Contradiction and conflict resolution in the quadras

My research has uncovered ways of modeling parts of the socion formally — the trick is to unify them all into a single model. By the socion I mean the types, IMEs, functions, and relationships, and all of their dichotomous traits and how they relate to each other. Their structure is well known in terms of what types have what relationships and which objects have which traits, but I mean modeling the semantics too.

As an example: I've related Alpha Ti to resolving contradictions (one of the few areas where Model A2 and Model G overlap in their semantics), but there are different ways to resolve contradictions.

The source of all conflict is contradiction: two different parties may have different beliefs or values that cause them to want different outcomes or states: one wants P to be true and one wants ~P (not-P) to be true. The most obvious way to resolve a conflict is simply for one party to win and make P true (or ~P). This is most like a Beta strategy: bSe can be used to dominate the other party outright and ensure the desired outcome, and bFe can be used to convince him, so that he wants the same thing you do.

Symbolically we can represent this as

P & ~P → P (or ~P)

(with the arrow representing a state transition, not logical implication)

The issue with the Beta approach is, how do you choose which one it is and make sure that it's right? Alpha Ti(Ne) on the other hand resolves the conflict by finding a context (model, interpretation, etc.) in which one is true and another in which the other is true. Symbolically:

P & ~P → (A ⊨ P) & (B ⊨ ~P)

This avoids arbitrarily choosing one, and allows joining the two together in some kind of more comprehensive understanding. Socially, this means creating an environment where people can interact and coexist peacefully, FeSi. The issue with the Alpha approach is that it's not always clear what information to add to make each one true (and of course one might just be false).

Delta FiNe is similar to TiNe, except that we associate an individual to each proposition instead:

P & ~P → P(x) & ~P(y)

Propositions are associated with Ti and individuals with Fi, so the move from propositional logic to predicate logic is like adding Fi to Ti. An individual is not so different from a context or model except that it's "inside" the proposition attributed to it, while the model is "outside". Both give a way of adding hidden contextual information.

Socially, this means that Delta prefers to allow each individual to have their own view and non-interfering sphere of influence. (Clearly this is not possible in many situations, and tends to result in conflict-avoidance or acquiescence in practice.)

For Gamma we can say that as the opposite of Alpha it does not seek to resolve the contradiction or conflict in the first place. It shares acceptance of conflict with Beta and individual differences with Delta. So each quadra is a preferred method of conflict resolution, and Gamma may use the Beta or Delta methods as needed — most typically Gammas don't try to get everyone to agree internally on their values and beliefs, but will still engage in conflict if a particular desire is being obstructed. Arguably the Gamma approach can be short-sighted in that different values almost inevitably lead to conflict later on. Maybe there is a refinement of logic that can express the Gamma approach more easily, to distinguish between internal and external state.

Augusta tried to interpret conflict in terms of information, attributing it to different areas of interest and miscommunication. But in practice, conflict is due to very real differences in how we want the world to be — information metabolism includes both input and output, perception and manipulation of information and state.

The Information Aspects

The basic goal of my research program for the last several years has been to define the semantics of Model A, in an irrefutable mathematical way. This post will describe a major step in that direction, which is the definition of the information aspects. The description here will be informal; a more formal description will come at a later date. But you can consider these definitions essentially definitive, I do not expect them to change substantially. Normally I don't make a distinction between the IM elements and aspects because it is not really a clear distinction (and it implies the question of how they come to be in exact correspondence), but in this context we are approaching them from a more metaphysical and general standpoint. In fact my research suggests that there are eight aspects and 16 IM elements — but I digress.

These definitions may seem overly general. But in fact this was forced by the evident relations between the aspects — in other words you cannot explain why Se complements Ni and conflicts with Si without this level of generality.

Notice that, unlike types, the information aspects need not be mutually exclusive. Fe is expression but all information can be expressed, every aspect is associated with a type of action that manipulates it (Se), etc. But of course in the standard conception of socionics you cannot have more than one type. In fact we may say that this is the defining trait of a type, it is a level where cognition (information processing) and behavior acquire mutually exclusive traits. By their nature the information aspects are so general that they overlap by necessity.

These categories have multiple levels of description, probably more than the conventional two levels of aspects and elements, and some of which we will touch on here. But the purpose of this article is to describe them in their metaphysical essence — which explains how they relate to one another in relations of complementation and conflict. 

The Irrational Aspects

 

Si: Presence, Quality, Well-Being

Si in its essence is absolute stasis and presence. It is the present state. As a process it seeks to maintain what is present, as opposed to acting to change it. Action is the opposite of perception and in fact changes what is present so we may also say that Si is responsible for passively perceiving what is present.

But a state of absolute stasis is incomplete, given that it cannot change or improve. When the starting point is lacking this presents a problem. This is where Ne comes in — it adds potential to Si's state. At this higher level Si attempts instead to preserve the quality and equilibrium of the state, allowing for improvement rather than resisting all change as a rule.

A state in which change occurs but quality is maintained is a state that has life and well-being. Life is maintained through a dynamic cycle of satisfying needs and disposing of waste — homeostasis. Health is a way of measuring the well-being of the physical body.

So together, Si and Ne seek to preserve and increase the quality of the present state — they are present-oriented despite Ne being essentially about what is absent and potential.

Ni: Conception, Negation

Ni in its essence is that which does not exist or is not present. As a process it generates and recognizes what is not by negating what is. This is a conception that occurs within the mind as opposed to being received from the senses. This imagined state is by its nature disconnected from the real world but it can turn into a vision or a goal or an intention provided that such a connection is made.

The past and future are accessible through the imagination so they fall under the purview of Ni, but Ni is not limited to time.

Psychologically Ni means dissatisfaction with what exists. From the perspective of Si, Ni is like death in that it seeks to negate what is present. But provided that it moves in the right direction Ni can lead to greater life.

When it becomes connected with action (through Se), Ni means a future goal state to work towards and plan for. Thus it is concerned with meaning and purpose, and cautiousness so as not to fall into danger, error, or misguidance from the goal.

Ne: Generation of potential

Ne generates potential, possibilities. It does this in a way that does not replace or exclude what is present but adds to its potential. Indeed we can say that it negates negation by coming up with more possibilities in addition to some initial possibility. So Ne is fundamentally positive. Moreover, there is no limit to how many possibilities can be imagined so there is no need for exclusivity. One need only select one for the purposes of actually taking action. When Ni does generate multiple possibilities it does so depthwise, maintaining direction ("homeorhesis") and getting farther from what is present, while Ne does so breadthwise, remaining adjacent to what is present. From the point of view of Ni this sideways movement is deviation, but in the generic case it is beneficial to have more potential at your disposal.

This adjacency means that Ne is focused on generating possibilities that are not only conceivable but accessible through an actual action that can be taken in the real world. So we can also say that Ne generates choices or options.

Ni is associated with the end goal of action (telos) while Ne is associated with new beginnings in which action becomes possible. Or one can say that Ne is the question while Ni is the answer. Or that Ne is the unknown and Ni is certainty, possibility and necessity, opening and closing.

Conceivability is a prerequisite for accessibility, but expanding possibility is a prerequisite for limiting possibility. That is, the first direction that comes to mind may not be the right direction. So Ni and Ne actually complement each other in this way.

Se: Change, Impact, Action

Se makes an impact, i.e. it makes an actual, observable change on the present state. Without Se the other three irrational aspects are inert and cannot actually change or improve anything. Se changes things through action and/or words (expression). In a way expression is just a type of action, but there is also a distinction between performing an action yourself and getting someone else to do it (whether by commanding or persuading). Action means leaving or disturbing the initial comfortable state of Si — so it is in this sense Se is opposed to Si and complementary to Ni, as it actualizes the image that Ni has formed of the future state. So Se and Ni are future-oriented in their joint values: Se actualizes Ni's vision and Ni guides Se's action. Action is always pointed at some future goal, no matter how near — it gets you from here to there.

So Se is also associated with the intensity and apparent change which results from action — movement through the space of possible states as well as physical space. This expands the space that you occupy; movement is always an expansion. Ne by contrast is "mental movement" or mental change, and not actual change which means affecting the perceptible state of things.

Action depletes vital resources, meaning our energy or what Jung called libido. From the perspective of Se, Si seeks to maintain a deficient state of stasis, but we also need rest to replenish our vital energy and allow for further action, so they complement each other in the long term despite being mutually exclusive states.

The Rational Aspects

Fi: Individual, Character

Fi is personal identity — character. That is, it characterizes the nature of the subject, which is the human being or self, as opposed to the world which is the object. The information associated with ethics is personal and therefore fundamentally about people. In reality the identity of the thing is the thing itself.

Notice that identity means the aspect that stays the same, so really it should be associated with Fi rather than FeNi, but in common parlance identity means what is expressed or how people want to be perceived, so for clarity we'll use the word character. The basic way that a person is characterized is by their actions. Words may lie but actions don't lie. So Fi measures whether a person is truthful or not by comparing their words with reality and with how they behave. A person who says what they see is honest and a person who does what they say is sincere. Truthfulness is the basis of all character and determines whether a person is reliable and trustworthy. We can also say that Fi characterizes a person's intentions.

Similar to Si, Fi is inert and inactive on its own. The self does not need to act or express (or even perceive) anything but this is also the only way that it is known.

As a process Fi is focused on maintaining the integrity of the self and its intentions, and protecting it from external influences. Other people may or may not align with the nature of one's self in various ways so in a derivative way Fi is also about relationships. The more someone is like you or close to you the more they are a kind of second self or extension of the self.

Personal identity includes both future and past actions. Gamma Fi is focused on the past aspect, which means the actions one has already, observably taken. Delta Fi is rather focused on the future aspect, what kinds of actions a person may potentially perform in the future.

Ti: System, Structure

Just as Fi is the nature of the individual, Ti is the nature of the world. One is the subject and the other the object, the witness and the witnessed, one personal and one impersonal. The world is a system that contains the individual and in general many individuals. So a system means something unifying or global which has internal structure and unites its different parts or members together. Therefore Ti is also concerned with rules and laws (both prescriptive and descriptive), which define the general nature of a system such as society or the physical world, how they operate and their structural integrity is maintained. When joined with Fe it determines a common language and value structure that maintains group integrity.

So Ti maintains the identity and integrity of the system. For Beta Ti this means its order, so that each part is in its place. For Alpha Ti it means its generality, so that it applies to any situation that may exist within its scope. On a social level these correspond to hierarchy and inclusiveness respectively.

A system is impersonal due to including many individuals simultaneously and therefore transcending (or ignoring) their personal nature and differences between them. So TiFe values are collective and are opposed to Fi which is local and personal. (This means that Ti valuers tend to view people in terms of groups or common values, not that they simply follow whatever group is present.)

Ti and Fi both share in being essentially static on their own, Ti being something like Kant's noumenon. But the objective world of Ti is in reality the source of phenomena and not separate from them.

Te: Observation

Te is the process of gathering information about the world through observation. So it is fundamentally a passive process, like Ne. Knowledge is a fundamental type of resource and so Te by extension seeks to gather useful resources. Knowledge is a resource in that it guides action and allows us to make correct choices.

Gathering resources increases the self so Te complements Fi in its focus on the self and strengthening its integrity.

Logic is about what is objective but Te is the part that we actually observe in a dynamic sense, rather than what exists (Ti). Then again, in the long run these are the same: if something has a certain characteristic then it will eventually become apparent in the sum total of observations made about it.

Fe: Communication, Expression

Fe is the act of communication of information. If nothing else, communication conveys information about oneself and one's current internal state, i.e. it is expression. This includes emotional expression but is not limited to it. More specific and traditional definitions of Fe and Ti have struggled to make sense of why Emotion and Logic should complement one another — this problem is solved by recognizing that Fe is needed to disseminate the values or understanding of Ti to greater society, i.e. Fe in its essence is about any and all communication.

We communicate what we see and know, so in distinction to Te, Fe is what remains when the objective content of communication has been removed — i.e. it is the form. In distinction to Fi it means the dynamic aspect of identity. So TiFe valuers view personal identity as fluid and systemic identity as static, and vice versa for TeFi valuers.

Inter-Aspect Relations

So to summarize, we have the following types of information — what have been called macroelements or domains, i.e. what corresponds to the strength dichotomy:

Sensing = presence, actuality
Intuition = absence, possibility
Ethics = subject, self, personal information
Logic = object, world, impersonal information

These words are various ways of describing the same thing, included for clarity and not due to any ambiguity in the underlying construction. They make it clear what is essential and what is derived.

And we have the following types of values, which are directions that the psyche moves in:

SiNe = present-oriented values
SeNi = future-oriented values
FiTe = self-oriented values
FeTi = world-oriented values

The final presence trait is boldness which corresponds to introversion and extroversion. Extroverted aspects are processes while introverted aspects are the entities or states or loci that these processes act upon. In other words, as processes introverted aspects seek to preserve a state and extroverted aspects seek to initiate a state. But in their essence the introverted aspects are the states or entities themselves.

So the fundamental dichotomies of IM aspects correspond directly to the fundamental dichotomies of functions. This is certainly not a coincidence, and by how Model A works they are independent in a certain sense for the rational and irrational aspects. We may call them subdichotomies, so that sensing/intuition is one subdichotomy corresponding to strength and ethics/logic is another.

Interview: Rachel

link to video

 

Rachel requested to be interviewed rather than doing a typing video. In my experience typing videos are somewhat better than interviews in that they don't get bogged down in a single subject as much. But interviews do allow for some more flexibility in follow-up questions and targeting specific areas (to distinguish between a specific pair of types for example). In any case, as I note at the end, this interview turned out to be a surprisingly easy one. I came to a conclusion maybe 20 minutes into it. (Spoiler alert: the conclusion is mentioned at 56:45.)

Normally I would do a video interview, but the visual component isn't a great loss.

Rachel is a political science student, and maybe even more tellingly has a job as an assistive technologist. This is telling because, the way Rachel describes it, she fell into this job without intending to: she has a natural way with technology. So we already see some strength of Te. It is also notable that Rachel describes this as a result of her personal success as a student. Throughout the interview Rachel emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility, a Gamma theme. Despite having a disability herself, she is averse to the idea that people should be "babied" and given help unnecessarily - instead they should be helped only enough so that they can become self-reliant and "lift themselves up by their bootstraps", so to speak. This is of course a component of certain political ideologies, but it does suggest a Gamma worldview and particularly the Te triad. Rachel likes tinkering with technology and trying to figure it out by trial and error.

As I mention in the interview, Rachel can be characterized as someone who consumes large quantities of information with a view towards applying it. She has taught herself a wide range of skills/areas of study, including typology, and probably computers and other things. Of course she doesn't always know how she might apply the information in advance, but she has more difficulty with purely abstract areas like philosophy, she prefers to have concrete examples, more like Te than Ti. She mentions caring about the accuracy of the information she acquires, a Te motivation. The breadth of her study also suggests a lot of Ne. Along with her obvious proactivity -- she has a typing service herself, is hands-on with the technology, and even started building a studio herself -- this is already enough to point to LIE.

Rachel does not seem to place much value on emotions. Due to the nature of triads, we should expect an LIE to largely be oblivious to not only Fe but Fi, and not consciously prioritize it. Some examples are her disinterest in overly emotional news and heated arguments, which introduce an element of Fe (with Se). Other LIEs might be more contentious. As for Fi, she tends to often rub people the wrong way. I also mention at the end how SEEs are quite caustic as 4P Se types, yet they have a way of still managing to keep the relationship they want with any particular person, possibly using Fe to smooth things over. Rachel by contrast has had difficulty maintaining her relationships and is often somewhat surprised when they end up falling apart. She is "too direct" and ends up offending people (high Se, 1D Fi). She has no trouble directly engaging in conflict with people - "I was like 'screw you' when I left", "I don't believe in your kind of PC way of doing it". Even some of her closer relationships still seem distant and "not really real friends". Interestingly though she chose to participate in a Best Buddies program where she befriends people with special needs. It's relatively common for people to try to engage their suggestive function in some low-key way in their life, and maybe this is a setting where Rachel can work on developing her Fi. The suggestive function is an unconscious but strong need - Rachel says that she herself isn't sure why she does the program, and she only does it minimally/sporadically, it's easier in small doses (typical of a cautious function).

Rachel shows almost no priority on Fe, which is consistent with the nature of the role function, which is weak and subdued - she is uninterested in socializing for the sake of socializing, seeing it as a waste of time. She also hasn't done much collaboration in her various projects; although it is worth noting that her active nature tends to put her in contact with a lot of people, e.g. discussing things online and helping people at her job. She is also quite talkative and enthusiastic. She gives the example of an ice cream social - she feels "I just need to get ice cream and head out of here", in keeping with LIE's impatient Se-6 in contrast with Si: the idea of relaxing simply for the sake of it is largely antithetical to how she works. She also finds overly detailed physical activities to be taxing, such as jewelry making, crafting, crocheting, etc. Si generally is more present with these kind of things.

Rachel is a natural leader; she describes becoming the boss of a writing group, and ended up liking running the group more than doing the actual writing. Her physical activity is sometimes quite heavy: she once walked 36 miles for a campaign, and took a bold approach to surfing when she was younger. She is very willing to take risks and enjoys a good challenge, so she clearly has some Se. However, her physical activity is also inconsistent; EIEs also tend to swing from extremes of intense activity to doing hardly anything, although LIEs tend to be more consistent in their work habits. This is natural for the mobilizing function, which is sometimes over-used and sometimes somewhat lacking. In any case Se is clearly far more present than Fi - it is very hard to see her as an ILI, for example.

So to summarize, we see a pervasive emphasis on Te, a lot of Se, good Ne, no value on Si, and difficulties with both Fi and Fe, yet some unconscious aspiration towards Fi. All of which points clearly to LIE.

  To find your type, book an appointment here.

Typing Video: Laura #2

Laura works in a caregiving role. She enjoys helping people in a hands-on way, including her own child, disabled children, the elderly, and the mentally ill. She wanted to do nursing for this reason but didn't find it to be hands-on enough. This clearly speaks to strong and likely valued Si, as does her interest in beautifying her environment, making it look "homely", and her own appearance ("girly girl", "quirky prints").

She says she just wanted to help people and fell into her current job - she didn't and does not have any grand life plan. "I just do things as they come along, don't have any concrete plans, just want to be happy." She basically just wants to finish her degree and get a higher paying job - most of her goals are prefixed with "maybe". All this confirms that the strong and valued Si is paired with weak and subdued Ni as Model A predicts.

Laura is a very positive person. She expresses the generic value that you should be nice to people, and "be a friendly face". You don't have to do "really grand, fancy heroic acts to change the world, it's these little things like just being nice to somebody and restoring their faith that people out there are nice... and the world is good in a lot of ways." So a recurring theme here is her way of lifting people's emotional states to a more positive one through mundane acts such as being nice or helping them with their immediate needs. In other words, she is all about Fe+Si, as opposed to Te+Si which is more concerned with impersonally managing everyday activities to make them run better. One may also contrast it with Fe+Ni which can in fact be concerned with "grand" acts that inspire people and energize their emotional state by showing them a greater purpose. (And Te+Ni is of course the complete opposite, as described in her attitude towards the business question: "would be a shit businesswoman".)

Laura's positivity is clear throughout the video: she is not unable to express dissatisfaction but she tends to sugarcoat the truth and focus on the silver lining. She cannot think of anything negative to say about her friends, for example, and of her family says only "we don't have a lot in common." She describes herself as friendly and cheerful, a people person.

She has a lenient attitude with people, has no strict criteria for friends other than "extreme stuff" like racism. She gets annoyed with overly direct people who "say it how it is". This is another manifestation of Si values, and rejection of the intensity of Se. The lack of judgment may suggest low priority on Fi and/or Ti.

Laura does show bouts of anger or harshness, such as with her criticism of her sister's partner when he wasn't helping her sister when she got hurt. While she did bluntly tell him "what's what", again it stems from her motivation to help and protect people. Despite this she seems to feel guilty for getting angry and limits her expression to avoid jeopardizing her relationship with her sister.

It's also notable that Laura wants to be the helper and not the one helped, in fact she has difficulty asking for help.

So far it is absolutely clear that Laura is an Alpha SF - but what about ESE or SEI? Let's look for some clues.

Being an emotional person, Laura sometimes becomes overwhelmed with her emotions: getting stressed, gets things out of perspective easily. This seems somewhat more typical of ESEs, who are generally more in emotional flux than SEIs, and therefore benefit more from the level-headed nature of Ti leading types. But it's still not a strong indicator.

A few other observations:

• puts herself down, low self-esteem - this is more likely to be expressed by SEIs who have low Ne and therefore are less able to recognize their own potential or positive things the future might hold.
• difficulty wording things - this would be weak Ti, so more likely of ESEs who have cautious Ti than SEIs with bold mobilizing Ti.
• cares too much what people think - Fe, so slightly more likely for ESE.
• dislikes boring, mundane stuff - not an unusual sentiment, though probably many people would consider the things she does as being rather mundane (such as childcare). She probably means boring in the sense of not providing emotional stimulation.
• has been told that she talks too much, "calm down" - sounds more ESE.
• cries when she is attacked or put in a conflict situation - lower Se so more SEI
• doesn't normally get stuck in a rut - likely higher Ne and Se, so more ESE.
• quite shy as a child, frightened all the time - more SEI.

So there are points here that could go either way.

But perhaps most importantly, Laura describes herself as busy and hardworking: she is a mother, she has a day job, goes to school, and writes on the side. She used to go out with her child every day (!) doing a variety of fun activities. She says that if she doesn't have things to do then she feels restless or bored. She dislikes waiting. Moreover she's determined, bossy with the house, and was frustrated and impatient with illness - "just have to sit on my ass and wait for it to be over." If she won the lottery, she would probably still work - she couldn't just do nothing.

These observations, drawn from various points in the video, portray a very energetic, busy person who doesn't like to just chill and do nothing. That is what leads me to prefer ESE, which has bold Se-8, to SEI which has cautious and not very prominent Se-7, and therefore greater contentment with inaction (rest).

Maybe the most problematic points here are her attitude towards conflict and how she describes herself as a child. An ESE being frightened all the time? Maybe not so likely. She says that she cries when put in a conflict situation, yet she also gave a very specific example where she confronted someone directly and forcefully, apparently without any hesitation (at least in the moment). People can also display contradictory behavior as children so I am not so concerned with that. (Elvis was also described as shy and introverted as a child, but he is universally agreed to be SEE.)

A final point about anxiety. Laura describes herself as anxious and worrisome. Part of this seems type-related and part not. Women are twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with an anxiety disorders. I've seen this in a variety of types - for example LSI women tend to be far more neurotic than LSI men, who are more likely to come across as "stony" or stable people. On the type front, one might link anxiety to Ni, since it stems from awareness of the possibility of something going wrong. Ni valuing introverts do tend to be more anxious in general. But, worrying is not uncommon in ESEs either (again, more typically in ESE females), so maybe it's also about simple emotional excitability, or the blocking Fe+Ni together.

To find your type, book an appointment here.

Typing Video: Jen

 

Jen has been in the community a long time, and I typed her many years ago. My conclusion remains the same. But this video presents a self-contained and somewhat clearer view of her type than previous ones.

Jen talks a lot about her professional life and how she feels about different aspects of it. She expresses some regret at not having gone after her career ambitions. Her interests are not pragmatic by default, but she seems to have adapted to her new role well.

Jen is a sensitive person who easily takes things personally, and speaks very frankly about her feelings and her relationships. She talks at length about her family members and how they are. She also talks at length about what things she likes. All this suggests higher Fi, and along with the issues and neuroses she faces in her professional life, likely 4D Fi with 1D Te.

Her attitude towards conflict and general soft attitude suggests weaker Se, and that she almost certainly isn't an Se triad type. She is non-judgmental way, and "open-minded to a fault" - preferring to internalize conflict and blame herself rather than others. IEI could maybe superficially work with how she seems to live in her imagination much of the time, but other evidence points quite strongly to Ne values, such as enjoying finding innovative new ways to do her job and being (maybe excessively) open to new information. She is also highly avoidant of conflict and wishes people would be more understanding.

Overall her soft, open-minded nature suggests an Si valuing introvert, which along with the high Fi means either EII or SEI. These are in fact the two main types that have been contested for Jen in the past. How can we decide between them?

One can interpret Jen's career woes as a lack of ambition with respect to future prospects (suggesting lower Ne / higher Si), however this does not seem right given how she explains it. Rather it seems that she had high ambitions, yet lacked confidence in making them real, or taking the right practical steps involved. There are maybe other points that suggest SEI, like putting others' needs above her own, and her interest in drama and singing.

But EII seems to fit the best for several reasons. Jen has lacked confidence to an almost pathological degree — though she does notice this and has been working on it — suggesting Se-4 more than Se-7, as do her lack of discipline in writing and "wishy-washiness". Practical career development is a sometimes painful, yet rewarding area for her, in a way that makes perfect sense for suggestive Te paired with Si. She enjoys getting better at her role and learning whatever is required, despite it not being her dream job. SEIs, with suggestive Ne, are not really proactive when it comes to learning new skills and branching out, and arguably would get bored by the purely practical things she is learning. She also says it's enough to "do your best" at work ("putting in elbow work"), and it doesn't have to be perfect as long as you have good intentions. This is in contrast to the perfectionistic attitude sometimes linked to Ti.

Jen has an active imagination and enjoys fiction, fantasy, historical fiction, but also reading nonfictional guides about her interests - folklore, history, animals. There is Ni in how she immerses herself in fictional worlds, yet it is tempered by learning factoids about the real world (more Ne). Her "sympathy for the devil" attitude is a canonical expression of NeFi — to paraphrase her words: "someone may do something horrible but you have to see them as a human and think of what's led them to be this way, and feel sorry for them". She tries to always "do the right thing", a common-sense approach to morality; she does not elaborate any abstract principles whether in relation to politics, religion, or personal values.

While Jen can be silly and joke around with family members, this seems limited to people she already knows well, and is not at all unusual for ignoring Fe (paired with Ne-2 which is attuned to creative generation of possibilities (creative in the sense of novelty, not the creative function)).

Her boss says that she is innovative and not fazed by changes, though Jen herself questions whether this is true. Her Ne is maybe more subdued than normal for the creative function, but in certain cases the creative function can be difficult to see or even be perceived as a weakness by the person himself. 

To find your type, book an appointment here.

The Presence Cube

Recently I discovered a new model that is more meaningful than previous models we've discussed.

Any cube model requires three basic traits. The classical Model A cube uses mental/vital, valued/subdued, and evaluatory/situational. The issue is, other than valued/subdued, these dichotomies are not visible in practice. The other variations on the cube all depend on unobservable dichotomies like this.

The most visible traits ⁠in Model A are strength, values, and boldness ⁠— the presence traits. If we use the presence traits as the basis we get the presence cube:

The presence cube for IEI (image credit: Andrew Joynton)

It turns out that this cube gives some very interesting results. We can directly see dimensionality as a projection of the cube onto a certain axis. And there is a directly complementary projection which I call Priority, which defines the most preferred functions in practice: functions 1 and 6, then 2 and 5, then 3 and 8, then 4 and 7. The leading and mobilizing function (the 4P functions) tend to be very visible in someone's preferences, while the suggestive function and creative function are less visible as values due to being cautious (somewhat related to triads). The demonstrative function and role function are similarly used somewhat more due to being bold, although maybe not clearly less than the suggestive function. The 4P and 1P ends do seem to be clear in practice though, much like 4D and 1D functions — so we can think of them as trichotomies, with two extremes and one ambiguous middle region. The middle functions can in fact be lined up by rotating the cube appropriately. So we have two trichotomies and three dichotomies.

The presence cube viewed according to the Priority trichotomy for "Strategic Democrat" types: LIIs and SEIs prioritize Si and Ti and LIEs and SEEs prioritize Se and Te.

The trichotomy for values is linked to the inert/contact (aka stubborn/flexible) dichotomy: the functions at the extremes are stubborn, as their priority does not change easily, and the functions in the middle are flexible: if you rotate the cube slightly the 2nd and 5th functions may fall below the 8th and 3rd ones in priority. Likewise for the evaluatory/situational dichotomy which has the most extreme strengths and weaknesses (4D + 1D functions) on one end, and the medium ones on the other.

The vertical axis in the diagram is sort of a combination of dimensionality and priority, the sum of all three traits which we may call Level of presence, so we get 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, with the leading function being at the top as the sole 4L function. This roughly describes how much each function is present in someone's cognition and behavior. The 3L functions are the producing functions which are all directly connected with the leading function in some way. The connection the 1st function has with the 4th function is "severed" or veiled.

The LII cube, labeled

The main issue with the presence model is that there is a separate cube for Democrats and Aristocrats (in the Reinin dichotomy sense):

You can reflect the cube in any way to get all the other types with the same Democracy/Aristocracy trait, i.e. either the same quadra or opposite quadra. Rotations are actually unnecessary here; we have 2x2x2 = 8 transformations coming from each reflection / inversion of a trait.

If you project directly onto one of the faces, then you pair elements either as the standard blockings for the given quadras (ignoring boldness), or with one of their "skew blockings" along the benefit ring, ignoring either strength or value. These represent the most common element pairs that we see in practice, since typically rational elements work with irrational ones and vice versa.

The presence cube ties together some fundamental observations from socionics practice and is another significant step towards a meaningful, mathematical model of socionics.

Typing Video: Vision

Today we are typing "Vision". This is obviously a pseudonym, and one which already tells you something about him. A recurring theme is his vision for the future, which he has thought about in quite a lot of detail (I followed up with him to make sure of this). This suggests an Ni triad type, seeing as his long-term plans are a conscious part of what is important to him (rather than an unconscious part as the suggestive function often is).

But what is his vision? The main part of it concerns him and his family, rather than realizing some larger vision for society. This would suggest Gamma rather than Beta. Vision places a lot of importance on relationships: someone who is there to "have your back" in facing the world and going through rough times (so, more SeFi than NeFi). He is willing to cut people off when called for, a typical Gamma (FiSe) sentiment. He isn't against being friends with people who have different beliefs as long as they support him and his goals — a pragmatic approach that suggests lower priority Ti and maybe higher Ne as well. He occasionally uses harsh language at other points to describe people who have done him some kind of wrong. "Get over it buttercup" — Gammas are quick to emphasize personal responsibility when things go wrong.

Vision has difficulty thinking of weaknesses and things he needs help with. This is very unusual and suggests maybe higher Ne and possibly Te. The one that he does mention is a lack of trusting others — again a typical Gamma trait (Ni + Fi), though not a weakness in the Model A sense. His strengths include farsightedness and tenacity: never giving up, eventually succeeding even if he fails multiple times. This suggests some access to both Se and Ni, so likely not Ni leading.

Beyond the responses to the questions, it's worth noting that Vision proceeds quickly, even impatiently, through the questionnaire, often giving brief answers when he feels like it. Most people choose to use the full time allotted, whether because they want to get their money's worth or because they enjoy talking about themselves. His affect is bright and positive, suggesting higher Fe. He describes being "needlessly enthusiastic" and social around strangers which suggests bold and possibly weak Fe. All in all it's very difficult to see Vision as an introvert and especially an introverted Gamma.

What he dislikes in people is essentially the opposite of his own long-term thinking, which he describes as hedonism. He doesn't care for simply "enjoying" himself mostly, he would rather "use [his] youth effectively]" and "get power at the right time". While hedonism can be related to either Se or Si, in this case it is clearly about Si (+ Fe), in opposition to Se and Ni.

If it wasn't clear yet, the most obvious typing for Vision is LIE — the only type with bold and valued Se, valued Fi, and strong Ni. TeNi is further supported by his enthusiastic response to the "starting a business" question. And not only does he seem to have thought about starting a business before, for the lottery question he offers a breakdown with specific numbers (!). For the business he would do the "elbow grease" at first but eventually transfer the day-to-day management to someone else, and possibly sell it, suggesting a disinterest in Si. It's also notable how he doesn't have a strong preference about what type of business to start, focusing instead on capitalizing on whatever economic opportunity exists, e.g. selling hand sanitizer for the COVID pandemic. (Financial) autonomy comes up here, a common Gamma theme. He describes jumping into the stock market as a significant step in his life, where he took a risk despite the naysayers.

Even though Vision mostly seems to be a clear LIE, it's worth considering possible alternatives. The main ones that come to mind are EIE and SEE. He is unusually frank on the topic of relationships, suggesting maybe higher Fi. But SEE doesn't really work for multiple reasons: his focus on the future, just walking around and thinking while on vacation, being seen as a cool-headed person, etc.

As for EIE: He has no shortage of large-scale judgments about society or "this culture", and does wax romantic sometimes — even the name "Vision" is arguably a bit dramatized. But it's hard to see an EIE emphasizing personal loyalty and character judgment to such a degree, not to mention the economic focus. He also does criticize people for being overly autonomous, for not caring about others — despite his own emphasis on autonomy. But I'm prone to viewing this kind of social responsibility as simply a more mature, self-reflective Gamma outlook. And he doesn't care about, or even like, getting attention either.

Vision's attitude towards conflict is maybe unusually restrained for an LIE — he says he generally walks away from it, and doesn't get angry much in general. (But he contradicts this somewhat by saying that he would have gotten in a lot of trouble at high school.) It doesn't contradict the overall picture of Se valuing extrovert, but it's probably more likely for an Fi valuer, and someone with greater Ni. So it would suggest EIE and SEE even less so.

Vision, more than most people, fits the classical idea of the LIE's "unbridled optimism". He has no shortage of Ne: the purpose of life is "to make something better". But other LIEs are much more negative and skeptical, which is why I find the classical descriptions misleading. Nonetheless most would likely agree with his principle: "I live my life so I don't regret things.

To find your type, book an appointment here.

Typing Video: Micah

In this video Micah takes an unusual approach to the questionnaire. Many people have asked me whether they could write out notes beforehand. I prefer that they don't because this affects the spontaneity of the answers. It's my fault for not adding this to the instructions earlier, but the point is that Micah wrote some notes because he felt that his self-presentation would not be what he would like it to be if he were to just answer off the cuff. This suggests attention to Fe and in particular Fe with Ni. It is framed as a question about accuracy but the psychological motivation seems to be about what is expressed externally.

In fact Micah has an extremely consistent emphasis on Fe and Ni throughout the video. His main professional interest is in storytelling, a common NiFe theme. He is attracted to stories, literature, everything mythical and symbolic. He focuses on writing now but also liked the "energy" of the theater. Stories for him are a way to travel through a world that you have not directly experienced, a kind of escapism. This is a common theme with Ni ego types, including Gamma NTs, who are often found creating or consuming speculative fiction.

He enjoys the emotional aspect of stories; it's important for him to impact someone emotionally with his writing and he is attracted to stories that have an emotional impact on him. This impact can be negative but is usually positive. (more Fe with Ni)

Even more striking is Micah's statement that art is not "completed" until someone experiences it and emotionally reacts to it. This is an attitude that not many people would find relatable, let alone express it themselves - unless they had high Fe. Along similar lines: "art is a social concept", the audience "gives their energy" (8:57). If art stands still, or has no audience, then it's not alive. All Fe with Ni. Micah notes that this doesn't mean he just writes what people want to hear, but the idea of someone getting excited about it drives him to create.

Micah occasionally uses lofty, dramatic language - people are "concepts", the most "worthy" things to study in the creation - as opposed to God, the creator. Every great writer is a "philosopher" - that is, they give some kind of deep commentary on the nature of life. He naturally views things in terms of the large-scale of society - the idea of authenticity being "very cliche in today's age", "just the culture we live in". It's very common for Beta NFs to want to make some social commentary with their art.

Occasionally some Se comes forward too: putting on a happy face at work is a "battle thing", "tactics" - "won't be at a disadvantage", "can influence them".

Ti values can be seen in the emphasis on fairness, treating everybody equally, and the analysis of belief systems like religion. Micah sees it as "lazy, cowardly" to not broaden your understanding by thinking about your religion. He values "intellectual bravery" in considering different perspectives (Ne), but although he is good at doing it, he would prefer to "clear out the nonsense", going back to valued Ni.

Micah views his relationships in terms of external emotional cues (Fe), and needs to have shared interests to talk about, things he is passionate about (also Fe). He would need them to give positive reactions, or the "right" reactions to his writing, especially in the context of a romantic relationship.

Respect is important to Micah. In context it seems like this is coming from Se: "I want this respect". He finds it disrespectful to be dismissive or interrupted, which can make him angry and lash out. However he sometimes does not express the anger outwardly and may just leave.

Micah describes having difficulty finishing things, likely due to lower Se, which is involved with willpower and self-discipline. However he also becomes hyperfocused about certain things - "have tons of energy but I don't use it productively". This may suggest somewhat higher Se (with low Te), such as Se mobilizing.

Weak Ti is also apparent in his difficulty structuring times, such as a plan for the day.

The disinterest/annoyance with dealing with mundane things such as replacing shoes is an example of subdued and weak SiTe.

Now, all of this makes Beta NF likely, but when it comes to EIE vs. IEI the evidence is less clear. Micah seems more like a classic introvert: he keeps to himself, doesn't display a lot of emotion externally, and most of his interests involve him being by himself, taking in information.

But looking at things functionally, we see something else:

For Te: Micah doesn't seem totally averse to evaluating his career path in terms of usefulness. He would be interested in starting a business, and considers whether it would be financially successful (maybe due to some awareness of typology here).

For Fe: He describes himself as an attention seeker and is very sensitive to how he's perceived. He views relationships purely in terms of the external cues, and is unsure of how they are "under the surface", suggesting ignoring Fi rather than demonstrative Fi. It's also a bit odd for an IEI to be so extremely focused on the reaction to their work - normally I'd expect them to describe at least some internal motivation for it. (Not that Micah doesn't have one, but it's not described in any detail.) He also describes difficulty in structuring his time, needing external help with it.

For Se: Maybe the most striking piece of evidence for EIE is when Micah says that he has "tons of energy". IEI is a type with low Se and are more likely to feel a deficit of energy if anything. (There may be exceptions to this such as Alexander Grothendieck, who was sort of a workaholic, but they seem rare.) He also describes demanding respect in his interactions as noted.

For Ne: Here his discussion of examining one's views comes to mind, as well as his interests in crime, typology, and tying things back to his interests in creative ways.

Overall this video suggests EIE, with bold extroverted elements, but IEI is not out of the question. Micah eschews physical appearance, which may suggest lower Se (maybe less so in men), and despite having lots of energy he has issues with willpower and self-discipline. He says comfort is his "drug" but it's hard to see whether this is more about his self-perception or whether it actually stands out as a quality in his life. His attitude towards conflict is also maybe more subdued than normal for an EIE - more "freeze" than "fight".

I also followed up with Micah after watching the video, but I find the evidence presented here is more clear. Micah is active in the typology community so hopefully his type will become clearer over time.

To find your type, book an appointment here.

Symmetry Breaking

It's common knowledge that Socionics is a "Ti system." That is to say, Model A and the socion itself are very beautiful, symmetric systems that are, apparently, all-encompassing. This is all well and good, but the theory is also severely imbalanced in this way. It needs to be Te too, not just Ti.

What is a symmetry? It's some kind of change or process that leaves a system looking the same as when you started. Essentially, it's "a change that's not a change". If that sounds like a paradox, it's because it is.

The classic example of symmetry is rotations of a shape: if you rotate a square by 90° it will look the same as when you started — as long as the different parts of the square have no other distinguishing features (such as the numbers in the picture below). It won't be deformed or broken, and will occupy the exact same location in space.

image from http://mathonline.wikidot.com/the-group-of-symmetries-of-the-square

But the right side of the square cannot literally be the exact same as the left side, otherwise it wouldn't have four sides, it would have at most three. If the parts of the square weren't separate and distinct we couldn't even recognize a process as different from doing nothing — except maybe by looking at intermediate states of the rotation, to see that yes, the square is moving from one place to another. In other words, the parts have distinct identities. But in reality identities are only distinguished by observable properties — by Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles, two different things must differ on some property.

The same is true of Model A: EIIs and SLEs are "the same" by virtue of being socionic types, which have strengths, weaknesses, values, etc. described in terms of the same functions and IM elements, but they clearly don't have the same thinking and behavior. If all the types were the same then socionics wouldn't be very interesting. In fact they wouldn't even be types, as everyone would be the same.

Of course socionics acknowledges these differences already — in type descriptions the differences are described, albeit often not very well, or using overly-specific examples drawn from the author's own limited and potentially flawed observations of the type. The real issue is that the differences are not explicit in the theory. There is a mathematical structure describing precisely how the relationships and functions fit together, but there is no mathematical description of, e.g. what makes Te different from Ti. This means that anyone and everyone can come up with their own definitions and say that they're right. Certain ones may fit together better and describe reality better, but good luck trying to convince anyone else to change their minds. So we have a community which is becoming ever-more fractured in its theoretical foundations, with any number of baseless hypotheses being accepted as fact, and passed off as legitimate theory to unwitting beginners.

But in fact there are beginnings of such a mathematical description, partially described right here on this blog. The elements are described by explicit geometric properties like extension (extroversion) and limitation (introversion). A distinct hierarchy emerges: the irrational elements are more fundamental and "wider" ontologically than the rational elements. Irrationality deals with direct apprehension, both physical (the senses) and mental (the imagination and memory). In other words irrationality is prelinguistic while rationality is linguistic. But rationality can be seen as the culmination of the system (and the intellect it describes), and perhaps gives it a greater degree of closure. All of the IM elements are good without a doubt in their own way, but they do play different roles and some are preferred over others in particular contexts.

As mentioned in another article, the contrary elements (Ne and Ni, Se and Si, etc.) are in fact the same information but opposite "vectors" or preferences within it. The dual elements are different, seemingly alien perspectives on the same reality, and our duals open us up to this perspective. The superego elements are arguably the "most opposite" from a higher perspective, but they share certain deceptive similarities and are "far apart" enough that contrary elements will conflict more readily. Conflicting elements can be reconciled in the long-term view but they certainly conflict in the here-and-now, as opposite states or choices (which produce said states).

That's roughly how it goes for IM elements. What about types? One benefit of 16-function models is that they identify types with IM elements, and therefore also functions with relationships. "Introverted socionics" further identifies types with relationships. Taken together, they will theoretically unite the basic elements of socionics into one fundamental reality, which manifests itself in different forms. It just so happens that IM elements are at the forefront of what we can describe in detail, because they are what we actually observe (i.e., information). So if you want to understand socionics, understand the IM elements.

Types are not boxes!

People sometimes object to socionics or typology in general, thinking that having a type limits you to being in a particular "box". First of all, typology is not prescriptive: it only claims to describe differences that are already there. Assuming that you're typed correctly, it's just a new kind of knowledge about yourself, not a new law that you have to follow. Surely if you had, say, a disease or a special talent you would want to know about it, right? Then you could seek out a cure for the disease, or actualize the talent and use it for good. Going to the doctor doesn't make you sick, it just tells you if/how you are sick — or in the words of Tupac, "I didn't create thug life, I diagnosed it."

But socionics does one better: Model A essentially says that we have all of the types within us, all of their basic functions and skills (as the eight IM elements) — only differing levels of access to them, with some being easier to use and others harder or more difficult to keep up. The leading function is "you", but it's merely the baseline state — you can "fake" being another type for a limited period of time, and in a sense we do this all the time when we use our other functions.

(from Wikimedia)

It's like the idea of a harmonic oscillator from physics. One example of a harmonic oscillator is a mass at the end of a spring: it has a normal state where it extends out a certain distance X. You can stretch it to extend beyond X, but if you let go it will contract, oscillating until it gets back to the equilibrium point X. Similarly you can compress it to a smaller distance than X, but it takes work. So the leading function is like the distance X, with other functions being closer or further from that equilibrium (and particularly the bold functions will be closer to it).

The functional, fractal (self-similar) nature of Model A — touched on but not elaborated by Jung — is so popular that other typologies are now adopting it: Beebe's 8-function model for MBTI, and tritype for Enneagram where people speak of "my 9 [fix]" as if it were an aspect of their personality, like the Model A functions.

Comparison Typing

Socionics has only 16 types, but clearly there are more than 16 kinds of people. Each sociotype therefore has to contain a wide variety of people, so as to cover approximately 6% of the world's population.

Socionics enthusiasts sometimes use "comparison typing", i.e. typing others based on comparison with other, already-typed examples. So if your brother is IEE you might determine whether others are IEE based on whether they are similar to him, whether they have a similar energy level, interests, level of skepticism, etc.

To some extent this is unavoidable and actually beneficial: comparing with known examples is a quick and easy way to type. BUT, it should only be used positively: if someone is similar to a known example then they are likely to be the same type. But if they are dissimilar then they may simply be a variant of the type that you haven't seen yet. If you are relatively inexperienced in socionics then the probability of this is higher — but no socionist can assume that they've seen all variants of the types.

Secondly, even when you do comparison-type, you should always attempt to describe clearly what similarities you're seeing, and how they're related to socionics. Not all similarities are related to socionics, and in fact, energy level and interests vary widely within types. If you don't give a theoretical explanation then you're essentially building your own idiosyncratic typology, which is probably going to be less coherent than Model A, not to mention impossible to discuss with other socionists.

Negative Typing

A more subtle issue is when there is not an explicit comparison, but when someone types based on what is absent from a person rather than what is present. This is again negative typing, and generally speaking not the right way to type. It can trip up beginners even when they have a solid understanding of the theory.

For example, "mobilizing Se wants to look fierce, [but he doesn't]". This is based on a specific attribute that the typer associates with mobilizing Se.

This is an argument based on what is not there, not on what is there. It's essentially appealing to comparison with known examples. You may not know any mobilizing-Se types who don't want to look fierce, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

If you use a general trait that really does get close to the essence of mobilizing Se (such as restlessness or desire for impact), then it would be valid to use negatively. But this example seems too specific for that. It would be better to look at what is present, and see what that says about the subject's relation to Se, where it would best fit in their Model A.

Stereotypes

People often complain about "stereotypes". But stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason — they just shouldn't be used negatively, to exclude people from a type. For example, if someone greatly enjoys participating in the performing arts then it's evidence towards being EIE, or some type with high Fe. But clearly the majority of EIEs are not performing artists, and no one in their right mind would say "he's not an actor, so he's not EIE". And if you dig deeper, of course you might find the performer is not really motivated by the emotional interaction he's having on the audience, but something else. Maybe he got into the field by accident (like Harrison Ford). But this is less likely, because performance is closely tied with Fe.

Appendix: Converse Error and Bayesian Reasoning

Now, a bit of math!

Converse error is a logical fallacy: if A implies B, it doesn't necessarily mean that B implies A. This is essentially why negative typing doesn't work. But socionics is empirical (although not quantitative), so rarely do we have strict implications going from observation to type. As mentioned above, just as not every EIE is a performer, not every performer is EIE even though it's more likely for them to be EIE than SLI.

Technically the right framework to use is Bayesian inference, which tells us how to update probabilities using observation. We start by assuming a roughly equal probability for any typing to be correct. If the person to be typed is in a community that skews a certain way type-wise, then you might not assign equal probabilities. Or if you believe that the type distribution is heavily skewed (which I don't).

Anyways, the formula goes like this:

Here P(X) means the probability of X, H means the hypothesis (the typing in question, e.g. EIE), and E is the evidence (the subject in question being a performer).

Let's rewrite the formula using the example:

Now suppose

Then we get

In other words: if 2% of the general population are performers, and 4% of EIEs are performers, then we'll double our probability of the subject being EIE, to being 1/8 = 12.5%. And if three times as many EIEs are performers as everyone else, then we'll triple it, to get 18.75%. So the small percentage 4% becomes significant when considered relative to the other types. 12.5% is still somewhat low, but if we have many pieces of evidence like this we can form a good case.

Of course, it's typically very hard to assign exact probabilities to a claim — in life in general, much less in the notoriously ambiguous field of socionics diagnostics, where you may not even be sure what you think. Nevertheless, the general principle still applies.

So, no more criticizing stereotypes! Negative arguments and comparison typing are the real issue.

Quadrality and the Theory of Triads

Socionics is indisputably based on quadrality. Because it's built on dichotomies, everything is groups of two, then four, eight, sixteen (4 times 4), and so on. Model A is conventionally depicted as two rings, and for the types we have supervision and benefit rings, quadras, clubs, and so on. But what has not been mentioned up until this point is that, in practice, these groups of four (whether they are types, functions, elements, etc.) often manifest as groups of three - the fourth one remains hidden.

Example 1: Among the valued functions, the suggestive function is often out of sight, due to being weak and cautious. While it is an unconscious goal, people rarely prioritize it in practice - it's as if they are unaware that they need it. The remaining values (functions 1, 2, and 6) are manifest values.

This leads directly to the sub-example of quadra triads: you rarely observe that someone is, e.g. "Gamma" - there is always a bias in the information towards some subset of the quadra, such as the "Fi Gamma triad" (excluding LIE who has Fi suggestive), the "Ti Alpha triad" (excluding ESE who has Ti suggestive), etc.

Example 2: Among the strong functions, the ignoring function's goal is sometimes neglected to the point where it looks weak, due to being both subdued and cautious. We can use it when needed occasionally, as it's less stressful than the 1D functions, but not much beyond that. So, much like the suggestive, the lack of these two traits "overpowers" the presence of the third. This leads to club triads, e.g. the "Fe SF triad", the "Ni NT triad", etc. The remaining strengths (functions 1, 2, and 8) are manifest strengths.

Example 3: Among the weak functions, the mobilizing function is both valued and bold, so while clumsy and overconfident, it can be the "slow and steady one that wins the race", often developing habits over time that allow us to achieve its goal adequately for ourselves. The remaining weaknesses (functions 3, 4, and 5) are manifest weaknesses.

Example 4: The creative function, although cautious, is used with far less fatigue than the other cautious functions, to the point where it works together with the leading function amicably.

Example 5: All of the producing functions can be "blocked" with the leading function to define the type, however the vulnerable function is much more rarely used in conjunction with it. Similarly it is the one left out of the mental ring, being almost completely neglected compared to the others.

There are plenty more examples on the semantic side, to give a few:

• Ti is the structure of language. Te is the objective information conveyed via language, and Fe is the implicit aspects of communication through language. Fi's relation to language is less obvious.
• Se is "completely apparent" while Ni is "completely hidden", and Si is the balance between the two.
• The Enneagram instincts roughly correspond to Si (self-preservation), Fe (social), and FiSe (sexual). Here we have two which are grouped together instead of one being hidden.
• Se is the most masculine of the irrational elements, Si the most feminine, while Ni and Ne seem to lack gender for the most part.
• The themes of aesthetics and beauty involve Si (pleasantness, good taste), Se (outward appearance which conveys status, impact and impressiveness, and sexual attraction), and Fe (adornment and expression through choice of fashion). Fi again seems to be absent.
• Alpha is the quadra of unity (harmonious communal interaction, understanding the universe as a whole), Beta the quadra of duality (good fighting against evil, us versus them), and Gamma the quadra of multiplicity of independent things, facts, or people. Delta seems to have no particular attitude with respect to number.
• If you take all four irrational elements (or all four rational elements) you can make a square with the opposite points being either duals, extinguishers, or superegos. But you can't make them identicals since that would imply repetition.

There are even more examples beyond socionics:

• If you imagine two lights which are either on or off, we can have 1) both on, 2) only one on, or 3) both off. So four possibilities lead to three by the act of counting, i.e. by identifying the two lights.
• The one who speaks can be either truthful or a liar. The one who does not speak is merely silent.
• A car can veer off to the right, to the left, or stay on course. Its motion prevents the backwards direction from manifesting.
• An action is either in the past, present, or future. When past, you find yourself after the end. When future, you're before the beginning. In the present you're after the end and before the beginning. But you can't be before the beginning and after the end.

FOUR FROM THREE

A mandala from Jung's Red Book

Jung was particularly prescient on this topic. He would create mandalas, a kind of four-fold diagram made of a square or cross combined with a circle. He interpreted this as an archetype of wholeness, unification of opposites, and eternal evolution and rejuvenation of the Self. The triad is by comparison incomplete, deficient:

"We find a wide spectrum of four-fold symbols and systems in religion, myth, history and culture. There are four winds (Boreas, Eurus, Notus, Zephyrus), four seasons (winter, spring, summer, fall), four directions (north, east, south, west), four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), four letters in the sacred name of God (YHVH), four ancient ages (gold, silver, bronze, iron), and four medieval humours: sanguine (blood), choleric (yellow bile), phlegmatic (phlegm), melancholic (black bile)to name a few.

Adding a fourth to an already established three has a transformational effect. In geometry, a fourth point transforms the two-dimensional triad or triangle into a figure with depth, the cube and the tetrahedron (a form lapis). As the mathematician Michael Schneider observes, “There are always four ways (another quaternity) to look at any three-dimensional structure: as points, lines, areas, and volumes, or as corners, edges, faces, and from the center outward (63). Ellenberger notes that “The quaternity can appear as a geometric figure of square or sometimes rectangular shape, or it will have some relation with the number four: four persons, four trees, and so on. Often it is a matter of completing a triadic figure with a fourth term, thus making it into a quaternity” (712). Jung searches for the quaternity when a trinity is encountered, “Jung over and over again in his writings returns to the alchemical question: “Three are here but where is the fourth?” (Edinger 189). The completion of the quaternity is seen frequently in alchemical works, even whimsically, “All things do live in the three/ But in the four they merry be” (quoted in CW 12 125)." [Source]

 Augusta may have been inspired by this to complete Freud's triad of ego, id, super-ego with "super-id" (although the analogy with the actual functions is a bit weak).

Dualization itself is completion of the four quadra values from two overlapping threes, where your leading function completes your dual and vice versa.

The theory of signed elements completes the three function dichotomies with a fourth, to produce 16 functions.

But socionics as a whole is based on Jung's four functions and is in this sense already complete. So the question becomes, how do we derive the three from the four, the appearance from the reality? Each triad is such a derivation.

"The goal of psychic development is the self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the self" (Jung, MDR 196)

Model G and How To Fix It

Jack Aaron and Ben Vaserlan recently had a heated debate over the relative merits of Model G and Model A: why Model G was created and if the reasons really hold up.

Aside from a few minor quibbles (such as the supposed difficulty of telling apart the vulnerable and role functions), I completely agree with Jack's criticisms of Model G. In short, it adds essentially nothing to Model A, is steeped in vague jargon (like "long range" and "short range", the social vs. personal spheres, etc.), and is at odds with how the types actually work (in particular how it conceives of the suggestive function as being somehow "high energy" or more prominent than the mobilizing function — or whatever they're called now).

Model G does, however, have a few selected insights. One is the greater emphasis on the benefit rings, or rather, the bold/cautious dichotomy.

Another is the idea of "energy." For some reason Ben flounders in this video when asked to define energy, while he had previously connected it to Jung's concept of libido (not Freud's), which Jung defined as a kind of "life force". This is a sound idea in itself: Model A addresses information processing (information metabolism) but it does not address the obvious limitations of resources that apply to each function's processing, in particular the strength and boldness traits.

Unfortunately, beyond this very basic outline, the details of Model G seem disconnected with the reality of the types — including which functions are supposedly maximum energy, etc.

That's a very brief take on the semantics — the details are really not that interesting and are addressed in the video. Another interesting idea (which precedes Model G) is the signed elements, but I'm not going to get into that here either. The real point of this post is the structural deficit which I pointed out and Jack later mentioned in the debate. It's very obvious if you look at Andrew's diagrams (and translate the names and numbers accordingly):

As you can see here, some of the standard socionic dichotomies are presented asymmetrically in Model G. Gulenko apparently does not assign any meaning to the left and right sides of the model, he still uses the standard dichotomies such as strong/weak, etc., albeit with different names, as displayed on the right here. Strong/weak becomes "master/slave" and valued/subdued becomes "values/tools". (correction: It is said that Gulenko does consider the left-hand functions to be "better" in the "sense [...] of energy allocation to the function and the degree of freedom of behavior afforded by this." Again, more jargon which does not seem to apply to the suggestive function, or if not actually wrong, at least is not as clear as the existing Model A dichotomies.)

How can we fix this? The obvious thing to do would be to simply switch the suggestive and ignoring functions (or "manipulative" and "control", numbers 6 and 8). Then the left side is strong and the right side is weak. And the valued functions are "outside" and subdued "inside", which is at least as good as it is in Model A. And we still have the benefit rings proceeding horizontally: NeTeSeFe... and TiNiFiSi....

In my opinion this clearly shows that the Model G blocks are defined wrong. The issue is that Gulenko wanted to have a benefit loop of types, but he represented them using the standard Model A ego blocks (as the columns of Model G). So for ILE we have NeTi, then TeSi, then SeFi and FeNi for the ILE and its Process-Extrovert ring. Instead we should express the types entirely in terms of the benefit ring (in analogy with how it is in Model A and the supervision ring) with each represented using a consecutive pair of elements in the ring, ILE being NeTe, LSE being TeSe, etc. Then the types can be thought of as "edges" between the IM elements, and they interact at their shared points. This makes much more sense if Model G is meant to show energy flow, does it not?

Ben made the interesting point (possibly the only one he made in the entire video) that Model G includes not only benefit rings, but also supervision rings if you extend it vertically:

(Written in to the left of the #4 heading.)

Note that this property still holds if we switch the suggestive and ignoring functions. There are literally only two ways to make a grid like this, and Model G does not use the right choice.

Aside from the semantic issues with Model G, this is a very obvious structural flaw. Fixing it might be the first step to salvaging the model.