I've been meaning to post this for a while, but as we prepare to go into a wider public audience it'll become increasingly more necessary for CT to address the matter of socionics.
I want to start first with the founder, and then with the theory afterwards. Aušra Augustinavičiūtė was the founder of socionics, and she self-typed as ILE ("NeTi"). However, I don't think she was NeTi and I think this fundamental misunderstanding of her type may have played a critical role in the way the entire socionics model is set up.
First we can look at her vultology in this collection of still images:
I looked everywhere and these are the only ones I found of her. No video that I know of, but if someone has any, please feel free to let me know.
For anyone familiar with CT, right away we can see that she has Gamma vultology. And insofar as static photos can tell, the intensity of her brow (conductor), and the containment of her taut square cheeks to the lower part of the face (high-Te) is indicative of a high Te+Ni Gamma. And since we won't get any more footage from her, I would have to place my estimate of her type as TeNi.
Additionally, we read from her that:
Augustinavičiūtė was born not far from the city of Kaunas, in Lithuania. In 1956 she graduated from the economic faculty of Vilnius University as a financier. She worked at the Ministry of Finance of Lithuania and later as a teacher of political economics and sociology in different educational institutions in Vilnius.
From a behavioral standpoint, economics (political economics), finances and teaching all speak to high-Je and specifically to Te-lead. This gives us two points of triangulation. But perhaps the most important is the cognitive one. And this is where it gets interesting.
I can imagine that a lot of Socionics advocates would point to Ausra's theory-focus and theory-building as indicative of "Ti" usage, but this is not really the case, as I think Socionics view of Ti is wrong, insofar as CT and Socionics are both trying to measure the same thing.
Ausra's theory-building is the same sort of systematization that we might see from a programmer (Te is correlated with programming), from theoretical physics (also Te correlated) and mathematics. It is not the sort of philosophical inquiry into essential properties that we see from Ti users in CT. This is procedural, based on "laws" of operation, and indeed in this sense Socionics puts it as:
"Ti: Laws (L) is responsible for understanding logic and structure, categorizations, ordering and priorities, logical analysis and distinctions, logical explanations. L interprets information according to how it fits into a validating system. L is particularly aware of logical consistency and how concepts relate to each other in meaning and structure, independently of particular purposes."
Except Ti is not laws, it's about essential, ontological properties of subjects/singulars, void of procedural or causal contingencies. The above quote, used to describe "L" is true of J more generally, but leaning towards Te the most. The way Ausra went about trying to understand human nature was robotically, very much like Newton, by building a machine of computation that can describe object-to-object interactions. This is Te system-building.
Therefore, we see that Ausra's cognition, vultology and behaviorism all match with a high Te+Ni prognosis.
Now, we could certainly say that Socionics and CT are separate systems and that Socionics has its own self-consistency that should be left to itself. But I don't think that's entirely the case. Ausra's model fails to see how her definition of Ti is actually a subset of the expression of Te, and instead she views Te as only managing the physical dimension. Yet she herself was an economist and displayed those administrative roles.
Socionics, having an 8 function model, has a ready-made explanation for anything like this by allotting it to the other functions in the psyche. But this is itself part of the systemic problem with the model. Since anomalies can always be explained as being due to the influence of the other 4 functions that are not valued, one is essentially allowed to stay in a given typing and rationalize away the gaps with no means of falsifiability.
Furthermore, because of the nature of the socionics model (as being very Te process-oriented), those who are attracted to it are often also those who, like Ausra, have Te and who... also... mistake it for Ti. One such example being the youtuber Jack Oliver Aaron, a high-Te user who types as ILE ("NeTi").
We have had many high Te users come to CT from socionics believing Ti fits them, and we will certainly have more due to the way socionics is setup to cause this skewing of types.
This is not to say all people into socionics are Te users, but what I mean to say is that a lot of conceptually-inclined Te users will go into Socionics, see Ti as descriptive of them, and then rationalize away any other data from the premises of the 8 function model, in a self-consistent but unfalsifiable manner.
What do you guys think? Let me know your thoughts on Socionics, and whether this analysis makes sense.
1) Conductor Brow: Is brow heaviness a factor of usage or anatomy? I think it might be a mixture of both and it may be the case that anatomical features may correlate with psychology, but I wasn’t aware of that signal.
2) Taut Square Cheeks: I don’t understand how the taut square cheeks signal is read without a smile present.
3) Behavior: Economics does match the Te behavioral profile. However, I think I see sociology and politics as more related to the behavior of animate systems. I can more easily wrap Te around engineering than I can the applied social sciences.
4) Theory Building: Modern socionics might also classify itself as more of a Te framework. Modern MBTI may be more Ti in spirit due to it being concerned with static type categories, whereas a socionics and more specifically information metabolism is by definition a dynamic process. In socionics, Ti is static and Te is dynamic.
5) Implications: I don’t think there are separate typology systems. They are all studying discrete patterns in human behavior and thus aiming at the same target from different locations. The correlations I’ve found between CT and WSS celebrity typings is one example of this. When separate theories disagree in science or break down, there is an opportunity to find a deeper underlying theory that encapsulates the strengths of past theories and leave behind some of their weaknesses in order to make progress. I’d imagine that the same goes for typology. A single human being is at root a single system. Everything is interconnected within that system. Therefore, using multiple discrete models to describe the system is not congruent with the reality that there is only a single (albeit complex) system in operation. I already mentioned that economics is literally a social science and thus may be more indicative of Fe as Je is linked to administration in general.
I don’t think socionics has the systemic problem you described. It is an eight function model but it is also an eight slot model. Each of the information elements are defined by combining the seven elemental dichotomies and each of the slots in the model are defined by combining the seven functional dichotomies. There is an explicit dichotomy for describing the other four functions, it is the values subdued dichotomy. It describes our favored and rejected approaches to processing information. I don’t think that the subdued functions are used to automatically account for any discrepancies. Theoretically, each function in socionics is used in a very specific way depending on its location in Model A. Role Te should manifest as Mental, Contact, Situational, Subdued, Accepting, Bold, and Weak. I personally don’t see this as providing lot of wiggle room provided that the dichotomies are each defined rigorously which may or not be the case in practice. The model is falsifiable. If I have lead Ti than I should also display Role Fi, Suggestive Fe and Ignoring Te. If any one of these is not the case, the claim that I have lead Ti can be falsified.
6) Attraction: Not much to say here. Didn’t know where else to put this. In the past you’ve said that my Fe manifests in my interest in understanding my own human behavior. I see socionics as along the same lines it is a model of human information metabolism. It’s not building a system to understand inanimate causalities, it is strictly animate. Because of this I see socionics as more of an Fe system given my current understanding of the Je functions.
^ I was just shown this video from someone on Discord.
Yep! She looks TeNi.
(hey Supah! will reply more in a bit)
Hey Auburn, it seems from your article and this forum post that you are now ready to have our debate on the comparative merits of Socionics and Vultology.
Do you have availability next week?
And goodness, I was so fat back then 😀
I'll PM you to work out a time.
It makes a lot of sense that the founder of Socionics had mistyped as a Fe user when she was a Te user.
I don't have a contribution about the founders of the whole system, but I do have some personal experience studying Socionics for about 3-4 years and joining groups toward the last year. I thought I was ESI, which is FiSe, one step away from my type. I was very open to SeFi, but I am a social introvert with a long-term vision for my life. I don't need a Ni lead to tell me to see past my nose - I was practically born with a vision that I followed through on. This was my hesitation with Se, although I strongly related to volition, force, using clothes & aesthetics to make an impact, etc. Also I related to the structure of the type. Fi creative, Fe demonstrative, Ti polr, Te HA, and Si ignoring. This all made sense to me.
I loved some of the distinctions in the literature about Se and Si. The Se descriptions here have REALLY improved and come closer to the good parts of Socionics, but I'm still not seeing the Si principles in the literature. The CT members who are typed Si/Ne seem to agree with me (and Socionics), at least the ones whose opinions have come to my attention. In socionics, Se is about using visuals or aesthetics to make an impact. It is more alert to objective beauty, the power of beauty, things like that - whereas Si is about feeling the sensuality inside your own body. While Socionics would propose that Se leads have high Si and Si leads have high Se (suggesting both types have a grasp on both), it also proposes that Se leads ignore Si and Si leads ignore Se, because it's impossible to operate in both "main" modes at once. For a Se lead, operating in Si mode would require a change of your most basic mindset. So basically, most of the time, Se leads are ignoring the way things feel inside their body, as it gets in the way of their flow, their volition and their need to keep going, expend force and continue. They may have an intricate sense of physicality, but they are not stopping to smell the roses because that interrupts the flow. And the same would be true in reverse. The inner sensory experience of Si feeling the sensations and savoring the tastes means they have to ignore that Se volition & force in order to prioritize the inner experience of sensation. Jung, too, basically proposed this - he talks about Se leads being aesthetes, and Si leads having more attunement to inner sensory experience. He does describe Se leads as sensual and chasing new sensations, however, and I feel that Socionics took this distinction and made it much more clear and realistic when explaining how these two types actually operate. That theory of mine seems to have held up inside this community, though I am curious to explore it more.
With this in mind it was much easier for me to differentiate Ne from Se quadras, even before I found CT -- although I've made one or two mistakes; I've been consistently good at this distinction. After Socionics, however, I felt like I had a caricature of Ne that made the function seem 'pointless' -- so I came here wondering what Ne actually meant and what it's really about. From interacting with the members who are Ne lead, and placing @Devon as Ne lead, I've understood it a lot more. I felt like in Socionics communities there was an overall sense that Ne-Si quadras are more about exchanging aimless ideas and enjoying random sensations, which did not speak well for them - but I always know that sweeping generalizations like this, which apply to half the population, must have some internal error. So that's why I was determined to understand "What is the POINT of Ne/Si -- what good does it do in society or for the individual?" when I got here. I certainly was not getting that from Socionics boards, as even self-typed Ne leads often made it sound like it's good for trolling and nothing more, and Si is good if your wife is Si and cooks. On CT, I drew my own conclusions about the real people here. I notice Ne is more open minded to really consider different ideas (what if they DO have a point?) and slowly synthesize this into their world view, because it doesn't have to be one view the way it is for Se-Ni, where "as above, so below" and the world view is holistic --- instead it's divergent, so it can consider many possible avenues and then draw conclusions, or pathways, from different sides. I've seen this valuable skill demonstrated in @Auburn himself as well as others. I see how @teatime argues politics. This also allows Ne quadras to be good with words in a way that Se isn't. Of course, aptitude varies among individuals and types (FeNi is very articulate, often times).... but there's a certain ability with wordplay, choosing the most interesting word from many possible ones, perhaps? and conceptual overlay that I don't see in Se quadras quite the same way. Socionics communities were not able to recognize this in a way that made sense to me, and it made me wonder if a lot of prominent self-typed Ne leads were mistyped. Also, Delta kind of felt like the dumping ground for stupid or ineffective people. There was a lot of prejudice against Delta, and I even picked this up in the literature before joining a community.
And finally we get to Fe/Ti vs. Te/Fi. This was the biggest mess of all!
From the first day I entered WSS, I started arguing. and arguing. and arguing. I was typing as ESI and open to other gamma types since, based on what the literature said, not to mention the Filatova portraits (pictures of people) -- I was CLEARLY Gamma. I had been tentative about Delta or Gamma XF until the moment I found socionics , when I said, Gamma is my jam, period. There were some Beta principles in me which I now know comes from my father. (The rest of my family may have some Beta as well.) But the difference between Gamma values and the rest was loud and clear, and could not possibly apply more. The complex of tied hands, attributed to Gamma, was so spot on - and something I knew about myself thoroughly after losing my voice and ability to do music. There are so many complexes I could have developed, but that was the one. (As a side note, the "complexes" of each quadra are extremely accurate and informative, if you ignore the more extreme, dehumanizing junk.)
However, I got to WSS and suddenly I was told I just HAD TO be FeNi or NiFe. Beta NF! What's even worse is that @Ivory, who is clearly different from me typology wise, ALSO was typed as Beta NF. What possibly could explain this?! I saw so many people typing at Beta NF and straining for that typing - it was like a craze! I don't remember how to find this video but at the time I saw @Echidna say somewhere that he gave out his test at a college and 70% typed at Beta NF... or something like that. And that reflected my experience not only on WSS, but also on other Socionics forums I joined.
I knew exactly why this was the case. In Enneagram communities, when there are polls, 80% of members type as four, and usually most of the rest as 5. In RH books, 4 and 5 are the only descriptions who are HUMAN, with depth, intelligence, creativity, uniqueness etc. Especially 4. So everyone initially assumes they are one of those types. (The more aggressive people assume 7 and 8, because those are given assertiveness and fun, as well.). The same thing was clearly happening in Socionics. The Beta NF descriptions were human. These people could be smart, but still passionate. Top scholars, but still expressing feelings. Interesting, yet really caring about correct data. They could be social or shy, artistic or political, romantic or upstanding, etc. Of course, the whole community decided that Beta NFs are usually fours (which makes NO sense when you think about what the types actually mean) --- because four was the most human popularized enneagram description, and Beta NF, likewise, the most human Socionics description. The rest were wannabes, pale imitations, caricatures and one-sided cardboard people, in both systems.
Hamlet is an obvious six. "To be or not to be?" This is not four stuff, it's head stuff. Fours don't question their beingness or identity, they express it. They are heart types. Hamlet is the namesake for EIE.
Some of the mistakes like this were so nonsensical I did not know where to begin, but I assumed I just didn't understand enough, and went into the forum and addressed my own type. Immediately I had to be EIE. I argued that I don't care about group sentiment. I express my own feelings. And I posted Jung quotes and MBTI quotes, differentiating Fe from Fi. So many of them! For instance, Fe is persuasive whereas Fi has trouble getting it out in words. Fe is connected to Ti which parses out concepts; Te is pragmatic. With Fi-Te, there's one side that is a hard-nosed pragmatist and one that has separate, individual inner feelings, morals and identity that need to be expressed-- with Gamma SF, often through aesthetics. On the other hand Fe-Ti assumes rules of conduct, honor and group morality; then the Ti parses out what is truly behind this. Although both types can comprehend both sides of this, the way it is conducted moment to moment is clearly different. I am not warm-smiling, persuasive etc; my charm is my lack of charm. My sloppiness in expression, stuttering to get the words out. My 'authenticity' as many people have called it. But you know, I'm intense, colorful, expressive, emotive -- so I must be Beta NF. At least they type Milo as Beta NF, too. At least they're consistent in that regard!
I was told Fi does not express its own feelings, it just remains quiet to preserve the friendships. Fi is "relations," so apparently Fi goes out of its way to maintain peace among the friends...
Like, at that point, everything falls apart. How does this connect to Te again? Oh, right - Te leads go out and earn tons of money and Fi leads keep harmony in the household.
Sounds... dare I say.... sexist?
I'm not trying to moralize here. I'm not the type to be "offended" or carry on about immorality. I don't think for example that Jack or any Socionics believer is necessarily sexist or has bad motives. Not at all. But I'm talking about the intrinsic setup of the system. ENTP and ENTJ ("masculine" types) - go out and earn the bucks, make the deals... and their FiSe and SiFe dream women just stay home and politely keep order, with no needs of their own. Neither type can argue well. SiFe is charming and wifely, while FiSe wears black leather boots. Every man's wet dream. Like really.. where did these descriptions come from?
If Socionics was founded by a woman, that does not change my view on this - because what kind of society did she grow up in? What type of woman did she feel that she was being "pushed" to be? If she self typed as NeTi, maybe she thought she didn't fit this 'expectations box' where men want women to be like SEI or ESI's. A relatable feeling. So she may have projected this into the system, thinking "some women are like that, but not me." I am not assuming this since I literally know NOTHING about her, but just pointing out that there could be reasons for a woman to conceive of it this way too.
However there is some truth to what Socionics describes with these types. I am more familiar with the truth of FiSe. I do think that if we're going to examine 'real trends' such as Se leads being more likely to be criminals, we also must examine the very widespread trend of FiSe being gold diggers. Let's not pick favorites. 😉 Of course I'm not implying that this trait is ubiquitous among either type, but I do think Socionics is more fair than CT when it comes to being realistic about negative trends in ALL the types. So I do have some support there. The problem is they are drastically mistyping people by completely mixing up the meaning of Fi/Te and Ti/Fe... so some of the trends might be wrong... but some are onto something. And they distribute gross trends more fairly, rather than just focusing on one or two types who are most likely to do bad things.
I also think there is SOME truth to duality. I think it's wrong to say your dual should be your ideal partner, especially considering benefit and supervisor relationships (when typed in CT) are more common. But it is true that beneath a SeFi there is a 'reaching' for NiTe -- and an automatic expectation to receive information that NiTe's might distribute. I will write a thread about this sometime, because I think Socionics overplays the meaning and implication of duality, but there is some obvious truth to the idea that you expect or hope for certain type of communication to fill in certain gaps. With that in mind, I also think things like "Conflictors" have proven true. At base, I respect Auburn, like him, and agree with the premises of his system. I can still critique both him and the system, but I don't have any major disagreement or dislike of him; on the contrary he's an inspiration to me. Yet, we always get into quabbles because communication can just be difficult among conflictors. We never say things in the way that the other expects to receive it! We were able to mitigate any negativity by discussing Socionics conflictors and how this may not be a 'personal problem' but just a functions issue - and that is very valuable, and something wonderful that Socionics has to offer. I see that CT is exploring the principle of 'relations' in Socionics, and I'm glad. Socionics is definitely too rigid in how they approach it, but the underlying 'trends' are more insidious and, imo, worth exploring.
Anyway, back to Fi and Fe. After arguing with WSS for MONTHS about Fe vs Fi, and how "expressing personal inner feelings" is not specific to Fe, I left WSS with a kind of dramatic post about the overtyping of Beta NF. It was friendly and there was humor to it, so hopefully I did not leave with bad feelings. Everyone there knew how I felt about it. But when I went back a while later I saw that people had typed under it, oh this dramatic exit, more proof of EIE (FeNi). :D. Yup , any human trait is EIE so of course being very expressive as a human I must be EIE, regardless of how or why I am doing it. That's how I felt. I do know that Jack had more reasoning too, such as me being very twitchy and moving around a lot, which they take to mean "Si polr" (Meaning those who move around in their seat are most likely to be FeNi or TeNi according to them). I know there was a LOT of reasoning and I don't want to reduce that process which people put a lot of thoughts and time into, and of course I appreciate their time, and hold no bad feelings about it; I just want to address some of the conceptual things that seemed off.
Now... all that being said, to some degree the problem is 'mob mentality' itself rather than Socionics as a whole. After I left WSS, my friends and I got together and organized folders of different types. We scrutinized some exemplars. We typed ourselves, and I was still uncertain of my own type (due to the problems outlined above-- though @Thanatesque got my type right as SEE!) - but most of our typings were SPOT ON in CT. So, somehow my small group, with rigorous hard work, was able to combine our knowledge of Socionics, MBTI, Beebe and Jung to come up with typings of (most of) ourselves and celebrities which were identical to CT's typings, based on psychology, with only secondary "checking in' with photos. So there must be some truth to it because otherwise how were we able to move away from Socionics communities, into our own small community, and pick up trends with high accuracy? How is it that we gleaned meaning from these functions, recognized the Fe vs. Fi issue for what it was after much ado, and took it to the next level?
My hypothesis is that we thought for ourselves, separated the wheat from the chaff and took initiative. Most people in these groups just "follow the leader." And I know that as a TRUE leader, Jack does not even encourage this - he encourages people to think for themselves. CT also encourages this by putting up ALL of the signals so that people are free to look at the methods themselves and determine their opinions about it. But still, many people prefer to approach these systems as a kind of cult. The members of CT do think for themselves but many who have left have accused it of being a cult. Many of these accusers are incapable of 'attacking the idea and not the person,' and also, unwilling to debate fine points with good faith. They want it all to make sense overnight.
In WSS, I was on the receiving end of cultish behavior when people would come storming into my group, Enneatude, acting like "expressive, dramatic EIEs" and suddenly doorslamming people, making a big show, rage quitting and reappearing etc, and then justifying this behavior by saying "Jack typed me as EIE [so it explains why I act this way]." Like all of a sudden they were on the mission to prove they're the biggest drama queen. I had thought this was cultish but I realized later that it wasn't Jack's fault. He was not even that active in typing people; it was the website. The fault begins with the over-humanizing descriptions of IEI and EIE, and the dehumanizing descriptions of other types; as well as the glorification of those types in communities. But to a large degree this is not Jack's fault - he is pushing his own ideas, teaching people, helping them with typings etc -- and then large masses decide to engage a 'follow the leader' mentality. The Nazis also were just following orders.
Yet my group was able to glean something real out of it, something in line with CT. So, that is something to consider. Yes there are intrinsic problems with Socionics, but a bigger problem lies in the lack of critical thinking. Once we had a small tight knit group who was willing to think critically, we used Socionics as a stepping stone, along with Jung, Beebe, MBTI etc; to form our own conclusions about what types are. Those conclusions happened to overlap EXACTLY with CT, so, hallelujah. If they didn't, we would all be much more skeptical. (Which is not to say we aren't skeptical of many ideas in CT, but just that we accept the premise that vultology aligns with psychology, since we discovered something similar ourselves.)
No system is perfect, since they are all conceived by humans, and then discussed by even less informed humans. Many of these people are looking for an identity, a type to give them a sense of self and tell them who they are. With this in mind, it is VERY difficult to find thoughtful people who are approaching a typology system with critical thinking and intellectual integrity. No matter how smart they may be, most just want their self image to be confirmed so that they may feel free to act out. They will scramble for typings that feel palatable to them, and hate on anyone that disagrees with it. My group worked hard to deal with rumors around enneagram and to give humanity to all the types, and we ended up with a hate group against us, especially me, filled with people who wanted to be typed at four, but weren't on my forum. A few people who I was VERY kind and thoughtful to, were making up total lies and insults about me behind closed doors in another group. When pushed to explain what is their problem with me, the ONLY thing they could come up with was that I suggested another typing to them, other than four. This was regarded as "abuse," "cruelty," "dehumanizing them," etc. Imagine that! And that is what we're dealing with. That's what Jack and Auburn are dealing with.
Socionics, CT, Enneagram -- have all been distorted by the 'crowds.' The principles being taught may not be the same ones that the audience is catching on to. This is why I think it's very important to remember that coming from MBTI, Jung, Beebe and Socionics, me and my friends who are all big on intellectual integrity rather than "finding an identity," ended up typing people's psychology the same way Auburn was typing them through vultology. In my view, there's enough information out there for others to reach similar conclusions on their own - but, for whatever reason, they choose not to. In the end, once a few kinks are ironed out among the top CT-ists and Socionists, there may be more in common between these systems than people realize, and a lot that they can learn from each other. CT has already improved in some respects by taking into account some of my own (and other Se users') protests regarding the meaning of Se, for example - and I was able to put that in words due to my own experience with Socionics. This probably has happened with other members too. So, while I do encourage addressing the serious systemic issues with Socionics, I also advise not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. (There's a lot of bathwater, but still.)
Sheesh, sorry for the long post.
I’ve already shared this data with @echidna1000 and @auburn, but here it is in case others are curious.
This sheet compares 81 celebrity typings from WSS and CT. Of the six comparison sheets I’ve made currently comparing the typings of four typology groups, this sheet has one of the highest agreement rates. Furthermore, most of the dimensions that I include agree at a rate that is significantly above chance.
I’m looking forward to the debate!
I need to add that from the time I entered WSS, I suspected Jack was ENTJ/ LIE. I thought he fit the Socionics "Jack London" very well. I was completely willing to be wrong and did not push my argument because I was still learning, but that was my interpretation of his psychology, for whatever it's worth. He and others in the community may or may not remember, since I really did not want to make a big deal out of it, and I remained open to learning more. The only reason I even brought it up at all was due to the disagreements around what Fe and Fi are, and him being used by the community as an exemplar. (Also, it's impossible to verify this now, since I wrote it on my own long threads that were about my typing -- and I took those down when I left, due to the highly personal information included in them.) But anyway, that is yet another example of someone we typed - based on psychology - whose type came out the same in CT. Yet, to me, his personality was consistent with Socionics LIE. Of course, I did not know him well, nor would I have claimed to be a Socionics 'expert' - but that's just what I picked up.
I strongly agree with the confusion of the Information Elements in Socionics. Socionics itself is very Te, not Ti.
I want to share a personal story regarding Socionics.
For quite some time, @animal , me, and a few others were sharing a group chat with an individual who really wanted to know their type in Socionics. So we tried, again and again, to teach the basics. The person struggled with understanding the theory - fine, not everyone has the same strengths/weaknesses - but they kept on pushing for EIE (FeNi) because that's how others on various forums had typed them, and it is a coveted type on these online Socionics fora. We disagreed. We argued that Fe lead, in Socionics, has great skill and awareness of one's ability to affect people and to pro-actively direct conversations and manipulate (good or bad) the emotional atmosphere. The individual's response to this was:
They said that they are impulsive and that their emotions just flare up, without any conscious control, and that people react to this without her aiming for a specific goal. This, our little group said, is a quality of Pe (or at the very least, NOT Fe).
Eventually the person left our group, with much drama and hurt feelings, to be typed elsewhere, in online Socionics groups. I believe they have been a member of about each and every one of them at some point in time. From what I hear, pretty much all typed her at EIE. The same person who doesn't understand the concept of purposefully manipulating an emotional atmosphere gets typed at EIE in Socionics, almost universally. Yes, this includes getting typed by the WSS community.
The apparent mis-type of Socionics' founder is an enormous problem for Socionics as a whole. It doesn't help anyone, and functions ("information elements," what's in a name anyway...) become warped beyond recognition. The concept of things such as Extroverted Feeling become worthless, as it becomes associated with emotional impulsivity - when in truth, the exact opposite is true.
@Ivory yes -
The most simplistic understanding would be that Fi leads in Socionics ignore Fe, and Fe leads ignore Fi. So you would think this means Fi leads are so tuned into their deep inner feelings that they ignore the group ethics in communication, and Fe leads are so tuned into the group ethics that they ignore their inner feelings. Both types would be proficient in both, but would not engage their ignoring function moment to moment because it gets in the way of expressing the first function.
Instead, they seem to interpret it almost backwards - that Fe leads would 'express feelings,' whereas Fi leads would hold back to preserve group harmony. However, this theory completely falls apart when you compare it to the parallel functions, Ti and Te. I just remembered that when I was arguing on WSS, I brought up this comparison as well. I wish I could remember or access my old posts! But anyway, the basic question was: Ti has a need to refine its own axioms, and ignores the Pragmatism of Te; whereas Te has no time to fuss over axioms because it's not pragmatic when things need to get done. This is perfectly in line with Jung and makes sense. But then why wouldn't Fi be parallel? Fi refines its own feelings, ignoring the coersion and persuasion of Fe, whereas Fe has no time to fuss over their own feelings when giving a political speech. Right?
Original socionics even painted Fe as the politician type, especially FeNi, due to their longterm vision. While there may be problems with that too (ie, the many Si and Te types in politics) -- that was the popular way to view FeNi. So.. how does the politician archetype ALSO take the mantle on expressing its own feelings?
This is not merely inconsistent with other theories. It is internally inconsistent. There is no justification within the framework of Socionics for why all the other types are divided into clear focii that exist opposite their ignoring function, except for Fi and Fe --- and in their case, Fe both expresses internal feelings and persuades, while Fi just says nothing to preserve harmony. Like..what. WHUT. That's not how the rest of the system works......
@Animal The account you are giving of how we define Fe and Fi is not consistent with how we define Fe and Fi.
This is how we define Fi:
Aspect: Personal attitudes and bonds of trust. People naturally possess set characteristics of their personality which make them a certain way, and result in a certain character. The quality of this character can manifest sentimentally in what someone feels is good or bad, the inner sentiment experiencing attraction and repulsion to various stimuli. Similarly, a person's character can be likewise judged to be good or bad by others. In this way, two people of mutually attracting characters can come together in a close bond, or if repulsing, move apart.
Metabolism: The individual consults their personal attitudes towards people and events they encounter, registering whether they are attracted to or repulsed. In this way, judgments are formed on people's character assessing whether they are good and trustworthy, or not. From this judgment, an appropriate psychological distance can be established and maintained, with liked people being kept close as friends, and disliked people being kept away with animosity. In doing so, the individual decides their relationships with others.
Strength: The person has a good awareness of their subjective opinions towards other people and things, knowing with confidence what feels wrong or right to them. With other people, they can confidently decide on a person's character, judging whether they are good for them or not. They will be able to integrate these judgments into their treatment of others with appropriate nuance, setting the right sort of relationship with each person they interact with, allowing stable, reliable loyalties. They can expertly tell apart their friends from their foes, as well as business relations and acquaintances. [Applies to SEI, ESE, EIE, IEI, SEE, ESI, EII & IEE.]
Value: In valuing sincere treatment of people by individual merit, the person places an emphasis on the stability and reliability of their relationships with others, trying to treat each person in line with the way the unique relationship feels to them, based on character judgment. They will prioritise their relations with the people they like, giving preferential treatment and opening up in ways they would not with acquaintances, losing their usual formality. Fidelity is seen as especially important, and the person will try to know where they stand with others, being hurt by those who violate their bond. [Applies to SEE, ILI, LIE, ESI, LSE, EII, IEE & SLI.]"
This has got nothing to do with "protecting group harmony", or even "hiding one's personal feelings for the sake of others". It's about set personal attitudes/relationships and their maintenance vs. emotional energy and its communication.
Harmony has a lot more to do with Si in Socionics than it does Fi.
Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂
We had glossed over it on video but mostly focused on other things. To be fair, I was summarizing things that a lot of the group said, but it's possible that between many different voices, I got confused about the meaning. I don't intend to misrepresent your view, so I appreciate you clearing up how you see it. People in your group did tell me that if I'm willing to voice my own controversial opinions despite knowing it would disrupt friendships or relations, then I cannot be Fi, because Fi is relations. It seems they misinterpreted your view, or maybe I misunderstood them. But either way, that's what I thought was being communicated - that people who are willing to make a dramatic display of disagreement, at the risk of upsetting friends, could not be Fi. What do you think about that? Do you think it's unlikely that an ESI (or a SEE for that matter) would dramatically express a personal point of view? If not, why not, and if so, how would this differ from EIE, in your view?
There are lots of people who don't know what they are talking about around Socionics. It's not going to be representative of the theory if you get your impression from what different so-and-sos said to you. Much better to look at the definitions.
It does depend on the type. For instance, the EII, which is Se Vulnerable and Si Mobilising IS interested in harmonising their relationships, and may hold back from confronting around issues that could damage their relationships. In contrast, the ESI is an Se Creative type that tends to be more confontational when they are annoyed about something. Yes, they will factor in their relationships and not just act out their temper with people they are close to, it's about stable attitudes, not emotional excitation for them, but they will be inclined to speak plainly and challengingly on what is bothering them. After all, Fi is about personal attitudes as much as about relationships, so being unable to do what is in line with their personal attitudes would be alien to the Fi. However, neither EII nor ESI is inclined to just voice their opinions to everyone, but will do so frankly and sincerely to those they are close to. These types don't put stock in what people in general think, they put stock in those with whom they have close relationships.
I studied every description I could get my hands on, and even made my computer translate Russian ones. This was why I typed myself at ESI - almost correctly. Then I finally decided I knew enough to engage a community and I found what I thought would be the best one, WSS. But that is what the forum as a whole communicated on my threads, and there wasn't much objection to it.
Descriptions on their own -- dry words on a page -- don't communicate enough when it comes to a system that categorizes people. So I was hoping to go to the forum to put the descriptions into practice and get a sense of applicability. I need a clear picture of how things play out in real time, in order for them to have meaning.
To be fair, the experience did give me more clarity than I had before. There were problems with it, though - which I outlined.
I didn't see consistency in the exemplars who were posted. I didn't see how the descriptions applied to them. Etc. I needed to see how the words written on a page would apply to the real people being used as exemplars. So that's what I was asking about.
Regarding your last post: I don't care what anyone thinks about my values and opinions except for those I'm close to. And even then, I am not particularly sensitive to their judgment about it. However, I do like to engage and get feedback on theoretical models, politics, and so forth. I like communicating my opinions so others can respond with theirs and there's an exchange of ideas. This way more truth is discovered. I also enjoy the heat of debate - about topics. But I'm not concerned with someone else's views on my values. That's not why I express myself.
Your description of Fi on this thread does apply to me, but I have to explain it in my own way. I don't go around being attracted or repulsed by everyone I meet. I don't need to have an opinion on everyone's person- good or bad, friend or foe, etc. This works itself out naturally for me. I have really good friendships. I married my soulmate and I knew early on that he was "It." 5 years later I'm thrilled! I have friends that I've been close to since I was 5, 7, 11, 15 and 18! These are among my best friends to this day, and I'm almost forty. I'm close to my family, and we've been to hell and back together. The fact that I have been through so much trauma with illness, and lost everything, yet still retained these friendships- says a lot. I am good at knowing who is my friend and who isn't, and cycling through this with nuance and ease. When issues come up, I know when to take some space and when to resolve. I don't spend much time obsessing over this stuff, however. It's instinctual.
When it comes to acquaintances (which is anyone outside my very close circle), I don't see any point in evaluating people. I empathize with them moment to moment, but I don't need to like or dislike them. With friends and acquaintances alike, I enjoy verbal sparring and combat, but I don't enjoy 'personal' fights and drama. With a real friend, if there's a problem between us, I do want to discuss and solve it - but I am allergic to too much interpersonal 'drama' - so I eventually drop friends who overdo this and constantly have personal issues with me. Frankly, it bores me. I am not oversensitive and delicate, but I don't want to waste my life on 'he said she said.' Either love me or don't. That said, if the issue between us is real and not 'drama for drama's sake,' there is no length that I won't go to, in order to fix the friendship and address the problem.
Online, I like talking about subjects. No matter how passionately I argue, it's not personal. On facebook, I find it so utterly boring when I post something about politics and then people attack the writer of the article, or the news station, while ignoring the actual information presented. What's the point? I don't care what those writers did in their personal life - it may be interesting gossip in some rare cases, but it's not relevant to the issue. Generally I'm very argumentative about ideas and concepts, but there's no personal beef there. I don't remember who I argued with or keep score or anything like that. If someone continues to pick personal fights, I will either withdraw from that acquaintance or state my problem clearly and directly, so it can be resolved. Disagreeing on an issue- be it Socionics, Politics, or Feminism - is not a reason to dislike someone. Overall, I love my friends, and everyone else, I don't need to 'like' or 'dislike.' If they stand out as someone I can't tolerate, I can just hit "unfriend." It's only necessary to continue fighting about personal stuff if the person is a friend. But arguing about politics, typology - I could do that all day. 😀
I'll admit that I find many Fi leads insufferable for this reason. They attack the person, not the idea, and moralize someone for having a different view on a topic. They get offended and respond from the subjective emotional palette instead of addressing information. Of course, there are exceptions and Fi leads who argue about issues well. But "making it personal" or "being offended" (thus shutting down a discussion on a passionate or informative topic) is extremely offputting to me. It registers as "willful ignorance," "selfishness," "cowardice" and "weakness." Not that I have any need to make those judgments or say them in words, but in retrospect, that's how I feel about this mentality on the whole. I don't have any need to like or dislike such a person, or to make a big personal grudge about it. But obviously, I'd rather converse with people who want to pursue something meaningful.
This is why, after reading descriptions and recognizing people who would be a Fi lead, I was confused about whether I'd be an ESI - because I could see the tendency in other Fi leads to be extremely obsessed with "interpersonal" stuff, such as "liking" and "disliking" people, and assessing someone's values to decide if they're worthy of friendship - and I didn't relate. I'm not looking to make friends or to assess someone's person every time I interact. Yet the Fe-ish banter style, and automatic understanding of the 'system of morality that we all agreed upon," is not me at all. So I needed more information to type myself. The point of using a forum and discussing/ arguing / sparring was to gather more information, not to get someone's approval on my morality or even my self-typing. So, perhaps they saw me sharing a lot of information and they thought that meant I wanted approval, therefore I was Fe? I don't know.
Basically, as far as I can see, I do fit your definition of Fi - but perhaps the definition is too narrow. What you wrote - if taken literally - would suggest that Fi lead fills their head with interpersonal information all day. I feel that I can navigate friendships and deeper exploration of values with ease, but I don't enjoy wasting time on interpersonal issues that aren't real -- I'm much more interested in ideas, expression, passion, sparring etc. Not to mention, I spend most of my time thinking about my own creative work, projects, and passions anyway (some of which are intellectual in nature, such as philosophy, politics and archetype systems). For much of my life I was focused on polishing various skills in the arts, exercising or being in nature, or making my artistic visions manifest, which took up all of my time & energy. The focus was on my inner vision and goals thereof. People and relationships are a very, very subordinate concern (with the exception of my 'art muse,' in the cases when I was obsessed with someone romantically). So I don't fit the narrow definition of someone that is constantly sorting out relations, presumably with everyone they encounter - but I do see 'relations' as something that I do well, and most people would agree.
Now, I can imagine that one argument going through a Socionist's head might be: "Animal is good at Fi, but she sees it as a waste of brain space, getting in the way of her visions. Therefore, she is Fe lead (EIE), and Fi ignoring." Because in this model my Fi would still be 3D, but not valued. They would see me using my Ne demonstrative to banter and debate on topics, and the final goal of "understanding a system of rationale" would be Ti. However, this fails to address my hands-on sensory nature, my immediacy, my evaluating my own values and not being attentive to group morale, and just... what do any of my artistic visions have to do with Fe? Is just "having a vision" Beta NF? Because I find that a bit absurd. Why can't other types, like SeFi, also have a personal vision that drives them; a sense of purpose? Isn't that human, beyond type?
The specific nature of my visions is Aesthetic (Se) expressions of my inner world and values (Fi). My songs focus on my personal feelings, usually about one person, and a self mythology that wrote itself through me, so the people in the songs became characters, expressing my Earth experience in a parallel world of my own (but the feelings for real people remain the same). My novels also are fantasy, focused primarily on a few strong and complex relationships between very few characters, and deeply exploring their inner psyche. It's philosophical, with coming of age themes, focused on the inner experience of each individual and how they impact each other. They align with archetypes which ultimately lead them to a world saving quest... and this is where Ni comes in, with heavy symbolism and timeless, eternal themes.
So although my dynamics can be reasoned around with an EIE typing, it still fails to address the central nature of my visions and what the point of them is.
Anyway, no obligation to respond to this or say anything about my type unless you want to. I'm just writing out my own response in case it helps anyone to see how I relate to [my current understanding of] your idea of Socionics Fi, since that has been the thing in question. Obviously, if you want to respond, I always enjoy it. Either way, I'm really looking forward to the discussion between you and Auburn 🙂
Animal. Thank you for this explanation. You can see why I would have trouble typing you ESI in Socionics. The whole point of these types is that they are preoccupied with the levels of closeness they feel to others, personally assess character, and take a harsh, protective approach to this. A leading function should be the prime motivator for why we do things. I should also add that Fi need not have much to do with 'values'. Our values can be shaped by multiple other IM Elements, it depends on the source.
You mention being interested in the expression of your personal feelings and values. An important thing here is that you say this is an 'aesthetic' expression, but Se in Socionics is not about aesthetic. It's about force and impact. The ESI blocks their Fi with Se, making their judgements based off of concrete actions and creating psychological distances from those they do not like. They are not usually interested in expressing their feelings, but rather prefer consulting their attitudes to decide how they relate to people and things. Expression is not intrinsically important to them, and they would rather communicate how they feel in close relationships with people who can benefit practically from this information, or can use it to stop being a nuisance.
Yes that makes sense about Fi, and I knew something was off about ESI before I got there - being at your forum did help me to confirm that I wasn't ESI, with very good reason. But then, what about SEE?
Socially, my friends called me "the sun" because I was the gravitational center of our activity. I am not an overly social person, nor do I need to constantly hang out, but when I do have a group, I meet each person individually and the group kind of 'forms' around me, based on a few close friendships, the chemistry between everyone, and focus on a shared project or interest. For this reason I've been seen as having leadership qualities. Also, regarding force, my aggression in pursuing anything I want, making an impact, getting to the front of the line, relentless pursuit of male prey, etc - is well known about me. There has never been a problem with Se lead for me, except for the idea that they supposedly need a Ni lead to tell them where they will end up tomorrow and how to keep their eye on a long term goal. Personally I don't need this type of input from anyone; I do it myself. However, Ni leads help me keep things in perspective with the grand scheme of 'everything.' I make an impact now and they see it rippling in the cosmos. As we join forces, the impact becomes that of the group, rather than "just me," but I am at the helm.
I do relate to taking information in snapshots and being attentive to the reality around me, drawing conclusions based on real actions, real patterns, and real data that unfolds in real time. When I say data, I mean, about people moment to moment. I don't trust statistics and anything distant that doesn't line up with something I see and experience with my own eyes. I get in arguments with Alpha NT's for this reason - because I will feel like they appreciated some distant words on a page about things they don't know, and used that as an argument, which is meaningless - and they will feel like my data is too narrow, because 'my reality' does not constitute the whole world. But I am astute at picking up real time trends as they unfold around me, which they are not, so they don't understand where I'm coming from. That said, they often have a point, that I'm resisting information that might be helpful.
As for Force, Impact - 100% me. The problem I had with typing at Se lead at the time I joined WSS, is just that I have long term vision, and always did, even as a kid. I am not someone who plans out my next day on a schedule, per se (although I'll do that if it makes sense), but I can keep my eye on a goal, go through the steps every day, practice the lesson, do the homework, and put in whatever it takes to achieve my vision. I have this song lyric:
Tell me the odds
I'll beat them senseless
Summon the Gods
They'll be defenseless
This is how I managed to sing lead through my whisper - sheer force of will and determination. I knew just how much force to apply to my broken voice so that I wouldn't destroy what was left of it and could get the most sound out of it that one possibly could. Others called it a miracle that I was able to sing with no tissue on my vocal cords, but I am a force of sheer persistence. If I want to do something, death will not stop me. Another tag phrase on my website:
“My powerful voice was reduced to a whisper, but I am still a vessel through which passion emerges. Take my voice, my hair, my mobility, my memory… but if you want my fire, you will have to kill me.”
These phrases and lyrics are not just words. They are a genuine summary of my attitude about life. When I was singing, people sometimes commented on the music, but most often they commented on my willpower. The feedback I get from my parents is that I was always relentless, no one could stop me from doing something I wanted to do. And that's my personality. How I choose to direct it, happens to be in the arts.
My parents also called me "little lawyer." Gulenko talks about thinking styles, and how SEE can actually be verbal and good with sparring. I don't know how you incorporate Gulenko into your model, but this makes sense for me, regarding casual-determinist cognition: "Use of it requires great intellectual stamina. Second, attributes of greater clarity and concentration are inherent to this style. The type most characterized by singular concentration is LSI. However, the irrational SEE argues quite soundly, deriving one consequence from another, implying focus on the chain of events. If even one link fails for any reason, then Determinists lose their sense of rationale and find it difficult to act because they see no reason to."
Will is obvious. As for impact, flow, force: when I'm doing a task, I'm in it; I become it. The moment is all that there is. Music writes itself through me and when I'm on stage, I'm a vessel through which passion emerges. I am the music. The same happens when any sports I might play, any walk I take, etc. With workout routines, music (which can be a complicated physical act at times), etc - I know how to hit with the right amount of impact and force; no more, no less. Moment to moment I'm told I have a big presence. Before I got sick, I was known for having an impactful stage presence. And when it comes to aesthetic, although there is intrinsic symbolism in my aesthetic, I also see clothes or art is as a way to make an impact. Bold colors and striking statements announce who I am. Much like tiger stripes. This same idea applies when I'm playing sports, music, working out, making love etc. I dive right in and make an impact. So I don't see the problem with force. And given that I relate to Fi but it's not the most important thing to me, I could see a case that it's my second function.
After writing all of that, I decided right now to check your website, since I haven't looked at it in years. Basically, this is me, and it's not some bloated opinion of my HA function - it's how others describe me, how my parents would view me, a very realistic assessment:
The SEE is most notable for their fiercely independent desire to do what they want when they want. Possessed with a strong, challenging and largely upbeat energy, they are usually the first to act impulsively on a situation according to their will, confronting their immediate reality to make it advantageous to them and those they care for. SEEs see success in being able to resist opposing forces and prevail on their own resourcefulness and determination, being their own boss and fighting off those who would command them. When placed in a social hierarchy, the only level satisfactory for the SEE is one where they answer to no one, resulting in them climbing straight for the top. In such activities, SEEs tend to show great gusto, as they love the vitality of pitting themselves against a hard problem and pushing through to the other side. For this reason, SEEs are regularly seen as gregarious go-getters, rising to the challenge and usually reaping the rewards. In the social sphere, SEEs tend to dominate with their ability to steer a conversation the way they want it to go. They tend to be quickly noticed in a room of people for this reason and people can find them captivating. Similarly, their natural social confidence is the source of much of their ambition, with SEEs conquering, not merely through force, but through the hearts and minds of those they have won over.
I am definitely a leader, not a joiner. Even online, I only join forums for a purpose, which is related to my own projects - and then I leave. I joined WSS for a short time, a few months - to get a few answers. Then left. I joined CT, but left the discord and I only post here because I see a strong learning opportunity. My main activity is on archetribe.com, my own site that I own and run with my husband. He is a quieter personality and although it is 'our' project, and he is the intellectual grit behind it, I am the figurehead who brings people to it and makes it happen. On facebook, our very tiny group made huge waves throughout other HUGE groups who are still talking about us months after it closed. There is no question that I have a 'top dog' style personality, I am the "magnetic force" drawing people in, with my genius partner beside me upholding the integrity of the ideas, and my NiTe advisors & best friends who I would protect with my life -- and we tend to have a "we're the army conquering the world" vibe. That's our role in the enneagram/online community at large, conquering the bullshit that enneagram has become. I always take challenges head on. So, this description works for me. The second paragraph about Fi is pretty true as well, except that I actually crave a ton of time alone and don't tolerate being surrounded by people all the time, nor do I get lonely. I need time for me and my work. Socializing, for me, tends to be magnetizing people around a shared interest. For instance I would run the band and invite others to a show, or I'd film a music video and invite others to pose in the video. But I always made it fun and mutually beneficial, so they would have the joy of showing up and dancing, while I did all the busywork and organization by myself. In the enneagram community for example, my friends are featured as the intelligent thinkers while my partner and I do the backwork to keep it going, but we also stand out as the figureheads and take the hits for everyone, as they come, not to mention, the glory often comes our way first, as a consequence of 'being in front.' That said, I benefit greatly from the friendships involved; I just would be bored if it was focused on "talking about people" and there wasn't a bigger focus, a real vision, something to accomplish. I would imagine that someone who dualizes with ILI would have a sense for 'vision.' Why would any ILI want to hang out with me and be 'magnetized' to my group if all we did was gossip and alleviate loneliness? Rather, they like it because of the big impact it is making and the ripples they see it creating in the wider scheme. They see a chance for them to make a real difference and put their mental prowess to use.
I could do each paragraph but obviously, that's too far off topic. Overall, there are some problems with the description but the main thrust of it is good for me. I understand that I seem nervous and move around a lot on camera, but keep in mind that speaking with no tissue on my vocal cords requires focus and having a short speech conversation on camera makes me nervous. When I was younger and had my full voice, I had zero stage fright. At age 5 I would play the lead and if someone messed up I would cover for them in character. But now I'm a neurotic mess because of very serious breathing problems, neurological damage etc. So that might have some impact on how I'm handling my body on camera. However, in person, I am much more in command and relaxed in my body. I am not a dancer, but in this video for example, you can see the ease with which I move. I'm playing both the male role and the female role. (She is supposed to be 'sweet' and 'sad,' but my day to day personality is more similar to the male in this video.) The thing is, no matter what role I'm playing, you can see that I have nuance where force is concerned. I'm not overdoing it or under-doing it. It comes naturally to me. If I need to make the impact by sitting still and using my eyes, that's what I do. My body just does it by itself. When it comes time to throw my energy around, I can do that too.
So in my view, there's nothing wrong with SeFi, aside from the supposed inability to think two steps ahead, and the overtly social nature. Rather than needing to socialize constantly, I'm pragmatic in knowing how to take the next step and make my dreams happen, and involve people in a spirited way. Fi creative (literally, creative use of people, though it also involves genuine love for them), and Te HA.
The only way I would be EIE then, is if Fe is 'personal expression [without taking into account the political or public morale]. There are so many things wrong with it in my view. For one, EIE would not have as intricate of a relationship with real time actions, and they would be a 'victim' in relationship dynamics. To put it bluntly, my exes would laugh at the idea of me being a victim. In every area of my life, I'm a hunter-pursuer. I don't stop and wait for others to pick up my slack, although with my illness I've learned to slow down. I transferred my projects to the computer & internet because of illness, but for the first 30 years of my life I was constantly chasing my goals, leading my projects, putting myself out there in real physical time. Always in action toward a goal or vision, or exploring my inner feelings. And although I graduated from a great school and write books, I'm not a high-minded intellectual, who is interested in world improvement. I'm far too self-absorbed. Fe just doesn't work for me. So, I hope that makes sense.
I did try to tell people these same arguments on WSS, about why I had to be Se ego. No one suggested SEE because I had a long term vision and ability to carry it out by myself, and for that same reason I didn't type at it. But Auburn saved all the trouble of these arguments and just typed me based on my body signals. When I got here, I didn't relate to his old Se description at all, but it has improved now and it's more me. But I've been nudging him to include more Socionics Se in the description because that is what I relate to. Yet, without the "this person completely lacks vision/ can't see past their nose" type of emphasis, which is what threw me off from the type in Socionics. I find that most people are more lost on their path than I am, despite my setbacks.
You mention being interested in the expression of your personal feelings and values. An important thing here is that you say this is an ‘aesthetic’ expression, but Se in Socionics is not about aesthetic.
Socionics links aesthetics to Si, which wouldn't be foreign to strong Se by definition. Yet you type someone who claims to have such a focus on aesthetics at Si Vulnerable: 1D Si and 2D Se. Just doesn't add up man.
Ivory - It's more complex than that actually. 'Aesthetic' means beauty, but 'beauty', like may other words, can mean different things. There are many EIEs who consider themselves 'aesthetes'. Aesthetic insofar as it corresponds to things just looking nice and welcoming, is more Si+Fe, because it is about aligning the sensory environment in a harmonious manner. However, Poetic 'aesthetic', which is often a more conceptual account of 'beauty', as some kind of meaningful, transcendent form, is far more often Ni+Fe. It's ironic, but those who would call themselves 'aesthetics' were far more often Beta NFs than Alpha SFs.
I wouldn't call myself an aesthetician. In fact I don't see the point of calling myself "an artist" or "a poet." I prefer that my work speaks for itself, but I am very focused on the process of creating it. My website speaks for itself.
I only 'call myself' those things for the sake of discussing typology or pragmatic matters, such as signing up for music school or looking for band members. The "doing of it" is what I am focused on. The vision itself.
I'm not.. exactly... a poet. Music & visual arts are a far more accurate communication of my inner vision, but I've been trying to get better at using words so I can write my book. The story comes to me like a movie, with dialogue and action, but I don't want to write a script because I don't want to put the final product in someone else's hands. I want to write a book so that I alone can control the outcome. Therefore learning writing was a pragmatic need in order to get the job done.
Of course there is nuance to this idea. But in the context of Animal's use of aesthetics, and she explained it very well in the post above, you won't be able to explain it via the "conceptual aesthetics," use of poetry, dramatics, and compelling emotional speech, of the EIE. What I see in your typing of Animal as EIE is exactly a lack of nuance in how you define such aesthetics that leaves much to be desired for types such as SEE. A Gamma blindspot, if you will.
I just found this on a random blog, but I think it's quite apt. I don't know this source, and it might be completely invalid, written by some kid off the street. But:
Se: impact, influence
Se's agenda is to have an impact or influence on what is immediately perceivable. This impact can be on oneself or the external world. It can be sensorial, like wearing a striking piece of clothing (which creates an impact on the senses), or it can be more abstract, like exercising political power. But the way we achieve an impact necessarily starts with ourselves: either movements of the physical body or speech, which creates an impact on the mental level. Thus, Se is linked to vigorousness and physical energy. One kind of influence that Se seeks is that of disciplining the self to achieve whatever outcome one wants to achieve.
I completely agree with this. I only posted this quote, not because I support this blog in particular, but because I cannot say it better myself. Making an impact involves aesthetics. But it's also about power... and indeed, disciplining myself to achieve an outcome is my lifestyle. That's volition.
Ivory, she didn't explain it in an Si way at all. It was very much an Ni conceptualisation of beauty, blocked with the Se natural forcefulness or vivacity. It's the sort of 'beauty' of riding a tiger through the jungle. It's not the sort of beauty of putting your feet up and sniffing daffodils.
Maybe you can articulate to me what you think I'm missing and why it's a "Gamma blind spot" 😛 What are the qualities of Gamma that you think I match up to?
I'm not arguing that she explained it in an Si way, I was arguing that your argument around aesthetics didn't add up (to claim that "aesthetic expression" cannot be ESI is wrong.)
Animal's explanation is how Se shows up with aesthetics. The tiger in the jungle, as with Animal, is primarily displayed via sensory information. This is strongly valued Se backed by Ni. This is not EIE or IEI, by the way, who rely on oral aesthetics. This is Gamma SF.
It adds up fine. It's Fe+Ni/Se in Socionics. It's very much a state of emotional excitation, as much as it is the experience of forceful intensity and relating it to transcendent themes.
It adds up fine. It’s Fe+Ni/Se in Socionics. It’s very much a state of emotional excitation, as much as it is the experience of forceful intensity and relating it to transcendent themes.
This is what I mean with "Gamma blindspot." Gamma SF's are aesthetes in the Se-Ni sense of the term. Attributing "emotional excitation" exclusively to Fe is where you go wrong. "Excitation" is an attribute of Pe. This blindspot shows a lack of understanding of the emotion behind Se and the emotional control of Fe.
Fe is relational expression, with Fi being relational impression. NOT EMOTION. Emotion *in the service of* relations is the domain of F. And emotion in the service of communication is Fe specifically.
Emotion, feeling (how one feels), is Sensation. Emotional expression is Se, hence the need for force and intensity (which is emotional in nature), and emotional impression is Si, hence their relation to the softer side of aesthetics.
Note: emotion in the service of "being heard" is Se, as this relates to impact and presence, and this is done via an increase in intensity. This is the reality of Se leads, and why they come across as being "too emotional" and "too pushy" and "too strident" very often. It is an increase of emotional intensity in order to have their point made / be acknowledged, and this is a direct LACK of proper Fe, emotional control. SLE also notoriously struggles with this, unless they can incorporate their Fe better. For SEE, this can be more problematic as Fe isn't valued and the logical integrity of their arguments don't always make sense on first sight (Ti PolR), but boy can their emotional truths hit like a hammer! This pattern is typical of Se leads, yet is attributed to EIE being "dramatic."
To be consistent with how Animal describes herself and your own definitions, you would have to type her at SLE. Se+Fe, with Se lead. But you do not account for emotional expression of that magnitude in SLE's (hint: it's because they aren't SF) or in ANY Se lead whatsoever (oh uh! big problem). So the nonphysical EIE is the compromise.
By any metric in Socionics, Animal is Se lead. Your conclusion doesn't add up "fine."