"Fooled" by Socionics

This long and rambling post was inspired by this comment from Consentingadult.

I have a suggestion: instead of criticizing Augusta (which in itself is perfectly valid), why don't you actually criticize one or more of your own writings? E.g. the ILE description in the article, where you said, amongst other things: 

"I have known ILEs who were heads of research institutes, NGOs, language teaching schools, and consulting companies. Many more held various positions in all kinds of organizations where they had a great deal of independence. The common feature of all engaged ILEs seems to be that they are working on some far-reaching personal project that has yet to come to full fruition."

I would like to know: what was wrong about this, how did you fool yourself to arrive at such insights that you now claim cannot be true or valid?

I'll get to criticism of types eventually. I was hoping to start with information aspects, then move to functions and Model A, then to types and intertype relations.

If your question was not simply rhetorical (since I detect a bit of sarcasm), here is my response.

What's "wrong" about the ILE description

I described a subset of ILEs — those who are above-average, proactive, and highly engaged in the modern, growing economy. If I'd written something that described the under-average, reactive, and underengaged ILEs, or the subsistence farmer and hunter-gatherer ILEs equally as well as the more fortunate, modern ILEs, the resulting description would have been too abstract to "do any good."

One might argue that I've described the "greatest potential" that people of this type can attain to. I agree that that might be inspiring, and people want and need to be inspired. But it's not necessarily true that you can group people into 16 types and then expect that any of those people has the potential to achieve the level of success, fulfillment, or happiness of the most fortunate individuals of their type.

I described the ideal type, not the borderline, overly contradictory, or untypeable ILEs. This is a universal problem in socionics, and it comes from being unable to type all individuals in a population. If socionists can only type what they themselves can recognize, then they only describe the most recognizable types. Then other people will perpetuate the bias towards recognizable types and intertype relations.

I don't expect that socionics will ever overcome this problem because it is not sufficiently accurate to ever develop foolproof empirical tests. An "ILE" will always be "what I've defined as an ILE," and thus any description is as good as any other.

Why do I use the word "accurate?" Because I am convinced that no matter how you define and split the 16 types, the resulting intertype relations will not be close enough to those postulated by socionics to call the system "accurate." The reason socionics has a "lack of empiricism" problem is simply because it has an "accuracy" problem. If socionics were more accurate, the empirical data would be flowing in all around. For instance, the phenomenon of duality would be scrutinized and elucidated, and researchers would be studying it from multiple angles to learn more about how and why it happens.

The fact is, socionics duality as described by Augusta is a rare subset of dual relations, and when it happens between a man and a woman, there is a lot more going on that has nothing to do with socionics. And it doesn't necessarily happen just to duals. In my mind this is a fatal blow to the socionics model of the psyche, since duality was socionics' most powerful hypothesis.

How I managed to "fool myself" 

A bigger question to ask is, "how did Augusta manage to fool herself?" I'll speculate about this further down.

In my case, my initial insights were simple and promising enough that I continued my study of socionics. I had only really deeply processed a small number of my personal relationships, but my insights were promising enough that I was hopeful that socionics could be applied generally, and not just in these specific cases. Of course, I based my understanding on my experiences of the most easily recognizable types and relationships in my environment.

At the moment I wrote the ILE description, my arsenal of experience had grown from a handful to maybe a couple hundred people of different types. However, my deeply processed personal experiences relating to each of them lagged behind. Based on my experiences so far, I was willing to take the system on faith to a degree. When eventually forced to face major contradictions, I began to systematically consider the less easily definable types and relations that I had been discounting and give them an equal place in my mind alongside the recognizable ones. After a while, I concluded that socionics was not accurate enough as it should be, considering the large amount of mental storage space required to house it. Furthermore, the things it could tell a person (less than I used to think) were of little use to me at this stage of life. This process provided some new insights that I now feel obligated to share with my socionics audience.

Biases

When one begins to get into socionics, one recognizes only a tiny sliver of types and intertype relations — those that most obviously fit descriptions and can thus be interpreted thoroughly from a socionics perspective. These "obvious fits" then form the foundation of one's understanding of socionics, giving the person a bias from day one that they will be unable to correct until much later, if ever. If a socionics aficionado recognizes the limitations and inaccuracies of socionics from the outset due to a more methodical and less exciteable personality, you can be sure that they will never become socionics writers!

Socionics is, in a way, worse off than astrology. With astrology you at least know when a person was born, making disagreement on their astrological type impossible. Then you can read a description and say, "well, that doesn't fit!" In socionics, if a person doesn't match their type description, then you've probably mistyped them. Keep switching types until you find the "best fit!"

Changing times

Yes, this has been an absolutely normal way of thinking about psychological matters for eons, but the times are changing and this approach is losing popularity as science has more and more to say about things that people used to only be able to speculate about. More and more people are sensing this and jumping on the train of empirical psychology and neuroscience. This is one of the reasons socionics is, in my opinion, slowly dying out.

Speculation about Augusta

I am quite certain that if Augusta were born today, she would not create socionics. She would read everything currently available on individual differences and go into psychology research or neuroscience. But she grew up before most of the really interesting research started being done, and was stuck in the Soviet Union where there was a official slant on psychology that downplayed personality differences. Thanks in part to typology, personality differences are now taken for granted.

Augusta created a system that allowed for much more healthy psychological variability than was commonly accepted at the time, but she was quite absolutist in her views on the types. For instance, she published a paper explaining why ILE is the best type to run a scientific research institute, ignoring other significant factors other than type. It seemed that she was proposing a new way of staffing posts and organizing society that could be implemented within the Soviet system.

Obviously, the zeitgeist has changed dramatically since then, even in the former Soviet Union. As I understand from my interaction with the socionics community in Kiev, in the late 1980s Augusta's interests drifted to other areas, and she became a less and less active participant of the socionics community, while continuing to occasionally voice her views on the subject. I was also told that she was in a rather unhappy marriage with an LSE (she was ILE), which could have contributed to her idealization of duality.

Was Augusta "fooled" by her own ideas? I suppose you could say so. She would have had the same problems with confirmation bias that any later student of socionics would have, alleviated by the process of discussing ideas and hypotheses with a group of associates. They noticed some fascinating new patterns, broke new ground, and made some mistakes that are easier to recognize decades later.

Watering down socionics

If socionists were forced to type everyone and, particularly, to examine every single relationship among these people, and then to describe types and intertype relations using a strictly statistical method, I am certain that we would see a drastic watering-down of both type and relation descriptions.  Socionics would lose its "teeth."

However, the more watered-down one's views on a subject are, the less motivated one is to propogate one's views. This is why the people who have built up the experience to help water down socionics usually can't be bothered to do so. I personally view this as my duty to society, but my motivation is much weaker than it was to promulgate classical socionics, which engaged my need for recognition, connection with others, and mental discovery. Now, the inspiration is just not there. There's no "vision" to be found by picking apart someone else's somewhat erroneous theory to a dwindling and disinterested audience. In fact, the main reason I am writing this post is probably to avoid doing my taxes.

From a kind of esoteric psychology perspective, it may be good to keep socionics classical, albeit full of illusions. People come through the system, receive rigorous training that excites them and fills them with energy, and they move on to do other things. But it's already too late; socionics is dying a long, slow death. Successive generations of socionists are less and less inspired and inspiring, career momentum and entropy are taking over, and there is just too much new and exciting information on personality and human interaction coming from research that takes a fundamentally different (empirical) approach than socionics.

Socionic Types and Professional Inclinations

Here I want to talk about career patterns I have observed among types. My sample sizes are too small to draw far-reaching conclusions, but my observations so far make sense from the standpoint of Model A.

A large percentage of people do basically random jobs that any type with the same basic skill set could do, so I will ignore those and pay attention only to the patterns and especially professional positions where people of the type seem to be particularly engaged.

A common thread is that people tend to become leaders of organizations whose overt purpose closely matches their leading function, for instance:

• types -- controlling material assets and resources
• -- information hubs, directing development of potential
• -- engaging in social and entertainment networks
• -- managing and increasing production output
• -- guiding imaginative creative and spiritual endeavors
• -- overseeing systems of knowledge and governance
• -- providing well-being and balance
• -- educating and enculturating

ILE
ILEs like to be doing things that are new and innovative that many people don't know (or care) about. Here they are different from IEEs, who are also concerned about doing something that people care about that will win them social recognition. ILEs are more interested in formal recognition (organizational recognition, positions of "importance," degrees, and professional awards, for instance). I have known ILEs who were heads of research institutes, NGOs, language teaching schools, and consulting companies. Many more held various positions in all kinds of organizations where they had a great deal of independence. The common feature of all engaged ILEs seems to be that they are working on some far-reaching personal project that has yet to come to full fruition. ILEs don't like to manage tangible assets, so they generally avoid accumulating them, preferring instead to stock up on intellectual property, unique skills and knowledge, intellectual influence, and strategic positions. The potential to make money is more important than actually having money.

SEI
If we ignore "unengaged" SEIs who are in random jobs, we see that SEIs tend to gravitate to artistic pursuits in the most general sense of the word -- visual arts, culinary arts, design, the healing arts, humor, etc. Even in your typical stale office environment, they tend to find niches for this "artistic" expression, even if it is as mundane as e-mailing funny pictures and stories to other office workers. The common trait of all engaged SEIs seems to be that they have found ways to impact and steer people's interaction through their creative activities. Whereas types are more concerned with impacting people's lives (an "internal" sort of steering), SEIs and other types seem to focus more on enlivening people and generating stimulating interaction. They may hope to impact people as well, but the road to this is through overt emotional communication among people -- bringing people's sentiments and emotions out in the open. Compared to ILEs SEIs seem much less interested in the strategic position or formal recognition and must have a more intimate connection with the people they serve.

ESE
ESEs are more expansive than SEIs and are more motivated to bring their messages to the masses and be known among a wider group of people, even if that means spending a lot less quality time per person (SEIs tend to invest more in a smaller number of people, because their leading makes them identify more with their day-to-day life activities; if you're not a part of that day-to-day life, then they connect less with you). ESEs can connect rapidly with people who express the same sentiments as they. The professional activity of engaged ESEs very often boils down to going around expressing sentiments and continually connecting with others who feel similarly. Their passion can be attached to nearly any field, but it always seems to be something that can have a direct impact on people's emotional life or well-being. ESEs especially like to start new social endeavors. I have known ESEs who led social networks, ESE entertainers, and many who were excellent communicators and linguists. Engaged ESEs seem to be somewhat less focused on their actual professional activity and knowledge and more on conveying the impact and passion of that activity and knowledge to others.

LII
Compared to ILEs, LIIs are less expansive, and their interests and personal projects tend to be a lot more closely aligned with their main field of activity. Or rather, they tend to choose professions that are right where their interests and convictions lie. Whereas ILEs can explain discrepancies between their long-term interests and their work ("because I'm learning something new"), LIIs would see this as a terrible mistake (key decisions should be made with , not ). So they tend to identify strongly with their chosen field of activity and the views they espouse within it and feel distraught and rudderless if they have not yet found their correct professional "alliance" (unless they are in their teens, of course). I have known engaged LII organizational managers as well as analysts, scientists (mostly theoreticians), humanities professors and thinkers, and people of arts. In each case they have possessed some system of knowledge and have tried to instill their views through their organizational position.

EIE
EIEs, like ESEs, simply must have work with a high social component to feel engaged. I have known EIEs in recruiting, PR, politics, art-related fields (again, in the loose sense of the word), and teaching the humanities and arts, among others. Compared to ESEs, EIEs seem to have a greater sense of their status in society and have a greater need to align themselves professional in a way that will raise their status and bring them closer to centers of power and decision-making. This means exercising a lot of foresight, developing a long-term plan, and choosing their alliances carefully. EIEs in their profession have a need to rub shoulders with those who wield power and influence; ESEs are often content being a favorite of kids, a friend to everyone they meet, and building a reputation as an exciting and stimulating person, even if their fame exceeds that of a more calculating or long-term oriented EIE. EIEs often "work" for their alliance -- whether material or cultural -- by being a mouthpiece of its cultural values and instilling these values in others.

LSI
LSIs generally strive for organizational influence (except perhaps those whose maternal role takes first seat) and decision-making powers. They know they have what it takes to make organizational decisions and keep track of all parts of the organization. Psychologically engaged LSIs seem to be within or at the head of organizations with a clear structure whose purpose is not so much production as administration and management. Even if their profession is arts, humanities, or science related, they emphasize and deal with the organizational aspect of it as they become more and more successful. I have met many LSIs who were heads of all sorts of organizations which wielded real authority (as opposed to, say, NGOs), probably because the LSIs cared most; their level of self-identification with their position and organization is high. I have seen LSIs as heads of administrative organizations, government bodies, universities, etc. In these positions LSIs strive to increase their organizations' clout and status.

SLE
...to be continued (yeah, you've heard that one before)

Type Messages

I introduced the topic of "type messages" in April and worked on the concept a bit more in this article, hoping to flesh out the messages into type descriptions. Months passed, and I have returned to them again as part of my new type test.

The idea of a "type message" is to formulate in a few short words the principal contribution of each type to the world around him/her. Here are my current formulations:

ILE - Searching for the unknown and spreading knowledge.
SEI - Deriving enjoyment from all your activities and interactions.
ESE - Turning life into an enjoyable, beautiful experience.
LII - Structuring reality and creating correct systems of thought.
EIE - Riveting attention and energy to meaningful causes.
LSI - Establishing and overseeing correct structures and systems.
SLE - Challenging the current order and expanding influence.
IEI - Creating meaning in the events of life around you.
SEE - Acquiring social territory and influencing people.
ILI - Recognizing underlying processes and deriving benefit from them.
LIE - Achieving beneficial efficiency in all areas of life.
ESI - Recognizing and balancing people's needs and expectations.
LSE - Managing worthwhile, productive, and wholesome activities.
EII - Being exemplary and instilling ideal values.
IEE - Expanding your horizons and helping people develop.
SLI - Balanced, harmonious living and temperance.

Of course, none of these are perfect - as no short, crisp descriptions can be - but they capture something essential about each type.

ILE - Intuitive Logical Extratim Type Description

The trademark quality of this type is the quest for new information and experience that stimulates the mind and opens up new possibilities for thought and for new endeavors. ILEs are typically drawn to things that are poorly understood or simply unknown, and to fundamental issues (needs work). They like to systematize their insights and experience and discuss them with others. Their friends know them as people who can’t help but share their insights and interesting discoveries and who always have some interesting topic on their mind.

In their service of all that is intriguing and intellectually stimulating in the outside world, ILEs typically neglect their physical needs and activities that bring pleasure and relaxation and emotional release. However, they are highly receptive to others’ attempts to help them in these areas. They gravitate most to people who are interested in hearing about their hobby topics and discussing their most frivolous insights, but who are also skilled at creating a relaxing and lighthearted atmosphere.

How I Look for Extraverted Intuition

This topic goes back to the post on tacit knowledge in socionics. I wrote that I would try to explain the things that usually go unsaid when I am typing people. Up till now the only thing I had written on the subject was a short chart called "Overall Type Moods."

Here is what I expect to see in people with base :
(theoretical backing provided below each point in red)

Relaxed, nonjudgmental, non-aggressive look and demeanor. Person is easily intrigued, starts new things very easily, and always has energy for new beginnings. Relaxed posture and open and easy-going look most of the time. Very often enthusiastic, but rarely physically robust or vigorous. Occasionally "drop out" of situations and look spaced out because they have been distracted by some thought that is unrelated to the situation at hand. Like to have photos reflect spontaneous moments rather than posed situations or "proper" behavior.
Base implies a rejection of in one's behavior. Therefore, base types try to interest others with thoughts, insights, and a particular vision of things rather than through material means or by exerting a direct physical or visual impact on others. types "drop out" of situations (and their eyes glaze over and stop "seeing") because they generally are abstracted from physical stimuli and are thinking about intangible characteristics of the situations they are in. The eyes remain open, but the visual stimuli is not reaching the conscious mind. implies an ability to recognize and develop high-potential situations, people, and ideas - hence the innate enthusiasm and openness and the ability to become intrigued and intrigue others. implies attentiveness to the unseen essence of things, and types want to have their essence come through to others; spontaneous behavior and the absence of social masks serves to convey one's "true" self to others. A concern with "proper" behavior only serves to mask the true self.

ILE: Tend to smile the same way most of the time, and don't use all the muscles of their face. This shows that they are little concerned with being agreeable or emotionally involving others. Have a more distant and detached look than IEEs.
With weak ethics, ILEs give less attention to people's feelings and are less able to discern and understand their own sentiments than IEEs. They are more focused on thinking about things that require logic to understand, not the ability to understand other people's sentiments.

IEE: Tend to have a wide, "sincere," likeable smile and to show a wide range of facial expressions. IEEs have softer expressions than ILEs, often tilt their head a bit to the side to show their interest in people. Reflect their mood on their face more than ILEs. At the same time, they are usually somewhat emotionally subdued and do not show powerful passions in their face or movements.
With strong ethics (particularly ), IEEs are attuned to other people's feelings and sentiments and are generally aware of people's emotional response to them. They feel responsibility for the emotional climate of situations they are in and soften these situations by being emotionally open and showing their feelings on their face.

Extraverted Intuition in Action - David Deutsch

In this video, well-known physicist David Deutsch gives a lecture on the nature of the universe and gives a concentrated display of . Deutsch's speaking style is actually quite easy to understand. He uses the simplest possible means (comparisons, metaphors) to produce insight in the audience - in this case, an awareness of new possibilities in the outside world. I have typed David Deutsch as an ILE.

In his presentation, Deutsch conveys signals through all sorts of techniques that serve to intrigue and intellectually involve the listener:

1. using rising intonation on phrases like "in fact," "if," and many others in order to emphasize critical points and unexpected possibilities
2. using phrases like, "now let's imagine..." "let's say that..." that help the listener generate a mental image
3. the habit of constantly showing the bigger picture and emphasizing "the main thing"