ego... Honestly I don't get any of it. The resources I did find didn't really make it that easy to understand.


----------



## The Veteran (Oct 24, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> You don't understand it so you say it's a load of crap. Ok -_-


I understand it now. But now that I understood it is still rubbish. The logic is terrible.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Strelnikov said:


> I'm willing to give it a shot... But I have to say I'm sceptical due to it its origins in the Soviet Union. Soviet science was... iffy... it did achieve success in some fields, but in others, it was... not good (e.g. Lysenkoism which was against genetics and claimed that by manipulating the external conditions... technically a woman could give birth to an apple... because that would be a possibility if genetics is wrong).
> 
> But I'm willing to give it a shot. However, from what I've noticed there are few resources online. So a question to those more advanced:
> 
> Is there a "socionics for dummies"? I'm looking for some resources... books, websites, etc. which would explain it from 0 in an accessible manner. Because I usually get lost in weird geometrical shapes, Greek letters, Freudian id/ego/super-ego... Honestly I don't get any of it. The resources I did find didn't really make it that easy to understand.


Have you looked at this? Теория | Школа системной соционики
It's the best source in my opinion, it's quite easy to understand.

I don't know if those terms are quite the same as the Freudian terms but I can see that is a similar idea.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> Have you looked at this? Ð¢ÐµÐ¾Ñ€Ð¸Ñ� | Ð¨ÐºÐ¾Ð»Ð° Ñ�Ð¸Ñ�Ñ‚ÐµÐ¼Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ñ�Ð¾Ñ†Ð¸Ð¾Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ¸
> It's the best source in my opinion, it's quite easy to understand.
> 
> I don't know if those terms are quite the same as the Freudian terms but I can see that is a similar idea.


It's in Russian... Unfortunately, I only know the alphabet and a few words. That's about the full extent of my Russian. Do you have anything in English?


----------

