r/Socionics • u/succuma • 31m ago
Casual/Fun ILE bf
gallery
•
Upvotes
This was the most fun design for me to work on lol
r/Socionics • u/Cicilka • 2d ago
Gulenko's thoughts on this illustration of the four quadras
64
Upvotes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-3cTSyWrs
Translated transcription: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rBC5B9rKMYC2BbCDWPSaG_BnQTXs5C-k/view?usp=sharing
So, if we take a quadra, the people in these drawings are simply standing there. They are not interacting with one another, except perhaps that from their poses and the distances between them one can roughly estimate what kind of relationships they are in. But as for what they are doing together, I have not yet seen a single picture of this kind where the types were united by some common action, some common motivation. The only thing uniting them, apparently, is that they simply enjoy being together, and that is all.
Type images. This is very important. It may seem that this is merely funny, cool, entertaining, of course, but information is fixed in memory very well precisely in this form.
Alpha Quadra
All right, Anastasia writes: “Now I no longer understand who is where at all. Who is the one with the cake?”
The Enthusiast? Well, yes, that conclusion suggests itself: the one with the cake is supposed to be the Enthusiast. Although, frankly, this does not correspond to our ideas about actions within quadras or about the specialization of the types within a quadra.
But why, from our standpoint, should the Enthusiast not be drawn with a cake or with some kind of food? Because in this quadra the Enthusiast is not responsible for material substance, for feeding people, or for food. The Mediator is the one responsible for that.
And logically so: the Mediator is responsible for sensing. The Enthusiast is responsible for emotions, for the mood in this quadra. It would seem that the Enthusiast should be entertaining everyone.
That should come first. Yet in many similar drawings of the first quadra, the Enthusiast is given some kind of food. People think he will go around serving everything as though he were in a restaurant.
That is far from always the case. No one disputes that the style here is consistent and that the artist is a person of taste. But from the standpoint of type images, a great deal is conveyed incorrectly here.
Write your observations, and I will now say what I myself noticed. Let us look at Alpha. What do you think about Alpha?
I already said that if you are going to give food to someone, it would be better for the Mediator to handle it. Of course, the Enthusiast may bring something too. But frankly, I have usually observed something different.
The Enthusiast is already waiting there and says, “You bring this, and you bring that.” He can say it that way. Everyone brings things for the whole first quadra.
That is how it usually happens. And if a table is being set—here there is no action, they have simply gathered. You could depict them sitting at a table.
All the quadras sitting at tables, for example. I have not encountered that yet. Perhaps you have.
And at the table, responsibility for the food itself, the quality of the food, and the table setting belongs more to the Mediator. The Enthusiast is responsible for making sure that everyone eats.
That everyone gets some. That no one is left feeling slighted. That is what the Enthusiast is responsible for.
You see, this is a very important subtlety. All right, about Gamma: in Gamma only the Politician resembles the type, because of the self-importance.
If that is the one here in the pink shirt. All right, we will finish Alpha first.
I want to say a little more about Alpha, not only about the Enthusiast. If we take Gamma, I agree with Nastya.
The Politician is recognizable here. He is in the pink shirt. Indeed, he looks cool, sociable, high-status.
The leader of the quadra. Fashionable, without question. I agree that the Politician is conveyed more or less well here.
“Alpha came out well. The Enthusiast can also unite people through food.” The point is that this only applies at the first stage.
It is not the main thing. What needs to be shown is how it unfolds over time, dynamically. I told you: everyone brings the food.
The Enthusiast makes sure that everyone has eaten, but the Enthusiast is not responsible for the food itself or for its quality. The Mediator is. So these may look like little details, but they are not little details.
An Enthusiast running around with his cake and treating everyone is a bad scenario for this quadra. Such a thing is possible; I am not disputing that. But it is a bad scenario, because the Enthusiast will come across as intrusive.
The Enthusiast has this drawback—intrusiveness. If he behaves that way, that is precisely what will destroy the harmony of the quadra. If he is going to impose something, he should not impose it on everyone, but only on his dual, who is sitting there and eating nothing.
And refusing. Then the Enthusiast can insist with that person. That would be a lifelike scenario for this quadra.
But not the way it is depicted here. Now, if we take the Mediator, then where is he? It is logical to assume, probably, that he is shown as the first young man, the one with his hand in his pocket.
What can we say? Supposedly the Mediator, but this is not the image of a Mediator. The Mediator should look somehow cozy and comfortable.
This is more the image of some melancholic, thoughtful, refined, romantic young man. It is not the image of the Mediator at all. What else can we say about the first quadra?
About the Analyst. The Analyst, too, is apparently the one on the far right, the very last figure. That does correspond to our understanding that the Analyst is number four in the quadra.
And he is self-distancing within the quadra. So in that respect the drawing is consistent. But what does he look like?
He looks fragile and refined. Somehow feminine. The Analyst does not look like that at all.
This is the wrong image. You cannot imagine what Analysts are like in real life from this. Absolutely not.
He looks like some introverted humanitarian type, perhaps. More like a Lyricist, maybe.
That is what I would add about the first quadra, in addition to the discrepancy you yourselves noticed.
Beta Quadra
Now Beta. Beta is the coolest-looking one. That certainly corresponds to our view that this is the dominant quadra in the socion.
It is the coolest here. But not everything here fits real-life prototypes. If you had real prototypes and compared them, you would see that.
A great deal does not fit.
Of course, the Mentor can transform into anyone. But that would be dynamics. Here we are seeing a static image.
A person in a static condition should not be shown in an accidental state, but in a characteristic one. “The Marshal should look stricter.” Exactly right.
If we look at Beta, the first one there is the Marshal. Of course he should look stricter.
For example, with that hairstyle—yes, I understand that this is the drawing style.
But even so, a Marshal with that hairstyle is some kind of nonsense. What else?
The fact that the Marshal is muscular—that is correct. If he takes care of himself, that can certainly be the case.
But the hairstyle... Let us not discuss it in such minute detail.
Still, I cannot avoid saying something about the hairstyle. In general, the Marshal quite often starts losing his hair with age because of testosterone.
And his hairstyles tend to be shorter. In any case, not this kind of artistic disorder on the head. That is not Marshal-like, of course.
He should look stricter. You noticed that absolutely correctly. What else did I want to add about Beta?
I noticed the Mentor, who is standing next to the Inspector and almost leaning on him—practically lying against him. It seems inappropriate to me to convey the Mentor’s behavior as though the Mentor were draping himself over his Inspector.
The Mentor is unlikely to behave that way, unless he specifically wants to show off. I agree.
And in general, the Mentor is not really a kinesthetic type. The Mentor is a rather fastidious type. For other people to touch him, or for him to lean on someone so demonstratively, would be a special case.
I do not think the Mentor should be depicted as so kinesthetic. You should not imagine that the Mentor normally lies against the Inspector like that. Although the underlying idea—that in the second quadra the men are the force-oriented types and the women, accordingly, are weaker—and therefore should seek protection from the men—that idea itself is good. The men should accordingly look stricter and stronger.
And they should be posed in some way that makes you feel that they are protectors. Protectors of their women. I do not feel that here.
But it would be appropriate to convey through poses and gestures that male strength serves to protect female dignity, and so on. That would work well for the second quadra and would fit organically into the idea of the second quadra itself.
I also want to add something about the Inspector. The Inspector is depicted unrealistically too. Unrealistically.
Why? For example, look at the Inspector’s clothing: dressed entirely in black.
Yes, the Inspector can wear dark colors—darker, less bright colors. There is indeed such a tendency.
But dressing entirely in black is unlikely to be specifically Inspector-like. That is more characteristic not of the Inspector but of the Mentor, especially the mystical Mentor.
Platon likes the Gothic style. He likes dressing in everything mysterious, in the spirit of Halloween.
Everything black, something like that—mystical. That is how a mystical Mentor dresses.
But not the Inspector. With the Inspector, there will definitely be some details that stand out against the background, especially if the Inspector is a woman.
One should not forget that the Inspector is an aesthetic sensory type. There should be some aesthetic details that accentuate an otherwise uniform background.
“All right, the Lyricist has a miserable outfit in this picture. Female Lyricists are usually beautiful—real beauties with styled hair.”
Yes, I agree that Lyricists dress very elegantly, delicately, aesthetically. In principle, it should please the Marshal’s eye.
All right, all right. What else? That is enough about Beta.
Although, of course, we could continue. Let us take the other quadras. Let us take Gamma.
Gamma Quadra
Look. Gamma is a very democratic quadra, very relaxed and uninhibited.
And so on. But I do not see any of that here. It looks the same as all the others.
There is no particular democracy of this quadra here. In addition, this is the quadra of exchange, a pragmatic quadra of exchange.
That is not present in any way either. What else do I want to say about the introverts? As I understand it, the introverts here are the Guardian and the Critic.
They are standing in the background. There is another one there, and frankly it is unclear which of them is which.
Which is the Critic and which is the Guardian? Apparently the image of the Guardian is supposed to be this moralizer, making this kind of gesture, a didactic gesture with his hands.
But that is not the image of the Guardian at all. That is the image of the Mentor—a didactic Mentor image, someone who knows what is right and what is wrong, what should be done and what should not.
That is the image of the Mentor. It does not correspond to the Guardian image at all. Who else can be called a moralizer? The Guardian can be classed among moralizers, but not humanitarian moralizers—people who defend some abstract idea of good or evil, or lecture everyone. That is not how it works. In addition, the Entrepreneur is not conveyed as an Entrepreneur at all.
What is conveyed is another Politician, frankly—a more slovenly one, whereas the other is more dominant.
You could put it that way. The one on the right in yellow is standing there. That is not an Entrepreneur at all.
He looks more like a comedian—a comedian who performs well and tells jokes.
That is a Creative Politician. Even the idea of moralizing is present here. The Guardian does have morality, but it is pragmatic morality, not humanitarian morality in the way it is represented here, like some kind of preacher.
That does not correspond to reality. And again, the Critic is unclear. What kind of Critic is this?
Again, some delicate, refined, aristocratic young man. Is that supposed to be the Critic? It is complete nonsense.
Gamma did not work, except for the Politician. You cannot form an image of this quadra from this at all.
And let us see who else we have here. We still have Delta.
Delta Quadra
Delta, Delta. Let Delta speak for itself and say what it thinks about this.
But I think Natasha—and not only Natasha—wrote that the image of the Administrator is absolutely wrong. This is the image of the Inspector, not the Administrator at all.
We know this enormous problem, when the type is forced to fit “Stierlitz,” when the Logical-Sensory Extravert is forced to fit Stierlitz:
an obviously introverted and balanced character, the secretive image of an intelligence officer. And non-humanitarian socionists nevertheless make the Administrator into that.
They even make Sherlock Holmes an Administrator. But from our standpoint this is complete nonsense.
They force the images to fit Stierlitz, so that the Administrator is supposed to be neat, extremely calm, self-controlled, doing everything precisely according to rules. That is nonsense.
The Administrator is certainly not like that. He is nervous, running around, twitchy.
He can shout, and so on. Here, by contrast, his temperamental opposite is depicted: he is far too calm.
And someone correctly writes about this: he seems to be teaching from a book, or carefully studying some instruction manual. No. He simply takes something and does it.
If it does not work, then he looks at the instructions. Or he may demand that other people follow the instructions. That is more likely.
This is an absolutely unrealistic image of the Administrator. But we know that this is a systematic error when comparing different systems of type images.
And when someone regards Stierlitz as the Administrator, then of course there is simply no way to make the two images meet. You cannot find common points here.
Because the behavior of that intelligence officer, as played by Vyacheslav Tikhonov, is so introverted. How can you turn that into an extraverted type?
I simply do not understand it. And of course we also have to discuss at least the image of the Craftsman.
Again, it is depicted completely outside the spirit of our types. It is depicted in the spirit of a non-humanitarian school, where the Craftsman is always drawn lying on a sofa,
like a lazy person, the greatest idler in the socion. That is why he has a pillow.
That is why he is yawning. Why is the Craftsman the greatest idler, lying around and so forth?
It is impossible to understand. Even according to their own formula, he is supposed to have business logic.
The Craftsman has a strong function. He is supposed to have strong business logic. How does that fit with lying on a sofa and doing nothing?
There are contradictions everywhere. I can understand it from the standpoint of the theory of type succession in the socion: the Craftsman certainly completes the socion, and with him everything falls asleep, dies, relaxes, stops moving.
If you take that idea—but not this particular realization of it. The Craftsman is maximum, limiting efficiency: do little, but obtain the maximum return. That is craftsmanship. Business logic is present there, but it is built on good technologies that one must master. You have to learn them.
You have to do something, make something. How can you simply lie on a sofa?
I cannot imagine it. The idea of the Craftsman is not conveyed here at all. On the contrary, what is conveyed is the idea of some idler who does nothing. They are writing, “Did they confuse the Craftsman with the Lyricist?” Well, look at the Lyricist.
Anya, the Lyricist has emotions, especially at close psychological distance. Right?
The Lyricist is a type who needs to get into certain situations so that the Marshal will notice him and protect him with force sensing. If the Lyricist lies safely at home and nothing threatens him, then how will the Marshal ever find him? Right?
No. The Lyricist has to get into extreme situations. That is precisely incompatible with lying on a sofa.
You see? The Critic would fit this better. You can imagine the Critic that way.
It corresponds most of all to the Critic, a kind of armchair specialist who does nothing personally but is so well read and knows so much about everything that he can permit himself to criticize, even nitpicking about details. That is something one can imagine.
Conclusion
So we have looked at how important the visual form of presenting information is, especially in modern media, which are visual through and through. The images should be bright and striking; all of this should be something people want to look at, something spectacular. But at the same time, of course, it has to be realistic.
It should be presented spectacularly, but at the same time without violating the system. Otherwise you get nonsense from the standpoint of what? From the standpoint of learning type images through pictures.
r/Socionics • u/razumovskayalex • 5h ago
Discussion Am I overthinking this or is my insecurity about my appearance a Se thing?
5
Upvotes
Hi. I'm probably here with a stupid question, sorry. But I'd like to clarify my thoughts and the information I've gathered.
I think Se is a problematic function for me, definitely not high. And besides being connected to the obvious and first thing that most people would probably think of, I mean strength and influence on the environment, as I understand it, it's also connected to how we express ourselves outwardly. I mean our appearance, body, clothes, all that. Yes, I'm super shy, I sometimes struggle to say no, I seem fragile sometimes, I think. That's obvious. But I also have problems with expressing myself outwardly. Previously I dressed worse, probably influenced by family pressure. And now I both try and worry about how I look. I'm not absolutely sure about my place how much space I can take up, whether I can even sit next to someone if we've sort of talked but also sort of haven't. I have an eating disorder, which is difficult for me right now, but what matters to me more is how I look rather than the fact that I'm pushing my body into an unhealthy state. I don't want to be ugly and I don't want to be the way I was a couple of years ago. When I need to choose something, I'm not sure how much it suits me. I thought about glasses, it would be interesting to wear them, plus as a replacement for lenses sometimes, but immediately realized that I'd most likely have a very hard time choosing them because I have no idea which ones suit my face and which don't. I feel like a fool like I constantly need help, but at the same time I don't want to depend on others. I'm not great at monitoring my own state, being the kind of person who worries when buying things and can either take too long or go too fast. I just won't immediately understand that the same shoes are too big, whether they'll be uncomfortable, what and how. I doubt whether it looks good or not. And it feels like I come to conclusions about myself and my appearance a bit too late. This is where it's easy to hurt me.
And I wondered does this make sense in the context of the Se function? I read somewhere that the desire to look good is more related to Se, although Fe could also be there. Sorry again if I'm asking nonsense. Thanks in advance for your answer!
r/Socionics • u/yuka_the_nerd • 1h ago
Daemon Targaryen - SLE ('Zhukov')
•
Upvotes
Daemon Targaryen
One of my favourite characters of House of The Dragon. Im going to be talking only about his portrayal in the show but a lot of it applies to it book counterpart as well.
Ego (Se - Ti)
Essentially this character is one of the clear manifestations of ‘The Warrior’ archetype. In the show he is one of the characters that we see the most fighting in battles. Important to note, that he is of royal blood, hes from one of the most powerful houses in the realm, he could quite literally become anyone and do whatever he wants in life. The fact that he is one of the most notorious knights in the entire kingdom shows, that it is a deliberate and focused decision to constantly choose this particular direction in life. Power, strengths, hierarchy, titles, influence are the things that were always important to him since very early on. It is the type of imformation that he understands the best, it is the kind of information he values the most. Hes the most comfortable with it and it manifests in him being an exceptional military strategist. Up to the events of the last season hes managed to become a knight, the commander of the City Watch, be involved in several brutal battles and conquer several kingdoms during his military campaigns. He is impatient, active and stubborn. Power is the only language that he speaks. He can respect a person if they have a strong core to them but he absolutely despises the ones who lack any influence and don’t care for it. Status is also important for him. He always wanted to become a king, although there was a realisation in him that he is not suited to rule (purely my opinion). Partially because of his bloodline he views himself and his family as exceptional and sees everyone else as lower in hierarchy. He loves his roots, he loves his traditions and culture. Theres a clear distinction of ‘us vs them’ in his worldview. He believes that they are given the right to rule by the gods. I think in a way he even marries Rhayenyra because of all the Targaryen exceptionalism and him being closer to the throne through her. His clear dislike of Ulf stems from the fact that Ulf doesn’t know how to properly speak to him, how to behave and generally doesn’t know his place and treats everyone as equals. He is direct when he is speaking to people, straight to the point and confident. He is fast at making decisions, solves problems through an ‘action first’ approach. His deep love for dragons and fascination with them imo is connected to the fact that they are a literal physical representation of power, the very thing that his Base function values the most. No wonder he has a deep spiritual bond with them while Haelena has no connection to them whatsoever (in the show. I know that in the books she likes riding on Dreamfyre). Obviously he possesses physical prowess as well. In the book he is essentially one of the strongest opponents you could face after maybe Criston Cole, but in the show although it is not as emphasized Id say he is still in the top 5 strongest fighters of the series.
Super Ego (Fi - Ne)
Outwardly he wants people to view him as someone who sees opportunities and someone who always knows where the escape route is. He wants to portray the idea as if he knows who is who and who you can trust. He constantly keeps reminding Rhayenyra about her mission from the gods, about her potential. He gets bored with keeping himself in the castle he wants more opportunities, conquer more lands, win more battles, he wants to go where the maps stop and expand their kingdom forever. Whenever Rhaynyra is stuck she keeps coming back to him to try to see the opportunities. He cherishes his family and his bonds with them but he fails at maintaining those bonds. He loved his brother but couldn’t become a proper good brother, he loves his children but he is a terrible dad, he loves Rhaynyra but he is not a good husband. Since all of this is a social mask, with time once the mask falls off we see that he does not know how to maintain proper relationships with people, he does not really know who to trust and whos of a good moral character or not, the potential that he sees in his new conquering is unfeasable and sounds like a dream, his images through which he filters people are extremely one dimensional. Yet there are clear cases when he is right in this regard. Several instances where he advises to kill certain people, immideatly seeing the potential threat they might be, and looking at how the things unfolded perhaps if they followed with his suggestions there wouldn’t be as many issues, he also senses the potential threat in Otto as soon as he gets to know him
Super Id (Fe - Ni)
He is not much of a planner. He prefers when he is given an objective and hell proceed with achieving it. Because he is quick to action and doesn’t leave enough room for himself to properly think about the consequences of such actions he would often lose to otto on several occasions in their competition for the throne. He does not think in several steps, he does not observe the patterns and he needs advisors to do so for him. On the council he is often dismissed because he does not look far enough. He does not pay a lot of attention to hidden meanings or symbolism but he enjoys the history of his bloodline. He derives his meaning and sense of purpose primarily from those sources He is also a pretty charismatic leader. He is good at influencing and inspiring his people for the battle or some kind of an action. But the majority of the time his emotional state is stable. When meeting new people he often tries to be as non readable as possible
Id (Si - Te)
We don’t usually see him enjoying comfort or rest in any capacity in the show. He does not pay much attention to textures, forms, materials, food. We don’t see him taking care of his body but due to the nature of his “job” he is obviously physically healthy and fit. He is very good at solving immediate problems, being effective and productive with his decisions. Even when he talks he does not use words with no purpose. Everything is as efficient as it can be. He is often focused on the results and his objectives. He can see and understand how different things and structures work. When he was the commander of the Gold Cloaks he was extremely successful with maintaining stability in Kings Landing, when he was given a task of taking over the Stepstones, he did it
If I had to name the IE that are mostly represented in this character Id say it is Se, Ti and Te which perfectly aligns with the SLE type also knows as “Zhukov” or “The Marshal”. They are the strongest (3D and 4D) and also its Ego + Demonstarative and i heard that the functions that we usually notice the most in types are Ego + Role + Demonstrative. Base Se, contact Ti and contact but vital Te checks out with what I see in him and his actions throughout the story. In terms of Reinin dichotomies he is very obviously static, negativist and aristocratic. Great character! he definetly fulfills his types role in the story. Very excited to see how they fuck up his arc in the final season xD
Do yall think hes SLE or is he any other type? SEE maybe?
r/Socionics • u/edward_kenway7 • 14h ago
Discussion Does dislike of extreme/intense emotions in others contradicts with super-id Fe?
6
Upvotes
What do you think about it? I am not exactly sure if it is more physically disturbing(Si) or from purely emotional perspective. I am pretty okay with it and even like it sometimes it comes from media, like music or movies/show etc. But intense emotional expressions in real life is not that good.
r/Socionics • u/LightFite • 12h ago
Discussion If you're interested in Socionics discussion, I would have a look here
discord.gg
3
Upvotes
r/Socionics • u/Cicilka • 23h ago
Gulenko’s thoughts on a skit about how the types fall in love
youtube.com
23
Upvotes
Translated transcription: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18eLePo3p9w0-LRGY47yTiVW1yhAT_zz_/view?usp=sharing
How the 16 Socionic Types Fall in Love
Viktor Gulenko critiques a caricature of romantic relationship scenarios
Opening: what the caricature gets right and wrong
Viktor Gulenko: I will simply remind you: all sixteen types are represented there. This girl is very artistic and transformed herself into several different images. She said certain lines and acted something out at the same time.
I should tell you that her portrayal was rather rough. It was more of a cartoon or caricature than a real type. You understand that yourselves, yes? And her range was not very broad.
When she spoke about ethical types, when she portrayed ethical types, she showed emotions everywhere—everywhere. Whether they were introverted ethical types or extraverted ethical types, she portrayed emotions in every case. And when she spoke about logical types, which logical form did she portray everywhere?
Participant: Structural logic.
Viktor Gulenko: Structural logic. There was no Business Logic anywhere. Apparently she herself belongs to this pair of scenarios, so she feels and understands them well.
She understands and portrays the passionate scenario very well. And the cold-blooded scenario. There was also an intermediate one connected with Force Sensing.
She more or less portrayed firmness, hardness, aggression there as well. That also slipped through in her acting. She has none of the other scenarios.
But we do have them, and today we will have to go through them and try to see how they can manifest in life.
The embedded caricature: “How do different sociotypes fall in love?”
Woman in the clip: How do representatives of different sociotypes fall in love?
I am Robespierre. I chose for a long time. Chose. Fell in love.
I am Hugo. Fell in love, got married. After the wedding I could not remember whom I had married.
I am Don Quixote. Fell in love, suffered, and said screw it.
I am Dumas. Fell in love, got married, and they died on the same day. Love.
I am Zhukov. Fell in love, won them over.
I am Yesenin. I fell in love, fell in love, fell in love. Only—why?
I am Maxim Gorky. I fell in love, and then made them fall in love with me.
I am Hamlet. I fell in love, suffered. Fell in love, suffered.
I am Balzac. I fell out of love with falling in love.
I am Napoleon. Fell in love, made them fall in love with me—and fell out of love.
I am Jack London. I fell in love, got married, got divorced, divided the property.
I am Dreiser. I fell in love, suffered, but did not fall out of love.
I am Gabin. I fell in love. Well... I did fall in love, I think, right?
I am Huxley. I fell in love, told everyone, and fell out of love.
I am Stierlitz. Fell in love, got married.
I am Dostoevsky. I fell in love, suffered, and forgave.
Recognize yourself? Then hurry and sign up for Socionics 18+ courses.
Alpha Quadra
Analyst (LII)
Viktor Gulenko: All right, let us take the first type there, the Analyst. She has arranged the types in her own way within the quadra, moving through the quadras, but the first type is the Analyst. What does she say about the Analyst? Those are the words, and I hope you remember how she acted it out. She portrayed it in a cold-blooded manner and said: “I chose for a long time. Chose. Fell in love.” Like that: chose for a long time, chose, fell in love.
That is another matter. We are comparing them now. Here is the question: regarding the Analyst, is her interpretation correct or not?
Participant: It seems to me that nowhere was she correct.
Viktor Gulenko: Sasha thinks she was not correct anywhere. Now look—regarding the Analyst...
Participant: But the point is that the Analyst does not choose by himself...
Viktor Gulenko: That is exactly what we are coming to. Look: she did catch the fact that this is a cold-blooded scenario. Yes. But the idea that the Analyst calculated someone, marked that person out for himself, and then fell in love with them is very unlike the Analyst.
The Analyst chooses from among the people who pay attention to him. That is all. There is nothing to guess about. So the meaning she put into it does not fit.
Of course, it can happen differently. Liza disagrees; Liza says people can act in different ways. There is no single scenario. But if we take the standard Analyst—the standard case—perhaps in his head he really does think: this suits me, that suits me, this other thing suits me. But in reality it never turns out that way. In reality he chooses from among the people who have paid attention to him. That is what you need to know about the cold-blooded scenarios connected with the Analyst.
Enthusiast (ESE)
Viktor Gulenko: Next comes the Enthusiast. How does she portray the Enthusiast? She portrays him emotionally and passionately. That part is correct: the Enthusiast has a passionate scenario.
But then she says: “Fell in love, got married, forgot whom I had married.” Is that the Enthusiast? No. Absolutely not.
The point is that the Enthusiast also has a caring scenario. Besides emotions, there is a caring scenario present. What she gives us here is some kind of flighty, careless scenario, but one that is clearly intuitive.
That cannot really belong to a sensing type: got married and forgot whom he married. That has nothing to do with sensing. It is some kind of flighty intuitive scenario, and it is quite correctly connected with extraverted intuition—but not with the Enthusiast.
So you see, it is completely wrong. Perhaps in that school of socionics the image of the Enthusiast is someone so abstracted and detached that he does not care whom he marries. Perhaps. But in our school that is not the case.
Of course the Enthusiast has a broad circle of acquaintances. He shows emotional expansion. But he is still made for marriage and family. This is a family type. Therefore an attitude of “it does not matter whom” is nonsense.
It is much more like an intuitive extravert, or a Creative representative of an intuitive type. A Creative Lyricist, for example—I could still understand someone of that sort acting this way. But not the Enthusiast.
Seeker (ILE)
Viktor Gulenko: Next comes the Seeker. Remember how she portrays the Seeker? “Fell in love, suffered, said screw it.” Is that the Seeker?
Participant: I do not know about suffering, but he just gives up on it.
Viktor Gulenko: No, the wording does not fit. “Said screw it” sounds more like Force-Sensing types. Andrei caught that correctly. It is more characteristic of Force-Sensing types. It does not fit here.
Participant: But it just means he dropped the whole thing and that was it.
Viktor Gulenko: I understand: it got tiresome and he forgot about it. But what should it actually be?
What was meant should be expressed like this: fell in love, waited for care, did not receive it, and switched to something else. That is what is meant. That would be the correct realization. That is the Seeker.
So instead of “said screw it,” you should say “switched.” He switched because he did not receive the care he expected; he did not wait long enough for the care. Like that.
You can also convey this intuitive-extraverted scenario a little differently: fell in love, became interested, was surprised, became puzzled, became disappointed, forgot. Something like that.
Participant: Yes—switched.
Viktor Gulenko: Absolutely.
Mediator (SEI)
Viktor Gulenko: Now the Mediator, and that finishes the quadra. Look at what she gives us: “Fell in love, got married, and died on the same day.” Does it fit?
There is a great deal of idealization there. It sounds somewhat humanitarian, does it not? Humanitarian in tone.
But overall there is something right in it, because among the scenarios we have already studied it contains something like a soulful scenario: relationship ethics, strong attachment, strong habituation, strong closeness. It comes out like some ethical subtype.
But the Mediator needs a caring scenario, and that is absent here. We will get to the Guardian and compare. Now we move to the second quadra.
Beta Quadra
Marshal (SLE)
Viktor Gulenko: So what do you say about the Marshal, whom she conveys very briefly: “Fell in love, won them over”?
Participant: In principle, it corresponds.
Viktor Gulenko: I think so too. Yes, it corresponds. He simply captures the object and that is all.
He may later become disappointed. That depends on what happens next. He becomes disappointed and leaves. It depends on the Lyricist's behavior. But usually, no—the forceful scenario is conveyed successfully.
You know: an aggressive, forceful capture. I am joking now.
Participant: A female Marshal might fall in love and then not pursue him—and just drop it.
Viktor Gulenko: Then she has gone over into the Seeker's scenario. We have discussed those nuances, including gender nuances. Here the Marshal is apparently meant as a man. In any case, the forceful scenario is conveyed well.
Even the intonation is correct. You see? With the Marshal, even the intonation is right.
Lyricist (IEI)
Viktor Gulenko: Now let us look at the Lyricist. What does she do with the Lyricist? “Fell in love, fell in love, fell in love. Only—why?” Is that a possible scenario?
Participant: Falling in love three times is certainly possible.
Participant: But I do not think the “why?” fits.
Viktor Gulenko: Why would the Lyricist ask “why?”
Participant: The Lyricist has a need to love. So why ask why? The need is simply there.
Viktor Gulenko: Yes, exactly. The beginning is good. But this “why?” is unlikely to concern the Lyricist. It should be not “why?” but something else. How would you continue it?
Participant: Just because.
Viktor Gulenko: Just because. Exactly.
Yes, I agree. Lyuba caught it correctly. That really would be a lyrical scenario: something humanitarian, an airy scenario.
Participant: And our sufferer could, of course, pine and suffer a little too. That is part of the pleasure.
Viktor Gulenko: The Lyricist does not experience it quite that way. When we reach the Mentor, that appears immediately. With the Lyricist, this dramatic scenario is not yet present—or at least it is not characteristic.
Inspector (LSI)
Viktor Gulenko: Now let us take the Inspector. Look at how she conveys the Inspector: “I fell in love, and then made them fall in love with me.” Is that right?
Participant: Well... it can be.
Participant: At least from what you told us, there is persistence there.
Viktor Gulenko: Yes. It turns out that one variant of the Inspector does fit here. Do you know which? The Dominant one.
The one that rigidly pursues, forces the other person to love him, imposes his love—that is a Dominant Inspector. It resembles a forceful scenario, naturally, though it is exaggerated. Or there may be an accentuation on Force Sensing, on capture. Then yes.
Generally, you know that the Inspector asserts his right to a woman almost as property—not as a thing, but as someone on his own territory. On someone else's territory, no.
He pursues her, yes; he courts her. He does not simply seize her. Sieges are taken—that is the better image. That should have been included.
But “made them fall in love with me” fits only on his own territory, or in a Dominant variant. Only then does it work.
Mentor / Player (EIE)
Viktor Gulenko: Now the Mentor—or the Player. “Fell in love, suffered. Fell in love, suffered,” and so on. Is that right? You cannot do without emotions.
Participant: It is a little weak.
Viktor Gulenko: Suffered constantly—that part is constant.
Participant: It needs to continue. The issue is that “suffered” is an action directed at oneself, whereas with the Mentor it would be more like: fell in love, fell out of love, fell in love, suffered, fell out of love...
Viktor Gulenko: Approximately like that. But overall I consider it correct. The passionate scenario is conveyed correctly.
The Mentor falls in love, but he is very demanding of the object of love. When he comes close to the person, that person does not meet his requirements. And the Mentor thinks that he himself is not to blame; the other person—the one who seduced him, or came close to him—is to blame.
He always blames the other person. That is what is meant. This is not only in love, of course.
So in that sense it is correct. A passionate scenario is described here in which joy alternates with dramatism: a switching of the sign of the emotion function. Correct.
Gamma Quadra
Critic (ILI)
Viktor Gulenko: Next we have the third quadra. The Critic: “I fell out of love with falling in love.” Is that right?
It is ironic. Of course it is ironic, but there is something in it. It is a hint at the cold-blooded scenario.
Participant: It is not worth getting involved in this at all.
Viktor Gulenko: Exactly: “It is not worth getting involved in this at all. I have fallen out of love with falling in love.”
Participant: My son was in a relationship, then something did not work out. We keep asking him, “When are you going to fall in love again?” and he says, “I have fallen out of love with falling in love.”
Viktor Gulenko: Did he actually say that?
Participant: Something along those lines: I do not want it; I do not need it.
Viktor Gulenko: So that can become a Critic scenario when the Critic himself shows initiative. On one side it is a variant of the victim scenario, but on the other it is also cold-blooded. That is what we get.
Politician (SEE)
Viktor Gulenko: Now the Politician. There is irony here too, so the style itself is right. The tenth item is the Politician. How does she convey the manner? “Fell in love, made them fall in love with me, and fell out of love.” What do you say? Does she convey it correctly?
Participant: I thought she was going to say he fell in love with himself.
Viktor Gulenko: We will come back to that. For the moment, something else.
What I think she meant here is: there is some goal. The Politician gets the goal, and once he has it, it is no longer interesting. He needs the next goal. He has taken possession of it—finished. Now something else has to happen.
This applies, first, not only to falling in love, and second, he does not have to be the one who falls in love.
In short, yes, it conveys him correctly, but it has to be interpreted correctly. Here we have a combination of a forceful scenario—because he has to win the person over—and a passionate scenario—because he has to act emotionally. So for the Politician, yes, it is correct.
Entrepreneur (LIE)
Viktor Gulenko: Now the Entrepreneur. There it is: “I fell in love, got married, got divorced, divided the property.”
Participant: Seriously?
Viktor Gulenko: Yes. What is that? Is that really the Entrepreneur? What do you think? In my opinion it is completely wrong.
Such a thing can happen, but that is not a relationship scenario at all. It is purely a scenario of property relations. It is not an ethical relationship scenario in the sense we mean here. It does not fit at all.
Guardian (ESI)
Viktor Gulenko: Now the Guardian. Lyuba knows Guardians. Lyuba, how is the Guardian's scenario conveyed? “I fell in love, suffered, but did not fall out of love.”
Participant: It is very similar. There is this steadfastness. Attachment—attachment and steadfastness.
Viktor Gulenko: That is a soulful scenario, correct? Relationship ethics. But the Guardian... where is the pragmatism?
Participant: And the negativism.
Participant: “Suffered.” In reality nobody tried to make the Guardian suffer, but the Guardian suffered anyway.
Viktor Gulenko: The Guardian suffers strongly. Look: the number-one scenario used here is the soulful scenario. That corresponds to the Guardian. It is soulful, and it has a minus sign.
For example: “Yes, this person did not suit me. He did not earn enough money; he could not provide for the family. I drove away that unworthy man and found a worthy one. But I remember the first one because he was close to my heart.”
Participant: And then Guardians keep complaining to me that he was like this and like that, he was so bad... six months pass and she is still suffering and suffering.
Viktor Gulenko: And afterward she goes right back to suffering again. So overall the Guardian's scenario is conveyed correctly.
Delta Quadra
Craftsman (SLI)
Viktor Gulenko: That finishes the third quadra, and we have the fourth left. The Craftsman. Look at the Craftsman: “I fell in love. Well... I did fall in love, I think, right?” So he supposedly does not realize it.
Of course, this is based on Model A: weak emotions, therefore he does not understand what is happening. In our model, it is not only that.
Participant: It seems completely inconsistent to me. The Craftsman knows exactly what he wants. Especially a Dominant one.
Viktor Gulenko: I also think the Craftsman is portrayed incorrectly here. First, the Craftsman needs a caring scenario. Where is the caring scenario here? It is absent.
The Craftsman also needs some kind of cold-blooded scenario. But here there is simply an absence of emotion, or “I cannot sort out my feelings.” That is all. There should be some interest, something sensory. There is nothing.
Dima, how would you describe the Craftsman's scenario in three words, at least approximately? “Fell in love...”
Participant: Fell in love—well, thank God. Fell in love, fed them, settled down together.
Viktor Gulenko: That is right. Here the cold-blooded scenario is conveyed. For the logical type of the Craftsman, that would work very well. But as you can see, the version in the clip does not correspond at all.
Adviser (IEE)
Viktor Gulenko: Now the Adviser. Let us see the Adviser. The clip gives the Adviser's scenario as: “I fell in love, told everyone, and fell out of love.”
Participant: That fits. Exactly. Telling everyone—yes. But falling out of love? Not necessarily.
Participant: I think the Adviser falls in love with another one and another one. They string them all together and love everyone, including the exes.
Viktor Gulenko: The point is that the Adviser suffers for several minutes—and then switches. He switches. He is flexible too. So you can say that he forgot. Not necessarily that he fell out of love. He forgot.
Participant: And switched.
Viktor Gulenko: And switched, yes. But the fact that he also told everyone about his feelings—that part is correct. He went into new feelings, new emotions. That is exactly right.
So I would put it this way: he moved into new emotions. That is the resolution. First he fell in love, then there is the middle part—what happened—and then the ending. The ending we have now phrased correctly. And telling everyone about his feelings is right. Correct.
Administrator (LSE)
Viktor Gulenko: Now the Administrator: “Fell in love, got married. That's all.” Does it correspond? Well... somehow.
Participant: Marriage applies to everyone.
Viktor Gulenko: Exactly. It applies to everyone. There are no feelings here at all.
Participant: They simply could not think of anything to say.
Viktor Gulenko: Yes, apparently they simply could not think of anything. “Fell in love, got married.” Perhaps there is some kind of businesslike scenario in it.
Participant: Got married—and then I organize everyone.
Participant: There is another point, though. Administrators have difficulty explaining what is going on with them at all. The actions themselves are understandable. And maybe if he got married, that means he was in love.
Viktor Gulenko: Perhaps it would work like this: first got married, then fell in love.
Yes, with that correction it would be good: “If I have already married, that is it—I am going to love this person.” Then it would be correct.
Humanist (EII)
Viktor Gulenko: And we have one type left: the Humanist. The Humanist is given like this: “I fell in love, suffered, and forgave.” Forgave.
Yes, that coincides with the soulful scenario. Correct? “I fell in love, suffered, but forgave.” In the end, I forgave. Something like that.
All right. With that, we have finished the homework. Thank you for watching!
r/Socionics • u/cheesecakepiebrownie • 1d ago
Four classic temperaments to Socionics conversion
18
Upvotes
I think they have been categorized most commonly by temperament but I don't see it as correlating as much
Sanguine
- Social and Charismatic: Sanguines love company, excel at encouraging others, and are often the life of the party.
- Optimistic and Playful: They approach life with curiosity, enthusiasm, and a sense of adventure.
- Present-Focused: They live in the moment, easily adapting to new experiences and changing environments.
- Forgiving: They tend to express affection freely, forgive quickly, and forget grievances just as fast
Types: ESE, IEE, SEI, SEE, ILE-Ne
Phlegmatic
- Unemotional: A phlegmatic person shows very little outward emotion, even during a crisis or stressful event.
- Steady: They are slow to react, patient, and reliable.
- Introverted: In personality theory, the phlegmatic type is generally quiet, easy-going, and peaceful
Types: EII, IEI, ILI=Ni, ESI-Fi
Melancholic
- Strengths: Highly conscientious, analytical, creative, loyal, and quality-oriented.
- Weaknesses: Prone to perfectionism, self-criticism, overthinking, and pessimism.
- Traits: Slow-reacting and deeply impressionable, preferring quiet environments and a small, close circle of friends
Types: LII, LSI, ESI, SLI, ILI-Te
Choleric
- Strengths: Driven, confident, practical, vision-oriented, and effective in high-pressure crises.
- Weaknesses: Impatient, quick-tempered, stubborn, and prone to dominating others or being dismissive of slower paces.
- Traits: Extroverted, goal-driven temperament defined by ambition, decisiveness, and strong leadership.
Types: LSE, SLE, LIE, EIE (ILE-Ti subtype and some SEE's could fit in here as well)
r/Socionics • u/Pitiful-Emotion6987 • 1d ago
Typing Honestly, I don't know if I am an SLI or EII anymore. What if I just confuse my autistic traits with Fe PoLR?
8
Upvotes
If I had to list which functions are the easiest for me to use and access, they would be (in order) Fi/Si (interchangeable), Ne, Fe/Te, Ti, Se.
I relate to Se PoLR in that for me it causes great anxiety to act out and say even the littlest of things that could CAUSE people to think I am trying to influence them.
For example, I am afraid of correcting people's mistakes because I don't want to sound like I am critisizing them - even if I only want to help. So simply noting to someone: "that was not done correctly, here's how you do it correctly" is not satisfying for me; I feel the need to also establish very clearly that I am only trying to help and that am in no way suggesting superiority to them, that I have also been there before but simply perhaps spent more time on this kind of task and therefore just wanted to let them know out of kindness and care that it is supposed to be done like so, that's all. It's really quite stupid.
People also frequently treat me as if I am very fragile and lost, especially in professional environments. Apparently I always appear a bit anxious when I am working.
I am terrible in emergency situations, in leading others and in multitasking. I want everything in my interactions with the outside world to be predictable, and when it is not, I get panicky and unsure of how to proceed. I am not very good at thinking outside of the box in practical ways, so I stick to clearly defined rules and what people have told me to do. I also struggle to organize environments to function in the most efficient way, it sounds like the most tiring job to try to do something like that of there are no guidelines.
Fe PoLR is also a bit relatable because I never really understand what people think of me and I am extremely sensitive to any real or imagined sign of rejection. It could also be self-esteem issues, but I tend to just assume people find me weird and unlikeable, probably because that was my only childhood experience.
I am also not very good at understanding what I feel, and I relate somewhat to alexithymia as a personality trait. I can sometimes give a bit of a flat effect in the moment, and dislike it when I am expected to express my emotions at the spot - I simply don't know what I feel before I have given it proper thought, so how could I explain it. Plus I have a tendency to fight my realizations and intuitions if I feel like they will be an inconvenience to others.
And then you add sensory issues, potential shutdowns when overwhelmed, issues looking people in the eyes and overthinking social cues...
What also supports the EII argument is that I am probably the most attracted to people with high Te. I like people with an intense, determined and focused energy. People who are honest and direct and a little gruff, but secretly have a bit of a soft spot (or at least I want to discover it lol). Only they make me feel a bit insecure about myself in comparison.
I am also obsessed with people who can show me how to do basic everyday things in a smarter way. I still love my ex's mom for showing me how to cut up an apple really efficiently lol. I really appreciate this kind of stuff.
Meanwhile, I personally feel like I am not logically inclined as a person. My strengths have always been in philosophy, psychology, delving into my inner world and discovering my own depths with often unconventional and occult tools. Numbers and data steamroll my brain and are frequently painful to deal with. The only systems I enjoy are humanistic/semi pseudoscientific ones. 😅
Si feels pretty easy for me to use nowadays, but at the same time I am not even sure if my environments reflect that. Realistically they tend to be quite bare and neglected, even though I think I know exactly how to make a space more comfortable. I just don't care to actually do it, because it would take too much time and effort and logistics and money spent. My style of designing a space is more like "look at all these knick knacks I collected over the years and this wall I painted one night because I thought it looked empty and sad, now they're just all here like a little forest of things".
Nowadays I am pretty good at reading my bodily sensations, but I don't think I always have been. I developed a multitude of really stupid health problems in my teens because I didn't understand my body, and then I had to very painfully learn to take care of myself and to understand my biology, so as not to frickin die. 😭
I wrote a post some time ago wondering if I might be an SLI. Everything in it about me is still true. But thinking about the parts of me that contradict an SLI's makeup, I might not be ready to exclude EII as a possibility just yet.
Thoughts and insights will be much appreciated. 🙏
r/Socionics • u/Financial_Ad1210 • 1d ago
Can someone explain me why Regina George is ESE?
6
Upvotes
r/Socionics • u/crisiseternal • 1d ago
Discussion Is Hot Priest EII or IEI?
4
Upvotes
I think he's an IEI because he and Fleabag (ILE) actually had a pretty decent relationship, except for how it ended. They were nowhere near as chaotic as a typical supervision relationship. Not to mention, Hot Priest actually liked power plays, that scene in the church alone makes me doubt an EII would enjoy that. I feel like a true EII-ILE dynamic would look more like Diane and Bojack, full of misunderstandings and chaos. What do you guys think?
r/Socionics • u/Allie_Leon • 1d ago
Typing EII or not? My inner world is darker than the type descriptions suggest
5
Upvotes
Hello there. I feel like my type is coming together, but also not. I seem to have Fi ,at least it feels high, like I have a lot of it. EII seems to fit, overall. But also not quite. I feel like I have too much internal resentment and anger for this type. I consider revenge useful and logical. My thinking is full of ideas about deserved punishments, even death, for people who cross a line I consider unforgivable. I've imagined violent, bloody revenge against those who hurt me, because I believed they deserved it. I get angry that in real life I can't be loud, fierce or strong enough to hurt those who hurt me. Unfortunately, I'm traumatized, which makes me even more upset and gives me mixed feelings about myself. In a certain sense, I'm nihilistic. Also I believe people are dangerous and should be feared. I'd like goodness and justice in the world, but I don't believe it will ever happen. I like characters who seek revenge, who are a bit crazy and strange like Rhiannon Lewis from Sweetpea, Tate Langdon from AHS. I associate them with myself, as strange as that sounds. Or with the part of myself I wish I could be. Someone even pointed out that it's suspicious to have a Squid Game poster in my room, especially with the Frontman. That show has a lot of Se, which for Se PoLR might be off-putting. I imagined myself as a player who'd want to set someone up so they wouldn't get in my way, though I'm not sure I'd actually do it, because it's risky, and someone might take revenge on me for it. I don't need a target on my back. Strange thoughts, I know, sorry.
And based on this, for an EII with Se PoLR, it seems strange to have such inclinations. They're portrayed as kinder without desires for revenge or aggressive behavior. Maybe that's just my perception or stereotypes, but I feel like I fall out of the type because of this. However, I'm not sure I could be Se creative either, because I'm sensitive, feel weak and simultaneously strong at times, struggle with asserting myself and taking action in reality, and I'm shy around people. I'm also confused by the fact that I'm the most random and disorganized person on the planet. Other people help me set goals otherwise I might never choose anything or do anything, not knowing what I want in life. They're more like ideas and lightbulb moments that might fizzle out rather than actual goals I strive to achieve.
What do you think, can EIIs be like this or not? This is what really triggers me about the type not fitting perfectly. I'd finally like to understand. And sorry for a little bit messy post, just feel sleepy.
edited: Omg, thank you so much for your help! I didn’t think there would be so many answers.
r/Socionics • u/alexrazumovskyay • 1d ago
Discussion SLI and ILI how does your Fe PoLR actually work in practice?
11
Upvotes
Hi. I'd like to ask SLI and ILI types how does your Fe PoLR actually work? How does it manifest for you? It would be great to read your explanations, because descriptions are nice, but nothing compares to real practical examples. At least for me. And if possible, could you also mention some signs that someone definitely does NOT have Fe PoLR? I'd appreciate any answers.
I have moments that I consider weak Fe. Hope I'm not wrong lol. I'd like to understand other people's experiences with problematic Fe. Emotions and feelings for me are like a tsunami wave that crashes over you before you have time to hide. I don't understand them very well. They linger for a long time, they're felt in the moment in response to something, disrupting my calm state, the state I usually prefer to be in. I sit there stunned, feeling a tightness in my chest and warmth inside. When it's something positive, it's like a flower growing inside me, wanting to break through my bones and tear through my muscles to burst out. I have almost no control over these processes even though I try. If you ask about my mood, I'll say fine, because that's the standard. My mood doesn't exist until something happens and triggers an emotion. Because I get stuck in emotions, that state becomes my mood. I guess it's more like a prolonged experience of one feeling rather than a mood in the usual sense. And I'm triggered by this getting-stuck because I want full control over myself, my behavior, and my expression in reality. I don't want to break down or experience strong emotions and if I do experience them, I want to be the one regulating them.
r/Socionics • u/vox_xala • 1d ago
LSI and EII Musing Post
5
Upvotes
Lest anyone get the impression I think LSIs are all ruthless patriarchs...
As a fellow user of the Ti-Se block, I could poke fun at it all day, but that's only because I relate; it's my Super-Ego block. I've been reading about Super-Ego relationships, and since my father is mine (and vice versa, obviously), here are some thoughts.
LSIs can be very concerned with fairness and accuracy in all areas, both business and personal life, and I'd say that EIIs certainly respect and appreciate this. A correct course of action can't be undertaken with flawed logical underpinnings. You do need someone on hand who will just tell it like it is, with a straightforward opinion, instead of being incredibly delicate of other peoples' feelings. Jokes aside, being a straight shooter is not the same thing as literally being Vladimir Putin.
Gulenko says, "Initially, communication is interesting, but too monotonous and tiresome. It takes a lot of effort to introduce an element of novelty and originality." Yes, I'd say we both have to make effort in conversation, but there's always underlying mutual sympathy. Having common interests to discuss is crucial. Typical discussion might involve recommending books to each other. Usually we agree on what is good and what's not, so it's a safe topic to bash on, both having strong opinions abut what is good and what is 'trash.'
Gulenko again: "These relations will require from you flexibility and diplomacy. If one partner attains some benefits, the other often reacts strongly and dramatically in response to this inequality. Do not attempt to gain something for yourself at the expense of another: this will surely lead to a quarrel." Within the context of a father-daughter relationship, fortunately, this is not accurate. The first sentence, yes, definitely. The rest, not so much.
"Combine your efforts together against external opposition and problems." Another great source of conversation and mutual sympathy.
"If there is no common topic for conversation, which would be interesting for both partners, communication carries rather formal character." There's always the weather.
In my experience, the oddly difficult casual conversation belies the fact that a lot of mutual understanding of personalities and motives is possible, as long as you don't ever expect the other person to act in the same way that you would.
***Editing to add similarities and differences between LSIs and LSEs, as I see them.***
First off, similarities: stubborn, have strong opinions, and may have cynical views about society; are disciplined in different ways; may both have complicated relationships with emotions, and express anger more easily than sadness, though in different ways; both dislike what they perceive as emotional manipulation, but their perceptions of what counts as manipulation are different.
LSIs: more introverted nerd (no shade here). If they actually want to take you down in an argument, they can compartmentalize their own emotions and use yours against you. Can, in these instances, be quite cold and appear not to value expressions of emotion. Sarcasm and tight control of the narrative. You won't make any headway unless you are willing to use logic in some manner, but if you do attempt to convey your position through logic, you will not be executed. Do not try to guilt the LSI.
LSEs: much more extraverted, lively in expression sometimes, more facile at altering their tone or facial expressions in various ways. Much more open to certain kinds of emotional appeal, such as saying, "this person is a 'good person'". However, do not attempt to "guilt" the LSE with emotions, either.
r/Socionics • u/BeCool87 • 2d ago
Color Palette by Type
gallery
32
Upvotes
1,400 people ranked 13 colors from favorite to least, and took the socionics assessment.
First image: what each type likes more than average or less.
Second: how many out of 10 put that color in their top 3.
r/Socionics • u/yuka_the_nerd • 1d ago
Discussion Amélie Poulain - EII ('Dostoevsky')
12
Upvotes
I have finally watched Amelie. Beautiful film. Googled her socionics type and the google ai said IEI😐 Obviously i disagree with that idiot. From the way her mind works, to her core values, everything pretty much aligns with EII, I don’t really see her being any other type. Usually in my mind I consider 2 or 3 options and weight them out but this one is clear to me
Fi-Ne Ego block:
Probably the most obvious block. She dives into it constantly throughout the movie. She is extremely good at understanding the relationships between people and figuring out their potential. Her Ne works as a supporting mechanism to her Fi. Fi is inert so she is using it constantly and any criticism aimed at this IE is painful
- Rich Imaginary world (Ne)
- compares record labels to pancakes (Ne)
- her best friend as a kid is a fish (Fi)
- finds different shapes in the clouds (Ne)
- vengeful (Fi)
- knows how to properly approach people (Fi)
- calls a garden gnome a ‘friend’ (Fi – treating objects as living organisms)
- comes up with the new information fast (Ne Creative)
- painfully receives criticism of the character from the painting because she views herself through that character (inert Fi)
- when she told that she is bad at talking to people she gets hurt/offended (inert Fi)
- imagines the movie scenes about herself (Ne)
- starts subtly nudging two people in the cafe to get closer out of interest (wants to test what she heard Fi + Ne)
- comes up with the idea of a ghost before finding any rational conclusion (Ne)
- masks her own experiences as the story of a heroine on the painting (Fi Ne)
- gets mad about the untactful behaviour of a store owner towards the other worker (Fi)
- when a person tells her that he writes books she immidiatly asks whether its about love (Fi)
- very inventive in her ways of being vengeful (changes the toothpaste with the feet cream, breaks the door handle subtly, adds cleaning detergent to the whiskey, disconnects the antenna every time theres a goal while the person is watching football) – Ne
- her feelings towards someone does not change throughout the whole movie, if she likes them she likes them always, if she disikes them it stays the same – inert Fi
- imagines herself as a zorro (Ne)
- prefers reading literature about love (Fi)
- keeps messing with the couple until the plan eventually works and they fall in love (Fi)
- keeps getting involved in other peoples lives, its like a game for her (Fi Ne)
- instead of confessing her feelings directly creates an overcomplicated game puzzle (Ne)
- when directly confronted whether it was her who invitred the guy, she says ‘no’ (vulnerable inert Fi)
Se -Ti Super Ego Block:
I could find many examples for her Ti role other than the general impression of her being a ‘rule follower’ in society and her having a lot of underlying structure in all her pranks and puzzles that she comes up with but I’ve found some examples for Se vulnerable.
- Doesn’t like confrontation, easily influenced by others. When a woman who she visited asked her whether she wants tea, she said no. The woman told her to sit down and she followed her orders. Theres a pattern of being influenced by others and if she doesn’t like something she only comes up with an elaborate plan of indirect response afterwards. (Se)
- doesn’t see a car running by, gets hit by it (Se)
- notices small details in films (possibly Ti? Something that sticks out from the general underlying logical structure)
- has a lot of uestions since childhood (Ti role maybe? Although sounds more like Ne)
- needed to be pushed to action by the person close to her to finally confess her feelings (Se)
Si-Te Super Id Block:
- Displays a decent level of organization when she prepares everything for her games/puzzles/vengeance (only utilized when pushed by the outside forces – vital Te)
- Can use any tool, understands the structure of different mechanisms (TV, door handle, antenna) and how to manipulate them (Te)
- loves sticking her hands into a bag of seeds (Si mobilizing)
- loves breaking the sugar cover of cake with a teaspoon (Si mobilizing)
- loves throwing rocks at the lake (Si mobilizing)
Fe-Ni Id Block:
Her Fe and Ni use is strong too but unlike the ego block she only jumps into these IE when the outside force pushes her and to support her ego block. She also doesn’t use them as nearly as the ego block throughout the film
- Knows how many couples in Paris have an orgasm at the exact moment in time (Ni)
- Detailed preparation of all of her plans, they all usually work as expected (Ni)
- when something has an inkling of not going fully in accordance with the initial plan starts worrying and coming up with the most absurd potential scenarios (in the shape of different films) – Ni + Ne
- worried that she is responsible for the world (because someone told her so - naive)
- loves looking at the people’s faces in the cinema theatre (Fe)
- ‘what would you feel?’ her very first uestion (honestly don’t remember what scene this was) (Fe)
- feels incredible harmony after helping people (Fe vital)
- desire to help everyone (Fe)
- starts rumours (Fe)
- wants to inspire her dad to start traveling around the world by sending him photos of his garden gnomes from all over the world (Fe)
Interesting character. I also thought initially that maybe she is IEE ‘Huxley’ because I can see how her Fe maybe displayed as more of a demonstrative one instead of a ignoring but I just don’t see her being Se role. What do yall think, EII IEE or IEI?
r/Socionics • u/Bad_Description77 • 2d ago
Does anyone also thinks these definitions are too vague?
12
Upvotes
I’m trying to understand how this applies irl not just this theoritical bs, how is this supposed to help you figure out your type? Like how does each of these blocks work in your ego compared to your superego for example
r/Socionics • u/OptimistHobo • 2d ago
Comment on duality/semi-duality
13
Upvotes
One-liner I saw a guy drop here some time ago. Golden
Along the lines of "Takes years to realize your semi-dual is not your dual, and years to realize your dual is your dual."
You might not pay them any mind, they don't stand out to you. What they do/say is too natural and expected.
Your semi-dual stands out to you. They're attractive but there's also friction, 'moth to a flame'.
r/Socionics • u/hydrargyrum538 • 1d ago
Typing methods
2
Upvotes
Which ways do you guys think are the most reliable for determining a type, and why? Behavioral? Verbal? Art-based?
EDIT: I probably should be more specific. By typing method, I mean:
- which kinds of input information to collect
- how to process it
With the input information being the most crucial part here.
EDIT 2: The input information and the method of processing it should be EXPLAINABLE, i.e. you are able, after determining the type, to demonstrate the full chain of thought from the input to the output (i.e. your version of the type). In the above chain of thought should be no "mystical" (i.e. non-explainable) parts. However, the whole method can be as controversial or as complex as one wishes, given you still are able to trace the chain.
r/Socionics • u/Noob_Lemon • 1d ago
Typing Thoughts?
3
Upvotes
- Values competency and keeping promises over words or “sweet preachy talk”. Dislikes moralizing.
- Annoyed when others use emotional appeals or guilt to get what they want. There has to be a good reason for it
- Energetic or always on the go. Task oriented. But can sometimes act before thinking. Type A-ish. Can be a little perfectionistic and or competitive
- Overcommits to too many activities, groups, or ventures. Can bite off more than they can handle, because they try to take on too many lofty goals too quickly.
- Can often put off eating or sleeping if it means getting the task done, working, or staying active. Does not like being interrupted or distracted from what they are doing.
- May sacrifice comfort if it means the end goal is achieved, may not understand limitations or practical constraints. Can often do risky actions/adventures, etc.
- Can have irregular eating habits or food preferences
- Under stress, can hyper obsess over worse case scenarios or be strangely protective of their resources or security
Multitalented and/or artistic, often picks up new hobbies quickly. Or tried to do or learn everything all at once, and often fails due to either not structuring time properly or taking on more than is possible.
- May be interested in the sciences, history and human nature, often invested in scientific literature. Likes to share what they have read or learned.
- Volunteers and helps the local community to feel a sense of balance and to give back; feels as if they are in debt to society in some way. Tend to be hyper involved. Wants to feel like a part of something bigger and wish to be good people. Can take a slight interest in social issues.
- Secretly wishes to be independent and autonomous, but they feel as if they don’t deserve that due to feeling responsible for others welfare or “greedy” for doing so.
- Extroverted introvert
- Tendency to be very impatient, often taking actions or getting too hasty without taking time to slow down. Dislikes delays
- Can be too precise in their thinking and over-correct others, often missing the point that the other person is making in its entirety
- Can be extremely reactive when others critique or express an opinion they don’t want to hear, insists on their own way and can be either a know-it-all or stubbornly naive, only to sometimes regret it later. (This is also due to impatience)
- Can or is susceptible to escalating things and burning bridges with others, because they act defensive and argumentative, refuse to admit weakness, or deny needing to accept help from others.
Can get overconfident, may act more capable than they are due to excitement/thrill of it
- When with closer friends or contacts, they can be vulgar in their speech and use blunt or coarse language (eg. Swearing). May not think before speaking or often interrupts others.
-Has either an extremely playful or extremely serious side, no in between. When they do express emotions, they tend to be over the top and/or out of place with the given situation. Or they unknowingly offend others, because it appears as if they do not care or are not expressive enough.
- Won’t follow traditions simply for the sake of it, there has to be a good reason for it.
- Good at talking with others and being friendly, but feels very awkward and uncomfortable with maintaining consistent contact or letting others get close to them. Can be secretive. Despises clingy or needy people. Has difficulty being transparent or vulnerable in front of others. Prefers to keep others who want to penetrate the surface at a distance. Envies others who do form such connections.
- Can let negative emotions simmer underneath, but conceals them, because they know they’ll burn bridges if they do express those emotions.
- Prefers to know things in advance, does not like when people ditch plans unannounced or disrespect other people’s time. Can be rigid in their timelines and struggle to accept that random things simply “happen”.
- May struggle with active listening or paying attention to what is in front of them because their mind is constantly racing to the next thing or overanalyzing. May forget important details.
r/Socionics • u/anonym0us3688 • 2d ago
Trying to type someone
3
Upvotes
What type could my dad possibly be? I would appreciate if anyone has any thoughts on it. He is annoyed by people who don't have a good sense of time like me, and requires everything to be punctual - even things that don't require it, and frequently criticizes me on the aspect of time. My type is SEE by the way. I dislike this strictness regarding time, and I'm kind of starting to doubt my type if he's ILI (which could be a possibility but I'm not too sure). He is interested in things like research and chemistry and it's his passion. This other day I was asking him to explain and clarify his schedule for something and he got irritated and told me to follow what he said and didn't explain the details.
Edit: thanks for your responses!
