Typing Video: Laura

I've known Laura for a while now; she is a long-time participant in the socionics community and has made other videos before. This video didn't change my opinion of her type; I think the same options present themselves, with the same apparent contradictions, as we will explore below.

Laura consistently presents an open, tolerant, and accommodating view of others, and dislikes conflict, rudeness and roughness, and unpleasant interactions. She believes everyone has inherent worth and tries to approaches others with tact when possible. My observations of Laura in the community match this: she has very little inclination towards conflict or abrasiveness, and prefers if people could just all get along.

All of this is a strong indicator of Si/Ne values.

Laura is also curious and focused more on the intellectual side of life: her jobs have consistently focused on information, she doesn't do a whole lot to beautify her environment, and would prefer not have to deal with physical maintenance if she could. She got a short haircut because it's easy to maintain - one tactic an intuitive might use to avoid dealing with sensory complexities. She is always thinks of the long-term future, and loves the feeling of mastering a new skill, as well as experiencing new cultures by traveling (potentially if not actually in her life).

This suggests that Laura is much more likely an Ne ego type than an Si ego type. Traveling and skill acquisition are common Ne themes. Laura does show some ability to maintain her life, and a tendency towards stability in her career and finances: she has worked in the same career for over a decade with little change, and although she mentions feeling stagnant, she also views the prospect of unknown change or risk (in the "starting a business" question) as "scary" and a threat to the status quo, therefore something she would not really do in practice. This points to relatively higher priority for + ability to deal with Si, and therefore more likely Si mobilizing than suggestive. This goes hand in hand with the lower Se and higher "activation energy" needed to kick oneself into gear and realize possibilities in one's life.

But we see more ambiguity in how the rational IM elements might fit into Laura's psyche.

For Fi: on the one hand she speaks very clearly and directly about what she seeks in relationships ("loving me, supporting me", trustworthiness, emotional support), and likes it when people cry or "show their vulnerability."

On the other hand, she also uses Fe in describing all of her relationships: doing "fun stuff together" (mother), "being fun to be around" (sister), "good sense of humor" (father).

This suggests that maybe Laura is one of the types with some ambiguity between Fe and Fi, namely IEE or LII.

But there are other clues. Laura also describes not having close, deep friendships, only lots of acquaintances. And although her work does involving interacting with people, this seems to drain her; she sees people as interruptions at her work and wants to find one where she's more "behind the scenes".

She also seems a bit insecure about relationships in general (maybe this is not so type-related, but in context it could be). She describes needing help in relationships, how to relate to others better, and was not very tactful as a young child, but learned how to be as she got older.

When it comes to logic, Laura is good at organizing information, and explains her role and the structure of her work very clearly, right off the bat.

Overall I think LII is the best fit for Laura. She is a natural organizer, is dependable and reliable in her work, and while she is in touch with her emotions, she isn't really a people person either. She is sensitive to criticism, yet has a strong sense of fairness and civic duty. Fairness, which as I see it, is one of the distinguishing themes of the LII.

To find your type, book an appointment here.

The Reinin Dichotomies

What are the Reinin dichotomies?

The types were initially described using four independent dichotomies⁰ : extraversion/introversion, rational/irrational, intuitive/sensing, and logical/ethical. Jung mentioned the first two directly; the latter two come from the fact that socionics adds a secondary function to Jung's types, and they specify which of two domains is present in the first two functions (or strengths as a whole). These four Jungian dichotomies (also known as the "Jungian basis") were heavily emphasized in the early stages of socionics, and their popularity continues, particularly in the East, despite the fact that they now coexist with a more "functional" approach based on Model A.

But Augusta introduced another dichotomy of IM elements called "static/dynamic", which also extends to the types. Elements (and types) are called static if they are 1) rational and introverted or 2) irrational and extraverted. Otherwise they are dynamic. We can visualize this by forming a grid with the two dichotomies:

The static/dynamic dichotomy comes from taking the two diagonal slices.

What Reinin realized is that you can play this game with any pair of dichotomies — and then you can do it again with the new dichotomies you get! All in all you get 2⁴ - 1 = 15 dichotomies from the original four, and we call the dichotomies you get "Reinin dichotomies".¹ They (and in particular the "Questioner/Declarer" dichotomy) are alluded to in a brief statement in Augusta's seminal work "The Dual Nature of Man". She refers to them as "other, less obvious opposite qualities" but does not elaborate further.

Where's the beef?

Ok, so we have all these dichotomies, but what do they mean? This operation doesn't obviously produce meaningful categories, any more than the set of men who like ice cream and women who don't like ice cream has anything meaningful in common.

Augusta tried very hard to answer this question. She gave the dichotomies names and descriptions, and others like Gulenko also researched them later on. It seems Gulenko's names are the ones that largely stuck, and have influenced how the dichotomies tend to be interpreted now. The latest descriptions come from a 2003 study by Mironov, but they largely preserve the earlier interpretations.

Despite all these efforts, they did not succeed in producing a viable theory. Augusta emphasized that they were a work in progress² and Reinin has also said to not take them seriously³.

They remain controversial in the Eastern community: Dmitri Lytov did a survey and asked socionists to rate different concepts in socionics based on reliability, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. While IM elements, Model A, and quadra values all scored over 4, Reinin dichotomies scored a shabby average of 2.87, with the most common response being 2.

The issues with the descriptions have been addressed to some extent by existing articles. There are three major issues:

1. Lack of clarity

In large part, the descriptions are "not even wrong", in that they can't even be made sense of or clearly applied in practice to say whether they are more right than they are wrong — instead they're some kind of mush. Take the questioner/declarer dichotomy. Do ILEs ask more questions than LIEs? Could be. But do ILEs ask more questions than IEEs? Hard to say. Do ESIs ask more questions than IEEs?? That seems just wrong.

If the description only fits 50% of the time, it may as well just be wrong. If you try to use not-even-wrong mush instead of (or along with) solid theory, you end up with a poor understanding of socionics.

2. No theoretical basis

The descriptions (as opposed to the mathematical structure) are not derived from or linked to any more reliable part of the theory, such as the strength and value function dichotomies. Caveat: when I speak about the Reinin dichotomies being unreliable, I mean the ones other than the quadra, strength, and introversion/extraversion dichotomies, since these can all be clearly explained in terms of Model A.⁴ Theoretically one could define other ones in terms of function dichotomies like contact/inert and evaluatory/situational, but those dichotomies seem slippery in their own right.

One of the great virtues of socionic theory is how its parts all fit together to make a coherent whole, whose different parts can be used to check each other. Most attempts to add (semantically) independent extra parts to this whole (subtypes, Reinin dichotomies, Enneagram) end up doing more harm than good.

3. Actual contradictions with the base theory

The example of "questioning/declaring" above illustrates how the Reinin dichotomies can overlap with, and therefore end up contradicting, pre-existing categories in Model A. In the end there is only a limited space of observations you can make about a person's behavior, and it's highly unlikely that you could make a coherent system of 15 dichotomies that are all equally apparent.

There are other contradictions. Lytov gives a long list in his article, but for the sake of example let's take Mironov's description of Carefree types:

“You cannot prepare for everything.”

This doesn't make any sense for LSIs, who have Ni mobilizing and therefore highly prioritize preparing for potential negative outcomes. If it's between that and “It is best to prepare in advance.” (for Farsighted types) then LSIs are definitely the latter.

Another is Aristocracy/Democracy. Supposedly Beta and Delta are the Aristocrats. Why would Deltas, types with subdued Se and Ti, be likely to see people in terms of external group membership? Per Mironov: "Hierarchy and status are frequently described as inherent to structural logic (Ti). According to our observations this is entirely false." I would say more Se than Ti, but this illustrates how the confusion of Reinin dichotomies ends up replacing the clarity of Model A, which allows identifying specific sources of behavior in the IM elements.

Another is Tactics, which is somehow supposed to describe Ni leading types (and Ni mobilizing types):

• "they are not inclined to constantly compare their current actions with the desired end state ("goal"). The emerging goals are evaluated in accordance to how well they fit their current route (how well the goal coincides with the direction they are adhering to)."
• "They consciously do not set goals or do it very rarely (when pressured by the circumstances). They avoid setting distant (very long-term or global) goals: "Why plan—you still need to live to that moment"."

By contrast Strategists are described as follows:

• "Strategists, as a rule, do not fix their direction i.e. concrete actions the sequence of which leads to the goal. Thus, their "trajectory" by which they move towards fulfilling their goals can change.
• "They assess their actions and choices from the point of view of how closer they bring them to their desired objectives (goals). Being put before a choice, they reject those options that do not bring them closer."
• "Without having a conscious goal, Strategists feel as if something is missing and their life is incomplete. They experience discomfort and feel disoriented."

The latter makes way more sense for Ni leading types, who are more likely to commit to a single vision of the future and focus deeply on it, rather than "living in the moment" or changing their desired state frequently. They are of course "strategists" in the everyday sense of the term.

The list goes on.

The Way Forward

For all the reasons above, there is no way to justify using the Reinin dichotomies practically at this time. They aren't useful (and are in fact harmful) for typing people, and mostly not even useful for explaining behavior after the fact. Could they be useful theoretically, in the future? Could they be given definitions that make sense, even if they aren't particularly visible in practice? I think so. I myself have attempted to come up with better definitions, and there are clues which indicate that they hold an important place in the structure of socionics. But the jury is still out on what they mean.

So, while thinking about Reinin dichotomies may be a fun exercise, I also don't consider it a productive research direction. Maybe thinking about the "other" IM element and function dichotomies would be a nearer goal. In any case, the greatest success will be found in refining and deepening the existing content of the theory, rather than trying to come up with something from scratch. If you put a building on a shaky foundation, it will surely fall down.

---

[0] A set of traits or dichotomies is said to be independent if any combination is possible; that is, for each dichotomy we can choose either pole, or the trait being true or false.

[1] Sometimes only the derived dichotomies are called Reinin dichotomies; they are the main topic of this article.

[2] "This first hasty edition of “Theory of the Reinin Signs” is not intended for a wide circle of readers, but only for a narrow circle of socionics for the further development of theories, corrections, amendments, and improvement of terminology. It is possible that, for example, some properties of the personality type, which I attributed to any one attribute of Reinin, after verification will have to be attributed to another." (source)

[3] Mentioned at a relatively recent meeting with some Western socionists.

[4] Even the descriptions given for the two quadra value dichotomies (Merry/Serious and Reasonable/Resolute) in the Reinin studies are questionable, as they don't seem to rely on any conventional understanding of valued functions. Mironov says that according to Objectivists (i.e. Te valuers) "there exist rules and guidelines that are "true in general" and "always correct"." This is the exact opposite of what an understanding of Model A gives: Te valuers have subdued Ti and thus tend to be skeptical of universal rules.

Although rationality and static/dynamic (as well as their correlates accepting/producing and mental/vital) are considered important in the classical theory, I find them (maybe) applicable in a post hoc way at best; i.e., I don't use them for typing people.

Typing Video: Steffi (Tao)

Some observations:

• Steffi begins the video by mentioning how she is a bit self-conscious and worried about getting her speech right. (probably low Se, valued Ti)
• She describes largely being "in her head", and while she constantly seeks out knowledge, has no interest in applying it. (high Ni, low Te)
• The words "honest" and "authentic" come up repeatedly, especially referring to expressing one's inner emotions, whether they are good or bad (Fe+Ni)
• Says that the values question is "the most important question" — the search for values in particular. Steffi is still young and describes her values as being in flux.
• Has an interest in history and connects her values with the Victorian period and the novels she read from that period. (Ni+Fe)
• Comes across as a soft, accepting kind of person who nevertheless has a certain depth of emotion. (low Se, introversion, ethics)
• Is quite good at articulating her self-observations. (probably high Ni, Ti)

These observations are already enough to point to IEI. In fact it is hard to see Steffi as anything but that type.

Although she is socially introverted (with only a few friends) and tends to keep to herself, Steffi describes being interested in people, and having been more extraverted, expressive, and focused on others as a child. Fe creative types tend vary widely with regards to social extraversion, and Steffi has embodied both of these extremes over the course of her life.

Her being in her mind and general focus on imaginary or past worlds suggests high focus on Ni, and probably ego Ni. She is interested in learning from the history by seeing it with an open mind, without bias. I find IEIs often emphasize the need for open-mindedness.

Despite being focused on people, Steffi has what some might find a shocking disregard for relationships in themselves: she "appreciates people" or "appreciates their existence" (one of a few dramatic phrases found in Steffi's speech) but treats everyone essentially the same, even her parents. This strongly suggests that Steffi values Fe and not Fi, as does her disinterest in "corrective" moral values (or "traits"), as opposed to abstract, conceptual ones like "beauty" and "simplicity". It seems like these values are arrived at through a process of reflection on the world and herself, yet they have little to do with how she actually operates in the world (she explicitly mentions that she didn't actually act on her value of beauty :). Despite considering authenticity and honesty "traits", she doesn't see how one might work on them, they "just are" and she wouldn't judge people very strongly based on them per se.

Difficulty acting and "actually living" in the outside world is another theme that comes up, very common in introverted intuitives, with weak and cautious Se. This is due to the tradeoff between Ni's focus on the internal world and Se's focus on the outside world. Steffi is more capable when it comes to dealing with practical Si details such as grocery shopping etc. In fact Steffi is rather mature for her age and is quite aware of her weaknesses.

Fe, especially as in Beta NFs, is about authentic self-expression. Steffi describes very clearly what this means to her: to show others who you are internally, even if who you are is "bad" (e.g. if you are envious).

Steffi's attitude towards conflict is surprisingly nonchalant: she neither shows a tendency to engage and defend herself (as most Se valuers would), nor does she seem to get bothered by the unpleasantness of the situation (as most Si valuers would). Not many types other than IEI (with suggestive but valued Se) would be likely to express this attitude — perhaps some Ne leadings could. Not taking these things personally could also be attributed to low priority Fi. What she does describe being sensitive to is the need to fulfill expectations. In my opinion this is an example of Ti, related to the theme of duty — she gives the example of selling ice cream and all the expectations placed on her by the customer and her work. She had to focus quite hard to get the change right (something which involves logic, a weak spot which she describes not having any intrinsic inclination towards).

Steffi mentions some far-off dreams for the future ("I have dreams but not goals" (37:24)), but her tendency towards inaction leaves some question as to whether these are things that might actually happen. She describes founding a cafe for discussing philosophy in an intimate, comfortable setting. She has no interest in noisy settings or getting a lot of attention through marketing. She also certainly isn't interested in working with numbers or the competitive aspects of business (Se+Te). These real-world exigencies are far from the mental realm that Steffi tends to inhabit when given the choice.

Some other strengths Steffi describes herself with are: empathetic, adaptable, creative, reflective, receptive. All traits that are reasonably typical of IEIs.

To find your type, book an appointment here.

Typing Service

This page has moved, please see here for the current details.

Personality Questionnaire

The questionnaire has moved; please see here for the current version.

Masculinity and femininity

There is a small mismatch between how socionics divides up concepts and our everyday concepts, as well as other systems of thought.

Intuitively we have an idea of what it means to be harsh vs. to be nice. Socionically this is primarily Se vs. Si, with Se being harsh and Si being "nice". However, niceness also has a ethical quality which involves how you actively manage your relationship with others. For example, SLIs are "nice" in the sense that they generally avoid conflict and blend in, yet they are not "nice" in the sense that they go out of their way to make people feel good. In fact they can sometimes seem grumpy or standoffish which are the opposite of "nice".

You can see this in how writers conceive of personality: they often will set up exemplars of a "nice character" or a "harsh character", and these characters end up being sort of unrealistic from a socionics point of view, a combination of LSI and SLI for example, the "gruff tough man" who is aggressive like an LSI yet does not display anything resembling Fe values. Arguably this could be seen as a "non-dualized" or "introverted" kind of LSI but in any case, the dynamics of the suggestive function are rarely captured in their full complexity.

This dichotomy is also known in a more formal sense as "yin/yang", or "jamal/jalal" (beauty/majesty) in the Islamic tradition. While it is close to Si/Se, an SLE or LSI is more likely to be considered a prototypical example of jalal than an SEE or ESI, who have certain "soft" qualities coming from Fi. The reason is that ethics is from the feminine principle while logic is from the masculine principle. So the most jamal type would be an Si valuing ethical type.

Masculinity means extroversion and logic at the dichotomy level, however at an IM element level we can say that Se is the most masculine element, Te and Ti are also masculine, Ne is slightly masculine, Ni is slightly feminine, Si is feminine, and Fe and Fi are clearly feminine.^[1]

Men have traditionally taken the riskier role of hunters, warriors, and expanders of the family's resources, while women traditionally are maintainers of the home and caregivers, an Si role. This is one physical manifestation of a primordial dichotomy and spiritual reality.

When it comes to types, the problem is even more complex. ESE men are often highly masculine because they are more aware of gender expectations. While Si and Fe tend to accentuate the person's gender (and maybe to a lesser extent with Se and Fi), otherwise generally types are masculine or feminine according to the IM element scale above. According to my observations, women tend more often to be ethical types, and men logical types, but not by a lot (maybe 60/40).

[1] These connections were recognized by user szaulinska some time ago here, noting that the masculine always complements the feminine. However, notice that while Se is highly masculine, its complement Ni is the least feminine feminine element (or arguably even neutral).

Meaning and Mathematics

Socionics, like other scientific theories (in particular physics), relies on giving meaning to mathematical structures: the elements of a group are interpreted as relationships, and they act on elements of another set which are interpreted as types, etc. While proving things about mathematical structures is helpful for "mapping the structural landscape" and getting a sense of what is or is not possible, it must be complemented and guided by an understanding of what the structures actually mean. This is true even of supposedly "pure" mathematics. Often mathematicians have a vague sense of this, but only enough to "get by" — the deeper meaning is left untouched.

To see what I mean, consider an interval:

We can interpret this as being a scale, where one end is, say, hot and the other end is cold.

Then, if we bend and join the ends of the scale to make a circle:

Hot and cold then occupy the same place. But isn't that a contradiction? How can two opposites be the same?

In fact this "unification of opposites" lies at the very heart of socionics. For what is a dichotomy (like sensing-intuition or logical-ethical) itself if not a union of opposites?

We can then notice that, on a semantic level, what the two ends of a scale have in common is that they are both extremes, while the middle of the scale is balance or an equal combination of the two extremes:

So we have obtained a new scale -- which is none other than the distinction between Se (extreme) and Si (balance)! Or at least one major aspect of it, anyway.

Since any pair of binary opposites can be placed on a scale like this — including Si and Se themselves! — we see that socionics touches on some of the deepest and most universal structure of reality — that point where geometry, meaning, and structure all meet, and produce a self-describing model of reality.

Readers may recognize these concepts from any one of various ancient traditions: Sufism, Hermeticism, sacred geometry, etc. All we are doing here is fleshing them out using the language of mathematics.

The full consequences of this remain to be seen.