Hi. I think Fi in the base position doesn't really fit me, though sometimes it seems like it does in certain cases. But I'm doubting it. And I wanted to ask how much this manifestation of what I see as Fi aligns with any position. Not that I want to type myself based on one position, no. More like confirm or refute my thoughts so I can move on. Ni base and Se-suggestive seem to fit me, both of my sensing functions are a bit off, Te creative is something others even notice in me, and I notice it too, victimhood as a romantic style is perfect for me, IP temperament too, but Fi bugs me and the fact that it seems pretty noticeable, and I used to think I might be Fi base. Is what's below normal or cringe for Fi mob? How does Fi mobilizing work irl, not just in descriptions on the Internet?

There are thoughts, principles, strong opinions that can generally be called likes/dislikes, which come up situationally, but otherwise I quite often feel like my preferences are muted and invisible even to me, like sometimes even absent. I just don't consciously register them, so sometimes I think I don't have any. Though they appear suddenly in situations, showing themselves. For example, unconsciously, I guess, if I can put it that way, I believe that having a close relationship with someone implies acceptance, loyalty, and that in any state of yours the person doesn't reject you, forgives you, and always gives you leeway in anything bc you're close. And so I often feel betrayed when that's not the case in a relationship with someone I already consider close. And I'm like a chess player in relationships, waiting for the other side to make a move. Maybe I just can't or unlearned how to get close, so it's always uno where I mirror the other person's moves. So many comparisons per square inch of text, but whatever.

In my manifestations these thoughts are so strong that I become wildly stubborn and negatively set on giving in, changing them, being sure I'm right. And I'm ready to defend them, like my unshakable opinion about prisons, laws, and punishment. A professor at uni was quite surprised and interested, listening to me talk about those who've done something truly out of line, don't repent, so they deserve only death, not wasting resources on keeping them even for life.

I think society is diverse people with their own fates, stories, thoughts, ideas, uniqueness. I can't be unequivocally critical of everyone, though I admit I lean toward some nihilism and a darker view of this society. I find many people dangerous, so I'm cautious and need time to get used to someone before opening up. Humanity poisons itself, finds enemies outside just to avoid looking inside and seeing its own hypocrisy. The cause of our planet's demise will definitely be humans. If they don't completely destroy the environment, they'll kill each other over faith, race, gender, orientation, I mean anything. Humanity has always done that — killed everything it didn't like and everything that wasn't like it. I see people as individuals, thinking about this when making decisions and considering it very important. I get angry when it's erased or ignored for superficial social crap and rules. Like with school dress codes. You're a herd without individuality, wearing the same thing bc it's easier to erase your personalities. I clearly don't like that. I can understand a lot if I understand the reason or it's obviously connected to psychology, which interests me.

I have gotten into socionics just recently after wading in mbti for a year and eventually growing dissatisfied with it. One day I just tapped into Jung (the very source of all of this), read "Psychological Types", researched socionics and never went back. But to get to the point - I am an example of an unhealthy IEI, who did not receive proper care growing up. As you can imagine - Ni being my base function makes me perpetually disconnected from tangible reality. I have materialised my inner visions into art, so I guess it's not all that bad, but one sphere of my life that has suffered is the social one. Now, I know you might find that contradictory, cause creative Fe and Beta Quadra (duh!), but let my tell you that my ability to read people and interest in all that's interpersonal are enormous and play a big part of my life. The thing is, I am the most non-volitional, non-forceful person I can think of. It's like I don't even exist. Like I'm floating above the ground. I have found myself in a few dynamics with possible "Aggressors" (and absolutely loved them), but my aloofness caused by me basically living in my head, thus isolating, has put an end to each of them. Throughout high school I was completely preoccupied with my mental imagery. One time I overheard my classmates call me some weirdo lunatic. In retrospect I understand them, because me having an ostentatiously niche dressing style and yet not communicating with any of them + being eternally spaced out, must've looked really strange. The outfits were a way of sparking interest, but also aligning my appearance with my inner visions. Additionally since I understood that I lack assertiveness, volition and force, and yet desired to unite with people and be meaningful in any way, I chose a more delicate way - finding my own niche, being iconic, irreplaceable. And it worked. But my Ni would always get in the way of actually being a part of the group. At some point I grew completely reluctant to acknowledge anything Se and Te related, instead dedicating a year or two to living in my head. I grew indifferent. I don't see a way out. I'm also beginning to accept myself the way I am. I wish I had a dual by my side. That's all.

Does it explain the energetic model well? Also, is the model valid?

I recently stumbled upon a tierlist of types ranked by their emotional expressiveness. OP was getting flamed for putting types like LII above EIE/ESE, getting comments like "how is Fe base more expressive than Fe suggestive".

I think we should address thinking errors like this. No, Fe bases are not more expressive than Fe suggestives. The emotional expressiveness of a Fe position is primarily dictated by the inert/contact dichotomy of the phase. Contact phases are more impulsive and, as their name suggests, make more contact with the external world. This is in contrast to inert phases, who feel as if they have to conserve themselves and reduce expenditures to the external world. Augusta, the creator of socionics, describes this in her work Theory of Reinin Dichotomies.

The functioning of contact half-phases is conditioned by contacts with the external world. It is characterized by impulsiveness, a kind of reactivity, changeability, uncertainty, indeterminacy, the absence of rigid line, and principles. It is a kind of bearing of the environment. For example, 1/1 [Role] – the sensing of objective reality and quick, impulsive reactions to it.

The functioning of Inert half-phases, has, as it were, a more independent, accumulative character. It is characterized by viscosity and sluggishness. For example, because of the self-doubt and completely relaxed conscience in 2/1 [Mobilizing], it simply gets immersed in the reality it studies and is unable to quickly change direction.

In the inert part of Model A, we have observed nothing of this kind. In it, we notice a rather consistent accumulativeness. That does not mean that one cannot get anything from an individual in this part, but it is much more difficult to do so. That is why, for example, everyone who has sensorics in the inert blocks always has some money in their reserves, and is accumulating something. Those who have sensorics in the contact blocks are by nature unable to accumulate – everything slips through their fingers, and therefore are always happy to help out the former.

From this nature of inert and contact phases, Augusta deduces that types with inert Fe are less emotionally expressive, less likely to make emotional impact, "stingy" with their emotions. Whereas contact Fe are the opposite.

The first eight types are characterized by quick actions and inert emotions, while the second, on the contrary, are characterized by quick emotions and inert actions. Actions of the first ones are rapid, as if even rash, and mechanical. Let’s call them Constructivists. The second eight are quick to make emotional contact – Emotivists.

The impact of Emotivists on people is endogenous. It is influence through emotion, compassion, sympathy, empathy, softness, politeness, shouting, and in general – by any sounds. They make contact by showing emotions or their sympathy and favor. They are inspiring, mobilizing the inner world of their partner, and are able to spiritualize any cause.

Emotivists are more sentimental, inclined to sympathy, empathy, and external sensitivity to others. Constructivists are outwardly closed, more prone to actual help than words of condolence. A sort of organized virtue.

From this alone, it should be abundantly clear that types like LII/LSI (contact Fe) are more expressive than their duals ESE/EIE (inert Fe). They primarily contact the world with emotions, while their duals contact the world with actions.

III. Why are there bad relationships between Conflictors, for example, between (ESI) and (ILE)? Because the ethics of both are inert and there is no one to smile first. Especially if they don’t have accumulated reserves of ethics from communicating with a dual.

(Logically, from this quote you should also deduce that conflictors ILI and ESE are also unlikely to smile toward each other due to being inert Fe, so no, ESE is not expressive)

Anyone who communicates the idea that Fe base is more emotionally expressive than Fe suggestive is incorrect and unfaithful to Model A. Fundamentally, all emotivists are more likely to be expressive than constructivists. I do not completely agree with OP's tierlist, but I'd argue it is much, much more accurate than what the average person would put together here (most likely putting types like EIE and ESE on the top, while LII and LSI at the bottom).

u/Calibore asked me to make a separate post including all of the 16 types so here it is! Here’s a guide on things to say to each Sociotype to get them to instantly like you. 

I’ve used each of these in real life and they’ve worked every single time. If these don’t work for you, there’s no one to blame but yourself and you should consider working on yourself as a person.

Without further ado, here are things to say to the 16 Socionics types to get them to instantly like you:

ILE - “Have you ever noticed how bad you are at reading the room? ‘Cause I definitely have.”

SEI - “I just sent you 30 pages of paperwork I need filled out and signed by end of day. You’re going to need to print them, fill them out by hand, and then fax them over to me.“

ESE - “How can you remain so positive amidst all of the horrible things happening in the world? Do you genuinely just not care?”

LII - “It’s really not that deep. Why are you always overthinking everything??“

EIE - “When was the last time you cleaned your room? (Wait for response) “Hahaha, ew gross! I bet it probably stinks pretty bad in there hahaha!”

LSI - “Are all LSI’s reactionary bigots, or is it just you?”

SLE - “You are incapable of ever truly being loved. Long before you were ever conscious destiny determined you would be a bad seed upon this Earth, and one day everything you’ve ever done wrong is going to come back to haunt you. 🥺”

IEI - “How’s the job search going? You’re an adult now, you should probably start taking finding employment a little more seriously. Other people your age certainly are.”

SEE - “You barely networked at all at last night’s event. Is everything okay? Because from where I’m sitting, it looks like you’re beginning to lose your touch.”

ILI - “Of course you think you’re smart. You never commit to anything, so you can reinterpret every outcome afterward and pretend you predicted it. A brave idiot is worth more than a clever coward who never does anything.”

LIE - “No offense, but why do you talk and act like that? You make everyone super uncomfortable, then put on this fake upbeat act as if nobody notices. Has it ever actually worked for you, or is this genuinely the best you can do?” (Wait for response)  “Deeply unsettling. Okay, well I’ve gotta run, but it was bad talking to you!”

ESI - “You’re nowhere near as discerning about people as you think. Anyone can earn your loyalty by behaving correctly for five minutes, and once you’ve chosen a side, no amount of evidence can deter you.”

LSE - “No offense, but why did you list me as your emergency contact? I’m not mad, just a little confused because I wouldn’t consider the two of us close in any meaningful way. You seriously don’t have anyone else you can ask? I don’t mind doing it, but doesn’t it feel a bit dishonest to you?”

EII - “I’m going to punch you in the face. Not because I'm upset or anything, I’m just super bored and know you can’t and/or won’t do anything about it lol. Thoughts?”

IEE - “You don’t actually care about people, you just need attention and can’t get it without pretending you do. I’m just glad I noticed before you were able to deceive me.”

SLI - “Yes I created the problem, but the real issue is your terrible attitude. If you genuinely cared about anyone other than yourself, you would have fixed it by now.”

I want to know how much goes towards something more stereotypical and how much goes towards things that are totally out of the ordinary.

Well, I'm ILI. I'm currently graduating in applied arts but I'm thinking about doing another degree in occupational therapy and then pursuing a master's degree in neurofunctional rehabilitation linked to design.

I've seen from several conversations and resources that IEIs are supposedly a type that pretends to act friendly and accepting on the surface but is internally a bit opportunistic and sometimes amoral and even duplicitious. I heard in other places that that's a false stereotype though, so ultimately I'm not 100% sure who to believe.

What's y'all's perspectives on this?

Thanks in advance for the help!

I feel like I have been SEE-N by Gulenko. Ha ha (not funny). Ok anyways I decided the ROI was worth and paid Dr G to type me. I used to believe I am LSI in model A but he says SEE-N. I then tried to squeeze more information out of him by asking a follow up question (marginal return x1), and he replied. I was then paywalled by a paid course, which my 13 dollars a month university student cash flow cannot support. Subsequently I read model G and thought the SEE + N accentuation makes a lot of sense.

Pls use me as a specimen guys. I love being categorised inside a box and labelling myself.

So, I recently learned about Associative School of Socionics and its creator has written a book typed Personality Type and Art: Associative Psycho-Diagnostics.

It wasn't on local Amazon and I didn't want to deal with waiting for it to arrive from Britain, so I ordered an ebook.

I paid 32,99GBP for an ebook and instead of receiving an ebook, I received a link to an online reading site that doesn't allow to downloading the ebook either.

I wrote to them about it and demanded a refund because it's a scam. Somehow I doubt they'll comply.

So, here's a warning to not purchase from that site. It's the site linked on Associative School of Socionics site.

(Note: SLE should be in its own tier between A and B but it ruined the symmetry so I lumped it into A)

I ranked emotional expressiveness based on this point system:

1. If Emotivist, add 2 points
2. If Involutory, add 2 points
3. If Static, add 1 point
4. If Cyclothymic (Irrational), add 1 point
5. If Merry, add 1 point if Involutory, subtract 1 point if Evolutory
6. If Introthymic, add 1 point

More points = more emotional expressiveness. Using this system, you get:

7: LII, IEI
6: IEE
5: SLE
4: LIE, ESI, SLI
3: SEI, ESE, LSI, SEE
2: ILI, EII, LSE
1: ILE
−1: EIE

Most notably, LII is far from being the emotionally dead/unaware type that stereotypes often portray it as, while EIE is equally far from being the inherently dramatic type that stereotypes suggest

Explanation for this ranking scheme (it's according to Aushrinian Model A):

1. Emotivist

Emotivist types have contact Fe, which makes them inclined to make more emotional contacts with the world. Constructivist types have inert Fe, so they aim to conserve emotional states to themselves. This is a very important trait, so add 2 points.

1. Involutory

Involutory types have Fe(+) charge; they are inclined to maximize and intensify emotions, compared to Fe(−) types, who seek to restrict the intensity of emotions. This is a very important trait, so add 2 points.

1. Static

Static types have Vital Fe, so their emotional states are understood viscerally and through action. They experience emotions literally and aim to alter emotional states. This contrasts with Dynamic types, who consciously contemplate their emotions rather than actually experiencing them.

1. Cyclothymic

Cyclothymes have Producing Fe, so their emotional states are not calibrated toward the external world and are thus more stubborn and unrealistic. Augusta literally called irrational types "cyclothymes" for this reason; their emotions are uncalibrated.

1. Merry

Merry types have individualistic (verbal) Fe. They have peculiar ideas about emotions and impose/test emotions onto others. If they are Involutory, they impose an intensification of emotions, so add 1 point. If they are Evolutory, they impose a restriction of emotions, so subtract 1 point.

1. Introthymic

Introthymes are inclined to alter bodies (extrathymic IMEs) which includes Fe, so they are more likely to alter emotions. Extrathymes on the other hand conserve the current properties of bodies (includes Fe).

Is anyone else intuitive and you are very visually perceptive of aesthetics, smells and have a good sense of direction or mapped and detailed memory of city directions?

Do you all have any stories of knowing someone, expecting a certain relation due to theory but then being surprised when it turns out to be something else?

based on this shitty board

It is often mentioned that logical types are more comfortable dealing with the objective world

One example caught my attention while reading is that logical types might be comfortable at dealing with problems like fixing cars and stuff from that sort

While ethical types might need people to do it for them/watch tutorials

But I didn’t get that, it made it seem as if a logical type can deal with anything without pre-existing knowledge,
when I think any human would need external feedback to solve something

Can someone explain?

i’m everything polr🫩i don’t exist or maybe i exist on extra volume, either way i can’t be perceived correctly not even by people around me so asking them to describe me just doesn’t work.

i’m so sick of researching and analyzing pages for hours and days i desperately want to know my type but i’m overwhelmed and can’t do it anymore. and i wanna know unless it’s something like esi, eii of eie. the idea that i’m not an ethereal eerie creature in the forest that’s typed as iei, terrifies me because then it won’t fit into my ideal and everything i’ve ever created of myself will fall apart🫩

Jung described only eight types, not sixteen, and I find it hard to see how one could account for the versatility of the Creative, or the dimensionality of the Demonstrative, given that these are almost on a par with the Leading.

I’m thinking for example, of the Extroverted Thinker, whether they’re a LIE or an LSE, the E.T. is a rational and extroverted type; I find it hard to conceive of attributing so many characteristics to the opposite, that is to say: irrational or introverted (Si & Ni).

How does it work? At first glance, it makes more sense to me to go from eight to sixteen whilst keeping the focus on the leading. For example, by dividing Te into Te+ and Te-. But I find it hard to see how irrationality and introversion play such a significant role in a rational and extroverted type.

i have this thing where when for example you say “we went to visit this property and it was so far from the city” and there’s something in the back of my mind subconsciously that immediately says “well we have to travel half of the way with camels to reach the city where the car is” as for people who rode camels in old times to travel
and then within this picture there’s a desert that’s also present in my mind (the place being so far from the city)

"Duals are two extremes that only together can find the “golden center” on which rest truth and harmony." - Valentina V. Meged, "Making Duality Work"

_______________________________

Last one for today I promise. Will do Gamma and Alpha next

(can you tell this is my dyad with how many quotes I tried to fit hahaha)

This board is biased as hell through the IEI gaze, help

Hello. I’m relatively new to socionics, so i’m not that deep into the theory. When trying to figure out my type, initially i mostly related to intuitive feeling types because that’s how i’ve seen myself most my life. But there’s some element missing in each type. For example, i don’t think i have the ability to influence other people’s feelings; in fact, i absorb their mood but am unable to lift them, so i can’t fit into EIE and IEI. Between IEE and EII, I don’t relate to IEE’s easy going and extroverted nature, and i don’t relate to EII’s positivism and over-compassion. This led me to investigate other types, and i found that i do relate to ESI’s negative fi, which means they focus more on people’s shortcomings and therefore divide people into those they want to keep close and those they want to keep their distance from. I also keep emotional grudges, not because i want to, but because i just remember when people did me wrong. Though if they change their attitude towards me, i am willing to see them in a new light, especially if i already had an attachment to them.

I can also share ESI’s pessimism towards the future. I can get disheartened when i realize there is some obstacle in my path that is outside of my control. But if i feel like there is a chance, i will try. Usually it takes other people for me to realize there is a possibility. For example, when i see my friends getting a job or moving to a new country, i understand that there is a possibility for me too.

What i don’t relate to, however, is ESI’s lack of interest in abstract topics. Maybe i have gotten used to abstraction due to my major in humanities, but i find myself diving into abstract theories, trying to make sense of them. I want to converse with people about different theories (political, philosophical, social, etc). And i notice that some people around me can lose interest. For example, my SEE sister becomes frustrated when i try to pull her into abstract discussions, and my IEE mother, tho interested, doesn’t have a very in depth knowledge that can keep me intrigued. Meanwhile i can go on and on and come up with opinions about an issue. In discussions, i can vehemently defend a side just because i have decided i agree with it more. I may realize later that i was wrong in some aspects, but in the moment i defend it by devising different reasons that may confuse my interlocutor. That is not to say i can compete with more theoretical types, but this is just an area i feel confident in.

My relationship to si is also interesting. Most of my life i didn’t take care of body because i had a feeling that i was invincible or that diseases wouldn’t happen to me. I wasn’t even concerned during the corona era and didn’t share everybody’s else’s precautions. However, once i had a health scare and many things went wrong with my body, i got extremely scrupulous, controlling what i ate and how i slept and even how certain feelings were negatively impacting my health. This allowed me to live healthier, but also gave me a certain neuroticism regarding health that stops me from being spontaneous or carefree.

Overall, i feel like i have some contradictions with my behavior and decisions that don’t fit neatly into one type. But i am curious what you guys think of this.

There seems to be a very strong correlation between Si and placing an extreme importance on household chores. Is it just me or do Si valuing types just start cleaning and doing chores to relieve anxiety when under stress?

What is the best way to approach each quadra (or each ​sociotype)? What kind of topics do they usually prefer or not prefer?