That time again! Let's discuss the self proclaimed manifestation of Leo sign. Haha.

Who is lucky enough to claim him as his own? Se + ... ?

SLE: Sure, might be, but the more I listen to him, the less I see it. He is constantly talking about emotions, dividing people through emotions and manipulates emotions just a tad too good for an SLE. He is also (old) incoherent as all crap! And his Te seems to be very low(certainly not 4D!) on his own. Without advisors, managers etc, he would've spent all that money who knows when and how.

SEE: But why not SEE then? Few things. Relations seem to be transactional to him, but that could just be a show. He is crude. And he didn't seem to be like this before he got old. Then again, he isn't manipulating any systems(he fails epically at that), but emotions and relations towards things and people. Would an SLE(like, idk, Churchill or Žukov) really do that?

Based on descriptions I've heard of both, it seems like SLEs are generally better than SEEs. From what I can make of it, SLEs are just SEEs but more tactical, logical, and rational. SEEs are SLEs but less tactical, rational, and logical, but I guess they're better at socializing? How the hell is being a good person supposed to benefit you?

Where they see a picture and can tell the mood,atmosphere,message and emotion that the picture convey.

They see it as a reflection of how the person's feel or thinks about something.

They can tell people's personalities by looking at them and their body language since they can see a pattern

I am an intp in mbti and I think a socionics Robespierre. How would you go about typing me?

Selected and compiled by V.L. Talanov based on materials from live communication, Internet sites and Internet forums.

Advice from the author (useful for learning to understand the essence of each type) - when reading jokes, figure out what marker, characteristic features of the sociotype are played out in it.

Enjoy the full English translation ~80 pages by ChatGPT-4o: [Google Doc]

Thanks Talanov & ChatGPT!

A small selection:

ILI

ILI: – I have two pieces of news.

SEE: – Start with the good one.

ILI: – Who told you there’s a good one?

SEE

Conversation between train conductor and the SEE passenger:

– Your ticket is for A, but this train is going to B.

– Do your drivers make such mistakes often?

ESI

A patient comes to the psychiatrist ESI complaining of an inferiority complex.

After a thorough interview, the psychiatrist says:

– I can reassure you, you don’t have such a complex. You are genuinely inferior.

LIE

Inscription on the tombstone:

"Here lies the ashes of LIE, whose inconsolable widow runs an excellent restaurant on 94th Avenue, always at your service from six in the morning."

LSI

– Honey, why don’t you say you love me anymore?

– I said it once. If anything changes, I’ll let you know.

EIE

Death with a scythe comes knocking on a man’s door. He opens, squints at her, and says:

– Where’s the grand stance? Where’s the infernal gleam in your eyes? I deserve a better death!

IEI

IEI and SLE meet. IEI looks downcast, sad.

SLE : – Why so glum?

IEI: – It’s work, always work, from morning till night, just constant work...

SLE (understandingly): – How long have you been working like this?

IEI: – I’m starting tomorrow…

SLE

When SLE cuts onions, the onions cry.

EII

It happens when you set your favorite song as an alarm… And soon, it’s no longer your favorite song.

Insomnia isn’t the problem. The problem is when you don’t know why you’re waking up every morning.

LSE

"A time for work and a time for play," LSE thought at 2 a.m., put down the drill, and picked up the violin…

SLI

Three SLIs are sitting on the riverbank, fishing.

After two hours, one SLI says:– No bites, time to go.

Another hour passes, and the second one says:– It’ll start biting later, let’s wait.

After another hour, the third SLI says:– If you two keep arguing, I’ll just leave.

IEE

When discussing the purchase of a new toy, don't start directly with “Buy it, buy it, buy it!!!” Begin with a more indirect topic, like:– Dad, was your childhood difficult and joyless too?

“I hate my inconsistency, it’s so cool!” exclaimed IEE.

LII

My girlfriend suggested we talk about our future. I went on for half an hour about lasers, teleportation, and force fields… then realized I might not have understood the question.

ESE

When he asked her out, she fell off her chair, jumped on the bed, ran around the apartment in happiness for 15 minutes, and replied, "I’ll think about it."

SEI

Go to work or sleep? Sleep or go to work? I found a compromise: I’ll go to work and sleep there!

ILE

– Why is there an "x" in the word "pencil"?

– But there is no "x" in "pencil."

– Exactly, and that’s what I’m wondering—if there were one, why would it be there?

Recently, I had an episode where I got really cold and dismissive with my friends because I felt like they were ignoring me and not taking me seriously. I try to touch their backs to call for their attention, but they didn't notice, then I sat there and started reminding myself of other times I had gotten ignored this month by others. I got angrier when the SEE texted me to cancel the group's meet up for a project because many members were busy, I was like 'What!?' I was busy too and that he only cared about himself and others(turned out to be just a misunderstanding). It's just a general feeling directed at the external world and myself for I do acknowledge that I'm unable to call for people's attention loudly since I speak softly. But my SEE friend took it as I dislike him now. He was sad, worried that I won't be able to focus on being productive with all these negative emotions and was scared of actually talking to me. He even made a script to apologise to me but didn't dare to approach me.

After two days of gathering my thoughts at home, and explaining it to some friends whom I'm most close with in the group, I got normal again, laughing and joking around. But I notice the SEE friend being uncharacteristically silent and kept to himself for the whole morning, his eyes were red too. Until it was time for the group acting work where we were forced to interact. Seeing me being like my normal self joking around and all, he let loose a bit and were like 40% of his usual loudness.

When he got home, he texted my close friend(an ESI) whom I explained to why I was angry, to ask for the reasons. The ESI was on my side because she did witness me calling for him and he didn't notice, we even joked about it. She relayed exactly what I told her about how I were just in a general bad mood and the anger wasn't solely directed at him, that there were many other external factors that made me felt ignored too. He insisted on it being his fault that he let me down. He then got mad. I did say things like I felt disrespected and my opinions not worth considered, that much disappointed the SEE, since he believed himself to always care about what his close friends had to say. He filmed himself deleting the online game our group would play together just because I started being sad and cold after a match(I was in a bad mood, there were too many laughters around me so I was annoyed, not because of the game itself).

My ESI friend has access to all our social media accounts on her phone. Later, she capped pics of him talking to an older figure about me. He didn't update the new version of the story to her after he knew it. He asked if he were a bad person. And he asked if he should be humble, take the blame and apologise anyway despite feeling like he didn't do anything wrong. She told him not to and that he should hold himself to a high standards, if I didn't initiate first then he guess it was never meant to be. The conversation had a joking tone that my ESI friend greatly disliked. The ESI told me not to talk to the SEE friend first, she felt like I was going to be forced to participate in their games just for their satisfaction, that he did wrong first and to demand an apology from me instead is stupid. She also thought to break off friendships over such a simple matter is ridiculous. Honestly, he seemed really sad, she capped another text of the SEE texting a guy friend(that had a reputation for being weird and got blocked by the SEE himself on many occasions), asking for a hug.

Personally, I'm fine with no apologies from anyone. My anger is fast come fast leave, I would just move on like usual, there's no need to overcomplicate the matters, or a need for formal apologies. I know that one of the reasons I got mad was because of my own weakness, and I had unfortunately affected others with my frustration, at the smallest things they do that remind me of that weakness. I think the SEE is refusing to listen to reasons by not telling the older figure the full story and is too deep in his self hatred, the older figure saying 'this was his unlucky year' in the conversation just adds to it.

I still had the POV that things would soon return to normal, since it had always been like that for me whenever I get angry. Idk about him though but he does seem like the type to not be able to just cut someone off and ignore them for long. He's very social and emotionally invested in his friends, which is an endearing attribute.

Is the one to first initiate going to be on the losing side? I'm afraid that he would have that mentality, encouraged by the older figure, and not initiate a conversation with me. As for me, I'm terrified to initiate anything, not that to be on the losing side is bad, but initiating is scary. I guess I need something to reassure me since I never had his anger directed at me before.

Do you think this can still make sense?

I should clarify. I meant psychosophy, not AP.

https://preview.redd.it/p25z2tyz7byd1.jpg?width=1314&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=592b6059203deebd3a497b566842ee73e4c5433a

Everyone has this idea that men get along better with other men and women get along better with other women. And that men and women do not get along, but they love and are attracted to each other nonetheless. Therefore, gays and lesbians are lucky to be attracted to each other because they are of the same sex and get along easily. I don’t believe this is true. Straight men and straight women are SOUL MATES. They are not just compatible romantically. They are compatible in any collaboration you can think of. Business partners, coworkers, etc. For example, if you are a straight man, you are more compatible with a woman than a man. For example, an SLE straight male and an SEI straight male could be good friends. However, an SLE straight male and an SEI straight female are just as compatible in Socionics, but they are still better. This is because the relationship has the chance to go an extra step (in other words, become sexual). And even if they don’t, I do believe straight men benefit from the femininity of straight women and straight women benefit from the masculinity of straight men. I believe our current society has an incorrect assumption of what it means to be masculine and feminine, but I believe it exists nonetheless.

In my experience, this idea that straight men and straight women don’t get along comes from the fact that when people have same-sex friends, it tends to be their identical. (Even if it isn’t, if it is some other Socionics relation, their relationships are much cooler because they aren’t as emotionally invested as they would be with the opposite gender). However, when straight people and gay and lesbians alike get into romantic relationships, it tends not to be their identical (because people aren’t mostly attracted to their identical, that’s weird) or their dual (because most romantic relationships aren’t duals).

Gay men and lesbians are soulmates as well. They have what the other one needs. It is the natural order of things. However, this post is dedicated to straight men and straight women because this idea that society has that men and women are natural enemies is just plain depressing and, in my hopeful opinion, untrue.

Of course, I have no tangible evidence to back up anything I said. It’s really not something you can back up. But so is the idea that men and women are natural enemies. You can’t really prove that, can you? Besides, I believe my point of view makes a lot more sense than society’s point of view of the relationship between straight men and women… if you believe Socionics is true.

This is completely head canon and my personal opinion! Let me know if you’d change something

From the most socially extraverted (stereotypically) to the least (closer to social ambiversion or introversion):

• 1. ESE
• 2. SEE
• 3. EIE
• 4. IEE
• 5. SLE
• 6. LIE
• 7. ILE & LSE

What kind of work or careers would an IEI be good at? Anything other than "artist".

so whenever i'm in a new environment or am meeting new people, i tend to act overly familiar with them. not inappropriately, but i will just start talking to people i've never met before as if i've known them a long time and we're already friends.

some people like this but i've noticed a small minority that seems kind of put off by it, like i get the vibe they're all like "why is this person assuming we're friends?"

in reality i'm not necessarily trying to be their friend, this is just how i treat people. i tend to treat everybody like this unless they are a genuinely close friend or i hate them (which is rare). i also tend to talk a lot and can sometimes dominate the conversation without meaning to, making me feel like an idiot. is this fi-polr or something else?

edit: it can sometimes be awkward in the other way where people think i'm actually tryna be super close to them and start following me around all the time, which confuses as in my mind we aren't even "friends" necessarily, although i will always indulge them as i don't care as long as they're fun to talk to/will listen to me yap

What's your type and do you play World of Warcraft? If so, what spec(s) do you play at what content and why?

title.

I'm playing with the idea that ILE might be my best fit. The following is the first part of a compilation of my properties, derived with the best of my introspective abilities. Feel free to critique, lecture, ask, propose, comment, etc.

We all know it: If you want to score high in Ne on any online test you pull the marker to the right whenever you read "curiosity" or "boredom". I never did that; in fact, it took me a very long time to truly think about how much of a curious person I might actually be.

I now believe that people can have a tremendous problem deciphering the artifacts of their base function in their life and character. (Maybe irrationality and extraversion increases this effect; I think especially Ti leads have a much easier time.)

After all, I found curiosity and boredom to play an enormous role in my life - I just had to widen my instinctive association of those words. Without thinking about it, I had always emphasized the physical aspect, imagining some kind of explorer, some person always on the move. In this sense, I've never been "curious"; in fact, I am far from travelling, "exploring the world". This significantly influenced the way I thought about myself.

Starting from the other side, considering what I am actually doing and why, took me a while. I could not find any real overarching concept. Everything I do I do in phases. I have Socionics phases, for example, where I am active on reddit. The content of these phases is very mixed in typological terms. Lots of them are just playing pc games; others are creative writing; others are math and programming related; others educational (I work as an afternoon teacher on the side); - it makes really no sense to iterate over them, as there is no typological direction they point towards. This made my self-evaluation from the point of what I actually do quite frustrating.

In everyone of those phases I am best described as fixated, often to an awkward (autistic?) degree. I can't think about anything else. To the detriment of my friends, I can't talk about anything else (for very long), either. Phases change radically. For example, I play wow and get keystone hero on several chars, invest every second of my time into the game (both playing and informing myself externally); then, the next day, I might wake up - with another thing in mind - and never think about the game for months.

Slowly (and in phases) it came to me, that the only real guidance in my endeavors is come kind of drive to discover. This holds for anything but playing pc games. In everything else I do, I do it to come up with something myself; to discover something. Any theory I read, any programming language I learn, any math concept I indulge in - all is just a means to a very very subtle end: To use it to discover something truly "original". Part of you know these """expansions""" of theory from my threads. Part of a part of you thinks I have bad Ti because of it - fair enough. For example, I may find a something in math and then I get this feeling that I can uncover a lot with it in the realm of typology. You might think it is trash, but I will be happy having formulated it.

This way I somewhat found myself as a person who is more than anything guided by the desire to uncover stuff - in any direction possible. But this "possible" is precisely what made my relation to Ne so contradictory: There are a lot of subjects where it is largely impossible to "be original". Socionics is a good example of this conflict. My attraction to typology lies party in it being a more or less coherent theory that tries to categorize emergent phenomena. In my opinion, this process is not completed. This is what makes the other part. There is still this leeway, the theory is in parts open to discussion, etc. - And it is exactly this property, of something unfinished, not yet closed, that I gravitate towards.

To be clear (and to the frustration of my dear Ti leads): I don't even want typology to "be finished". A chemical reaction may definitively end in a specific resulting element, but it may set free other reagents while its happening. Well, I'm here for those side-effects. It is not just "fun", in fact, it often is frustrating. But it is the only thing I find truly worthwhile doing, without really knowing why.

Under the new premise of being a "curious" person, heavily and almost exclusively motivated by discovery, other things in my life made more sense, too. For example, I think a lot about people. Not specific people, not personal stuff - but at the same time not "humanity", not in super abstract, macroscopic, or philosophical questions. I've always studied everyone around me as a mechanism whose inner workings I want to discover. How do people work? - is a question so central to how and why I do things, as nothing else. And it is the same theme: A world with little rules; a total freedom of premises and experiments, all readily available in front of my nose.

This is something I learned about myself on reddit: Most often my "discussions" here are primary motivated as being some kind of experiment. I honestly and most dearly want to figure out what the other person is all about; their angle towards Socionics, extrapolated to "how they work". But as soon as I (believe I) have found this angle, I'm done. I don't need to "win" the discussion; I'd like to further test my angle, but as soon as I feel the other person has really nothing more to show, as soon as no new impressions follow, I immediately lose the rest of my interest and continue, if at all, to troll.

Of course, this theme holds somewhat for my RL interactions, but here I am much more careful, nice and try to make compromises unless I feel really save. Still, I do know very well how it feels to "have figured out a person and then not knowing what to do with them". It's somewhat funny: People are in so many ways the main interest in my life, but there aren't any actual people that interest me for long; that I specifically like or enjoy talking to more than to others. (I wouldn't spout that around in RL, for example. It happened once, and a long term friend who always cared about me was very disappointed. When I get angry such things tend to "escape" me.)

This is only the small part of the negative aspects of my undirected, uncompromising direction of attention. The bigger part is much worse:

In general, I am not a very stressed person. My work capacity is low and I have no "drive" in the area of career or related things. The people around me, mostly my parents, formed the way I am walking still today.

People around me (teachers, friends, parents) often told me about my potential of the like: "You got all the chances in the world! Do something with it!" I was and am very disinteresting in anything like a path through life. I behave more like a leave in the wind, so of course my parents felt the need to enforce some structure and long term planning. They always had the opinion that "my math capabilities shouldn't go to waste", so I started studying math right after school.

My first semester was the first time where I felt to not be able to do an exercise, even with trying. It was horrible. I felt so irritated, was totally lost and didn't know what to do. I did not know what it meant to really study. I did not know that there was some deeper understanding of things. The metric of investment, of "time = understanding" was completely against how I understood life.

In a lecture I usually felt like I was able to follow; it all made sense, like in school. Again, this is hard to describe, but I learned back then that its possible that you might think that you understand something - but actually have not, - at least, not as deep as it goes, maybe not specific enough, I don't know. However, it was painful to learn these things. Not the math, but learning the learning part and not being able to solving something for some time. Basically I had no strategy for those cases. And I ran away from the problem.

I stopped studying math and switched subjects numerous times. Of course, my parents kept me in the realm of STEM, so I went through a bunch of things, got experience at math, physics, and computer science, but most importantly, studying in general. Soon I will have my degree in theoretical computer science. I still regret leaving math, but at the same time I would not have found computer science if I stayed, so it's not all bad.

I tell you all this, because it really shows the extent of what important part of life I am completely lost in, due to curiosity so single-handedly controlling me. I simply cannot force myself to study things I don't find "interesting". Even if everything is on the line. I can force myself to sit there, but my head won't start to "really think" the way it usually does without anyone asking it to. I have almost no control of the content of my attention. And I don't just say this because it sounds like hip adhd funny vibes.

In some way, curiosity even consumed large parts of my life. Being clueless how to manage something like university, I developed theories how I could force myself to have an easier time studying, etc. This lead me to extract more and more "pointless" stuff from my life. For example, I deliberately did not make any friends (not even contacts) when I switched to CS. Before, I've always had friends and uni was full of people I met with, discussed things, etc.

I basically became paranoid what the magical influence might be that made life so hard for me, while others seemed to have a much easier time. Often I was speechless when old friends from math or physics told me about a CS problem they were stuck with. Of course, I was extremely motivated figuring it out for them and then very surprised that their shit wasn't even that hard. In my mind, all other people who's journeys through uni were less chaotic than mine, were geniuses, because they managed so casually what cost me so much.

I gave up my social contacts, I still live in an empty room with white walls, I basically stripped as much as I could from my life in the hope that, finally being out of alternatives, my mind would organically gravitate towards my uni subjects like it gravitated to other things. For some subjects this even worked: There were things I got extremely interested in. Most often in second order, though: the subjects by themselves were whatever, but I could imagine using them to getting at something else, (like a math concept applied in typology).

In general, though, no matter how bare-boned I lived, my mind always found its way into these phases. And they seldom had something to do with the things I should do - I can't tell you how I hate this "should".

Funny thing is: I would not describe myself as a lazy person at all; but for other people this is the only explanation. The people around me respect me intellectually. My friends cannot grasp what I do, why I don't simply "get it done"; what else there could be that seems to be so much more important. I can hardly explain it. For example, a hyperfixation resulting in a theory like this - how do you explain something like this to someone who is not even interested in typology? On some level, I really fear the question of: "Why would you invest time in this?"

The point is: no matter what type I am, my experience with Ne is something very different from: "OMG I can come up with so much possibilities!", "Yadda yadda I am so good at brainstorming!", "XDD my mind connects abstract things all the time!", "UwU, I am so daydreamy." - All of this watered down bs made me even more oblivious to how Ne fit myself typologically.

All of this "Jumping from idea to idea!". I don't feel like I am constantly jumping. I may jump radically, situationally, but when I am fixated I am x-ray penetration style focused in extraction mode. In such situations I feel like I have found the key to the universe and things could probably explode left and right, I would finish whatever it is.

Having said this, it may sound unbelievable, but sometimes it is only a meal that passes when I question any relevance of my recent undertaking. It is not that I run around with a collection of projects I am proud of, lol. I couldn't care less about the last project; I'm already 100% invested in the next. Like some people on reddit, in these moments of retrospection I honestly question if I'm retarded.

I cosider other types, mostly EIE. I have absolutely no problem with a feeling type in general, especially with Fi in the ignoring position; I just cannot see myself being a rational type, as long as the concept of irrationality exists. Why would I, a person with the life-defining problems I just described, be a rational type. I don't see it.

Originally I was going to just comment this, but I put in a lot of research and time into writing this and thought it would be worth sharing with everyone:

I do agree with most of what you wrote except I was pretty much lost though when you said that there was "pretty much no feeling in Socionics."

Aushra herself described Fe as "individual receives information about the object’s excitation and excitability, and people’s moods and emotions" and Fi as "individual receives information about the attractive or repulsive force of the objects and subjects, about whether they need each other, about likes and dislikes, love and hatred." If moods, emotions, likes/dislikes (aka attraction/repulsion, like a magnet), and love/hatred aren't "feeling," then I don't know what is.

That being said, I do see for myself that "ethics is about the organization of people." I so much as said so myself when I made a post discussing feeling (and how it's more primitive than thinking). Specifically, I talked about how Fi, due to its property of generating feelings of attraction/repulsion (like a magnet), is crucial for the formation of tribes as well as us vs them (aka us vs 'not us'). This is likely where the MBTI idea that Fi is related to values+identity comes from.

I don't completely agree with this notion, but I don't completely disagree either. Right away, I can take myself as an example. Assuming Fi vulnerable means that I don't process information regarding Fi that must mean that I do not have values or an identity. Well, that's obviously not right. xLEs have their own values and having an identity is an objective reality for everyone (outside cases of mental illness I suppose). However, if you think about how Fi manifests in individuals, especially strong/valued Fi types, hopefully you can understand why people describe the Fi they experience as being their values+identity. People who experience gender dysphoria for example are often people with strong Fi, experiencing a strong feeling that resonates with other people of the opposite sex rather than their own biological sex (us vs 'not us' aka me vs 'not me'). Culture is another example of something that is often related to Fi, simply due to the feelings of attraction/repulsion we feel. From culture arises ethical/moral values and our cultural identity.

Going back to ethics vs feeling, that's not only supported by Jung and Aushra, but by historical psychology from thousands of years back. Sensing, Feeling, Thinking, and Intuition (4 different types of information) have always been recognized, though often under different names. For example, we have Physical/Body/Gut, Emotional/Soul/Heart, Mental/Brain/Mind, and Spiritual/Mind/Soul.

Ethics vs Logic are just the Socionics words to describe the same dichotomy of Feeling/Emotional/Heart/Soul vs Thinking/Mental/Brain/Mind. It's important to note though that the Russian word "etika" that was translated into "ethics" is not used in exactly the same way as we use it in English (assuming you don't know Russian).

For example:

"novaya etika (new ethics) is used to describe a new moral sensitivity in the West and to make sense of debates about changing views on culture, history, and morality"

The word ethics in Socionics is thus literally meant to describe not just ethics but morals, values, culture, as well as the emotion that come with all of it. Funny enough, my analogy relating gender dysphoria to introverted ethics happens to exactly parallel Russians relating gender and race "sensitivities" (aka identity) in the West as "ethics."

Even though English is my primary language, I'm a native Russian speaker, so I will try to share my understanding of the language to help further this community's understanding of Socionics (I've just got to start by reading Socionics paper in Russian more often lol). Regardless, I would like to encourage everyone to understand that there is always a nuance to language and that sometimes your understanding of what was said misses the intended meaning.

Your takeaway should be that ethics in socionics is related to:

- feelings/emotions

- culture/identity/tribes

- morals/values/ethics

- attraction/repulsion

- moods/vibes and emotional states

At the most technical level, Fe is described as the "transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy" and Fi is described as the "subjective relations between two objects or subjects -- attraction and repulsion." Also, Ethics (alongside Sensation) is known as "involved" (as opposed to abstract/detached Intuition and Logic), which means that Ethics are experienced in the body of the individual through visceral "feelings" (just like sensing is experienced in the body through visceral "sensations"). However, due to Ethics also being implicit/internal alongside Intuition (as opposed to explicit/external Sensation and Logic), ethics (aka feelings) must be interpreted by the individual. Both of these parts together are why Ethics and Feeling are one and the same thing in Socionics.

I have personally been liking to describe ethics/feelings as "electromagnetic energy." Where Fe is the frequency/vibration (aka vibes) literally demonstrated through waves that are experienced/expressed by the individual and that resonate/synchronize with others, while Fe is the magnetic attraction/repulsion literally demonstrated through a magnetic field of feelings that help people orient/align themselves into relationships with other people (aka us or them, tribes+groups, friends/enemies, etc).

I know that's a major part of fi in mbti, but in socionics it seems to be more about relationships. Morality is smthn that's mentioned, but it doesn't seem like a part of the function itself. So is morality an important part of defining fi?

I(ESE) find time and time again that eventually, relations will breakdown with any Fi valuer i get close to and it just leads to conflict and drama and everything goes to crap, i feel like i don't wanna have anything to do with Fi valuers anymore tbh, or at the very least, keep them at a GOOD distance, like a simple acquaintance. i don't feel like i can truly express myself around them, or make the jokes i want to make. lots of misunderstanding as well that eventually devolve to conflict. im tired. ill stick to Fe valuers from now on, while that doesn't necessarily mean that i will get AMAZINGLY along with all of them, i sure as hell will get along with them significantly better and vibe.

do any of you feel the same about the other? like maybe Fi valuers feeling this way about Fe valuers and vise versa? im curious to know other people's thoughts on this.

Don't want her in my life.

She used her children for her own means.

Want her to understand and embarrass her on every attempt she tries to get back in our lives.

I'm curious what you would say the roles of the 16 types are. For the sake of time, I don't expect each of you to describe the roles of ALL the 16 types (unless you want to), but maybe just give 1-3 roles/archetypes of whatever types you are most familiar with. Just 1 type is great. Also, look through the comments before to see if any type is being ignored and write about that. I know the EIIs will probably want to hear about themselves because they often worry they are useless to society.

I'll start. For example...

SEI: the caretaker/nurse, responsible for the emotional well-being of self+others through routine and/or detail-oriented tasks

And...

LSI: the enforcer of laws and proper conduct, develops and follows systematic structures to maintain order and civility

It's alright if you disagree with me or others who comment because the goal is to try to get as much feedback from this community. That requires constructive engagement, so don't get into long back and forth disagreements that drown out other people's input.

Let's see what we come up with

So I (typed myself as EII, got typed as IEI at times, some people said I might be from gamma quadra) get along with SLE if we keep distance - basically it works fine when he takes care of things I am bad at (but I still think he is a hick because he is overly sexual around people and says gross stuff basically very r- vibes even though he wouldn't do it but still disgusting that he gives off that vibe anyway). But then things get bad because I refuse to work overtime. In my mind, if I am not paid for overtime, why would I work? But this SLE is an idiot, I tolerated his stupid opinion for a while until we just started shouting at each other. And now SEI is also mad at me because I did not do the work properly because it was overtime and I was in a hurry, didn't have time to do work after my shift. Whatever. Why don't people understand that TIME IS MONEY, I REFUSE TO WORK OVERTIME AND THEN DEAL WITH INJUSTICE EVERY DAY, RECENTLY SOME PEOPLE CHOSE TO STEAL F***ING TOBACCO AND NOW EACH OF US HAS TO PAY 2,5% OF MONTHLY SALARY BECAUSE SOMEONE DECIDED TO PROFIT DUE TO NO CAMERAS IN THAT AREA, NOT OUR FAULT THEY DIDN'T SECURE THAT AREA, MANAGEMENT IS SO BAD. I HATE INJUSTICE, SO WHY WOULD I WORK OVERTIME AND GIVE MY MONEY FOR SOMETHING I DID NOT DO ON TOP OF THAT!? I am annoyed.

Have you ever noticed that there is no feeling in Socionics?

tl;dr: Intro- and extraverted feeling are often explained incorrectly on this sub. This thread clarifies what Socionics' Fe and Fi are and are not about. We will contrast the Socionics versions from their MBTI pendants and look at the history of these elements, starting from their Jungian origin. If you are just interested in how both elements show in Socionics, skip to the last chapter.

Jungian origins

Technically, there is only ethics. While these terms are used interchangeably across various models, the difference already hints at discrepancies in how MBTI and Socionics differ in their modelling of the psyche.

Prior to the inspection of specific functions or elements, let's take a look at the broad dichotomy shared in Jung's original typology, and its successors, Feeling/Thinking. Again, literally there is no feeling in Socionics. Still, the basic idea of the F/T dichotomy translates well from Jung to Socionics.

Jung's ideas come from a time where not only psychological theory, but also societal conventions and expectations were quite different from anything we have today. With Thinking Jung differentiates a well-ordered, rational (in the non typological meaning), factual mind from it's Feeling pendants. Jung does not present Feeling as anything less than Thinking. He tries to give Feeling its own, positive pronunciation and skill expression, but it is apparent that more of his thoughts went into the differentiation of the Thinking functions.

In general, Jung seemed to care about the direction psychology was taking at this time. The introduction of introversion as a trait, even the idea of contingent traits as a whole, can be understood as a defense of his own, analytical approach, towards therapy. In the description of both extra- and introverted Thinking this gets the most apparent.

Jung's feeling functions lack this degree of specificity. The descriptions are surely based on Jung's rich experience with patients, but, reading between the lines, you could make the argument that they are primarily motivated by Jung's love for symmetry. Again, this does not mean Jung found Thinking Types inherently more interesting, but that his interests at the time were expressed better in a differentiation of the Thinking functions.

This leads to an asymmetry of leeway for Jung's successors.

The MBTI: identity curation as a marketing scheme

For the purpose of this thread, "the MBTI" is the conglomerate of theory, anecdotes, and memes that spread across various blogs, websites, YouTube channels, and forums, but lack any definitive central platform of consistent understanding (like Wikisocion for Model A, for example).

Most of the MBTI content is created for profit, only situationally in the form of typing, more so in the form of attention. MBTI is easy to indulge in, meme-able par excellence, and so on; to be productive in the realm of the MBTI is to create content that is first and foremost relatable.

While Myers-Briggs may have started with an honest desire to take Jung's ideas and work out typical similarities and differences between people on a massive scale, their whole endeavor was overtaken quickly by the market oriented curation of identity. It is this orientation that stood the test of time, showing not only in commercially motivated websites like 16personalities, but also the theory itself.

Expressed in its own theory, the MBTI may have started as an Fe-Ti endeavor, overtaken by the Fi-Te fabrication of identity to make profit. Notice that Fe, Ti, Te, and Fi are not understood as their Socionics pendants! To avoid confusion, we will name information elements by their one-letter abbreviation (E, L, P, R, and so on).

The MBTI attributes the values of a person to introverted feeling. Introverted Feeling is the locus of identity, the individualistic scream against a hollow, overly technical, business oriented society. We can easily see how this definition is appealing to a young audience that rebels against something, doesn't feel understood, etc. (Maybe this theme has accelerated after the business world realized how well the hippie movement can be marketed.)

Jung's description of his introverted Feeling leaves enough room for this extension to come off as reasonable. Ultimately, though, it does not matter if Jung would or would not approve. MBTI's Fi is one of its modelling choices like any other.

One implication of this is the definition of MBTI's Fe. Fe is precisely not this deep, rebellious, authentic voice of individuality. It seeks harmony. The accent here lies on: compromising, bending, etc. The feeling dichotomy of MBTI becomes a confrontation of authenticity and group reliance; of sigma versus alpha, in newer terms.

The introduction of this dichotomy greatly impacts how we think about MBTI types. "How true is this type to his most inner values? How will they get expressed? Will he bow before the hive or stay true to himself?" - These questions can be discussed with MBTI terminology, reasoning about the positions of the feeling and thinking functions.

Socionics

In Socionics this is different. Socionics is in large parts blind to the upper dichotomy. Being harmonious, quiet, and patient is a marker of R, the Ethics of relations. But this not necessarily connected to the caveat the MBTI's dichotomy suggests. Socionics does not understand the individual to be in continuous conflict with its environment, protecting its personal values from "the group".

Socionics does not reserve some reservoir for values, guarded under the authority of an information element. Certain values correlate with certain types, the resistance to external influences is a marker of power sensing F. These motives are present, but model-wise they are ordered differently and spread. ILE does not have "less identity" than EII; EIE will intuitively organize and care how he/she comes off, but not to the detriment of any "authenticity".

Ethics and its orientations

You can easily read online what the elements are and what they do in each position for every model. When it comes to ethics, though, people seem to be unable to erase the MBTI influence in their understanding. Here is my correction of what I see most commonly wrongly proclaimed:

Ethics is not primarily about feelings and emotions. Ethics is about the organization of people. Ethical types have a natural skill of organizing themselves and others in desirable ways for the individual/group.

R inhabits the sphere of relations. It is about connection, trust, mutual understanding. E inhabits the sphere of influence. It is about reach, communication, and expression. For both elements emotions are of heightened importance, but only in an informational sense. Every type gets emotional; sometimes in different, type-specific circumstances; the position of E then indicates how these emotions get expressed/exchanged.

Emotions are one of many mediums for E. They are also intuitively of interest for R. But even on an informational level, emotions are not limited to ethical functions: For example, I (extraverted intuition), will seek to discover or unveil emotions, etc.

EIE will not necessarily perceive him-/herself as an emotional person. We all grow up in the same reality, where school and various other institutions demonstrate that the approach of an opera singer will come off as cringe and will rarely lead to the desired results. But there are endless ways and expressions of skill to make people understand you, be on your side, like you, make you accepted, cool, etc.

Good E will find its way. Given average intelligence and upbringing on their side, you will find people with good E - at least - something; but there will be people around them who find them nice, cool, smart, informed, whatever, exactly the way they desire.

If I had to describe the self-perception of high E (especially with EIE, due to extraverted intuition demo), it would be to have a choice in who you want to be for people, to have control what you want to portrait - this has nothing to do with being emotional? Fe lead is the often unconscious and internalized assuredness of: "Whatever I serve them, they will eat it."

Vulnerable Se in my case. It just feels like I'm incapable of doing anything even when I know I should. Any of the rare times the urge to do something is enough to push me I still feel self conscious doing it. Feel like I've never been an active participant in my life. Essentially just a ragdoll dependent on other people to do anything. I suppose my environment probably also complicates things because I haven't really felt supported in my life and that makes things worse for pretty obvious reasons. If I'm going to be a ragdoll I'd at least like whoever's playing with me to be nice about it.. Essentially locked into being a support class whether I like it or not.

I added a drawing because I figured these posts are pretty boring otherwise.

I've only read some socionics theory and am not deeply familiar with the different models or theories within it, so I'm not confident typing myself. I suspect LII or EII the most, I have also looked a little into SEI or ILI.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQNq3DQck16yNaTTdOqIE9tl8ZTI1IJqZkkhCfhU0yQoCfTqY56fEW7mEXivg4KFXibNtqqt3_AOe7-/pub

Err I haven’t really dive deep into enneagram enough to say anything, just trying to figure out what is what

I believe I am 1 sp/so.. key word believe— had someone help me with this..? I am very open to hear your thoughts and opinions

Still learning about socionics, but I'm pretty confident I'm either EIE or LIE (would consider ILE if someone made a strong argument for it). I'm sure I'm Ni creative, Si polr, but am unsure about Fe base vs role. Here is my thought process:

I would describe myself as "attuned" to the emotional atmosphere, I'm quite intuitively aware of what other people expect and I know how to act in any given situation, athough I'm not particularly outwardly emotionally expressive; I don't see emotions as a concept as inherently useless, but I don't let them get in the way of what needs to get done. I don't relate to the "bluntness" attributed to LIE / Fe role, as I'm careful in ensuring that the words I choose are appropriate. I'm generally described by others irl as empathetic, outgoing, friendly, "good at talking to people" (was described recently as "having a natural ability to do so"), that I "know how to phrase things", but it has been noted by people close to me that even though I'm expressive and don't come across as unfeeling, I never really express what I'm actually feeling myself. So I connect well with others, and will relate to them through what they state and be able to express interests/opinions/etc on it so people think I am able to connect myself, but apparently "I won't mention how I'm actually feeling". Does this seem to lean one way or the other with Fe base vs role function?

I wrote this in another post but now I just want to single out this one point for a discussion.

I'm Fe ego, always thinking about how to portray emotions in a way that is most entertaining to my audience, or to portray an image. Yet, when faced with fellow high Fe users(Base, Creative, Demonstrative, even Mobilizing and Role sometimes), I feel intimidated by just observing how they go at navigating the conversation and diverting people's mood. It's like I go completely speechless, I feel like every movement is awkward, as I let them take control of the conversation, with me scrambling to find something to talk about to gain somewhat of a leverage. I try so hard to be entertaining back, but the way they do it seems so effortless, unlike my conscious efforts. They're so quick-witted while I'm busy converting images in my head to form a coherent sentence which tends to be quite long. While I am told that I'm much entertaining myself, I can't get rid of this intimidation I feel with high Fe people.

Is Fe generally intimidating or is it something outside of socionics-related factors?

Hi, let me try to cut this short:

I feel like I become different types depending on my inner physical state, mostly depending on how much sleep I’ve gotten, or if I smoke weed. I’m an IEI. But when I’m tired I get more in touch with my own morals and inner feelings, along with bodily sensations.

If I’m very tired, it almost feels like I ”become” an SLI. I don’t seem to care about Fe or Ni, just Si and Fi. I also seem to consciously value and consider my sometimes somewhat decent Te. I find Ne humor funny. I strongly feel there must be something to this… but I have never read anything about this.

I’m not too sure on ”becoming” an IEE, but I’ve thought about this whole phenomenon for a couple of years at least, and I THINK I’ve noticed some discrepancy between an ”SLI state” and an ”IEE state”. I can’t put my finger on it right now.

Also, I had a long period of smoking weed, and I’ve concluded that I then ”become an SLE”. Pleasure-seeking; Ni-avoidant; Fi-devoid, etc.

Perhaps this has to do with a split in my psyche from early childhood experiences, or it might be a universal phenomenon, pronounced to various degrees—I don’t know!

What do you think?