Sep 8, 2007

Building Blocks of Socionics

Socionics is an unwieldy field with a huge number of categories, hypotheses, and stereotypes, as well as competing descriptions that either describe the same thing from different angles or simply contradict each other.

What are the most basic building blocks of socionics?

1. A couple general ideas which are basically self-evident to observant thinking people, but need to be assimilated all the same:

a) the "differentiation of the psyche" (see article at socionics.us) and the concept of aspects of information ("facets of reality")
b) the fact that there are factors that determine the nature of our psychological interaction with other people outside of our will

2. A couple complex logical systems and their correct formulations:

a) what each element of information metabolism means
- which aspects of reality each element perceives and processes
- behaviors and states of mind associated with each element
b) the socionic model of the psyche (i.e. Model A)
- attitudes and qualities associated with the IM elements in each position (function) of Model A
- how the element in each position responds to stimuli from other people in society
- relationships between different functions of Model A

Basically, all the rest of socionics can be derived from the systems in point 2, include type descriptions, intertype relations, dichotomies, quadras, clubs, etc.

The problem is that existing formulations of the above categories are almost always lacking -- missing some details and overemphasizing others. Also, they have not been gathered in one place and given a detailed "scrubbing." This is what we are trying to do at Wikisocion:

These tasks aren't yet finished, but are moving along well. I think the result will be quite exhaustive and authoritative. People will be able to study and compare the different descriptions to better understand the model and IM elements and how they play out in behavior and interaction. Many people do not realize that Model A has actually never been fully elucidated anywhere, and Model A is the backbone of all socionics! Hopefully, within a few months we will have a comprehensive presentation of the main building blocks of socionics.

Daulization and Harmonization

"Dualization" is a vague term that is generally used to mean either a whole-scale harmonization of personality -- a sort of massive transformation of one's habits and attitudes to adapt to the values of one's duals -- or, more commonly (among Russian enthusiasts), the mundane act of hooking up with someone of a dual type. Let's take a more discriminating look at what dualization entails.

In any area of activity -- from database design to jogging and from frat parties to prayer and meditation -- all eight information aspects are present (albeit in wildly varying proportions). In other words, extraverted sensing aspects of database design can be found, introverted logic aspects of jogging, etc. Depending on our socionic type, we are equipped to recognize and master certain aspects of activities more rapidly than others. Socionic type also outlines where we are more likely to act on our own assessments of things (functions 1, 2, 7, 8) and where we tend to rely on others' judgments more than our own (functions 3, 4, 5, 6).

In most cases, people are most adept at handling and responding to aspects of activities that correspond to their strong functions -- especially the first two. How well they handle and respond to other aspects depends largely on whom they have had around them to emulate. Often there is a great discrepancy between the ability to deal with different aspects of activities effectively. If a person has had no suitable models to copy, certain aspects of tasks and situations can cause them great stress and anxiety. An example would be someone who falls apart in distress when people are coming over to visit because he/she doesn't know what food to make for them or how to make it, but believes they must feed their guests something homemade and special. In this case, the person is in the grip of a low-quality stereotype and apparently has not had the right contact with people who could properly dispel this myth and replace it with a better set of attitudes.

So it goes in all areas of life. We may apply the best practice known to man in one aspect of an activity and cling to random, inaccurate stereotypes in another.

In my opinion, harmonization involves raising the quality (i.e. effectiveness) of attitudes and habits related to different aspects of one's life activities -- especially in the areas that were least adequate to begin with. In the language of memetics, harmonization might be called the "process of replacing counterproductive and distress-causing memes with more viable ones."

This process is a bit broader than dualization, since attitudes and habits can be improved by people of any type, not just duals. However, duals have special access to each other's emotional world and can help correct self-concept problems more easily than other types (assuming a friendly relationship). Also, duals are more likely to effectively help adjust attitudes and behaviors in other areas as well, since the psychological distance is smaller and the level of receptiveness is especially high.

Can I get dualized or harmonized once and for all?

Ha, what a question. Imagine you are a professional Don Juan -- always learning new techniques for seducing women, always sharing experience with others like yourself, and constantly studying the best sources available in the field. What are the chances that your skills in other aspects of male-female relationships will keep up with your ability to seduce women? How confident will you feel if you are put in a position where seduction is not allowed or not possible and all your well-honed skills become irrelevant? If you consistently have the right people around you to observe who effectively manage other aspects of male-female relationships, chances are you will eventually pick up on their main attitudes and habits and will be able to respond effectively to most situations that don't fall into the "seduction" category. But if these people disappear from your life, you may find you quickly revert to many old habits and attitudes.

Maybe this is a clumsy example, but the same patterns apply to any area of activity. When key role models are taken away, people regress to many of their previous less-effective behavior patterns.

Can one person completely dualize me?

"Complete dualization" or harmonization would imply removing all ineffective or inaccurate behaviors and attitudes from all areas of one's life. To be completely dualized by one person, the person would have to share every single activity of yours and delve into every single imperfection in each activity. Imperfections are not hard to notice, since they are accompanied by distress, but who is going to take the time to painstakingly analyze and correct each and every distress-causing behavior pattern? A dual partner (or any other, for that matter) will focus on the ones that 1) affect them, or 2) they are asked to address.

Conclusion

Basically, harmonization and dualization can and need to take place at work, at home, in the kitchen and the bedroom, on the tennis court, in one's e-mail box, on the phone with the insurance company, and even in one's sleep. A whole chain of people will help you along the way over the years, with different activities receiving different emphasis depending on the circumstances. Some people get a head start by having had the right balance of role models early on. Other people wake up and realize what they've been missing later in life. The overall process -- as outlined here -- is the same for everyone.

Aug 4, 2007

Rationality and Irrationality

When you begin to dig deep in the worldview and perception of rationals and irrationals, you find two very different worlds.

Irrational types

The irrational worldview is accepting of wild, untamed nature. Irrational types perceive themselves to be part of this wild nature which exists outside of any laws, descriptions, ethics, and other bounds on what should or should not be. Irrational types are open to unexpected, spontaneous displays of this reality and feel that they cannot even know what to expect from themselves, as their own nature is wild and untamable just like the rest of reality.

Irrationals are always somewhat skeptical of norms, rules, exact formulations, and conventions, considering them to be an approximation of "wild reality" rather than a form of Truth. They expect that in some circumstances rules and conventions may be superceded or completely replaced, depending on factors that cannot be foreseen.

This worldview is expressed in many different ways in day-to-day behavior:

  • placing less importance on completing tasks (since nothing really begins or ends in wild nature)
  • less emphasis on making final decisions (since unknown circumstances may affect any situation)
  • periods of high activity followed by listlessness and a lack of direction (since changing circumstances may suddenly create ideal conditions for certain activities, and the irrational's psyche is prepared to jump in and exploit these circumstances and "rest up" afterwards)
  • more allowance for unforeseen moods and circumstances that may affect interaction and communication; irrationals do not jump into communication without scanning the situation first (since they are not thinking about norms and purposes relating to the situation, but rather their immediate impressions)

Rational types

The rational worldview is skeptical and often fearful of wild, untamed nature. Rational types perceive themselves as being apart from wild nature and trying to introduce order and culture to reality so that people can use it and live in it. Rational types feel that unexpected, spontaneous displays of reality need to be kept in check and altered to suit society's purposes. This includes elements of "wild nature" within people as well. In order to allow for order and effective activity and societal interaction, people need to submit their wild, unpredictable impulses to reason and ethics.

Rationals take norms, rules, formulations, and conventions quite seriously. They do not feel that people should be able to ignore these things on a whim just because they feel like it, since such behavior can potentially lead to a complete breakdown of effective cooperation.

This worldview is expressed in different ways in day-to-day behavior:

  • placing importance on completing what has been begun (since this is an expression of man's rational, purposeful nature and creates more order in the universe)
  • placing emphasis on the decision making process (another expression of the primacy of reason over wild nature)
  • steady, purposeful activity that cannot be interrupted and broken off easily (since the rational makes less provision for the unexpected and does not let himself be easily swayed by unforeseen circumstances)
  • less allowance for unforeseen moods and circumstances that may affect interaction and communication; rationals tend to jump into communication without scanning the situation first (since they are basing their initial behavior on norms and purposes relating to the situation rather their immediate impressions)

The Draw of Unfavorable Intertype Relations

Given the difficulties inherent in such intertype relations as conflict, Super-Ego, supervision, and others, one might wonder why people would ever choose these relations for romance and even marriage. Wouldn't the lack of harmony and cohesiveness destroy the relationship from the onset?

Naturally, it all starts with physical attraction. People can find themself attracted to someone of any type, and biological programs kick in that encourage people to lower barriers regardless of psychological comfort levels. After all, the early stages of nearly any romantic relationship are uncomfortable, and the psyche is well-equipped to handle this.

A likely draw of conflict, supervision, and Super-Ego relations is that positive input from these types is flattering to the individual. It gives you a big self-esteem boost when you can get these types to like you and evaluate you positively. One feels like one has overcome a huge challenge to establish a relationship, and this fact is highly prized. Partners are united by the shared challenge of overcoming the huge distance between them to find a common language and somehow be close.

These relations take a lot out of partners and leave them quite worn out, especially after the initial romance is gone. Partners tend to slip back into their own language and interests and to limit their interaction with each other. If they respected each other to begin with, a sense of flattering (because of positive input on one's Super-Ego functions) mutual respect may remain, but gradually the relationship exerts a toughening and tiring influence on partners. The distance cannot be bridged after all.

Relations of conflict usually lead to a quiet separation of functions and limiting of interaction to a formal minimum. Usually partners lose their spontaneity around each other. Super-Ego relations invite more direct interaction and spontaneity but are famous for their outspoken conflicts and mutual accusations that always lead to a stalemate. Relations of supervision lead to bitter tears and feelings that the supervisor refuses to value the supervisee for who he is.

Jun 4, 2007

Two Important Steps to Make

There are two steps I have made in my thinking about socionics that I consider particularly productive and highly recommend others follow:

1. Think in terms of functions, not dichotomies

It's initially easier for the mind to divide up people into two halves in four different ways and get 16 resulting types than to think about 8 possible positions of 8 different psychic functions. However, I have found the second approach to ultimately bring much more clarity and functionality.

Each of the four basic dichotomies is very "diluted," since it captures 8 types who express the dichotomy in 4 different ways. For example, among sensers we find those with extraverted sensing as the first function, extraverted sensing as the second function, and introverted sensing as the first or second function. That's four very different manifestations of sensing.

There is much more to be said about types with base introverted sensing than about sensing types in general. If you create adequate dichotomy descriptions and see what they alone can say about any given type, you will get a much fuzzier picture than if you approach the type functionally. A very large part of each type cannot be explained through the four dichotomies.

2. Understand that psychic functions are working mechanisms and not static personality traits

"You can't be an ILI. ILIs don't say that" is something you might occasionally hear among socionists and enthusiasts. There is a very strong tendency to assume that type behavior is more limited than it actually is (this is strictly my opinion). "Such-and-such a type is good at this, such-and-such talks like this," etc. etc. This kind of thinking comes from the unconscious assumption that psychic functions describe unchanging traits rather than being the mental modules I believe they are.

Each of us has all eight modules and uses all of them. This, I believe, should be understood concretely rather than abstractly. When you're interacting with people in a certain situation, you're using one or more of those modules. In different situations you tend to use different modules. In the course of the day you may switch back and forth between many or most of your psychic functions. Within a conversation, you may touch on many different kinds of information and briefly activate the many different kinds of thinking that are accessible to nearly all humans. In most situations, after you are used to people, you can identify which psychic function (or "IM element") they are using and which information aspect they are focused on. The aspects may change minute by minute and second by second. One almost never has a conversation where one presents information only through one's strongest functions, which is what the static view of personality type would suggest.

When people "get into" an information aspect, they adopt the mannerisms of that function. This means that people can pretty much say or do anything given the right circumstances. However, their subjective experience of each of these functional states differs (and their skill and confidence level - which are visible from without), and they will tend to avoid heavy use of certain psychic modules and be eager to use others.

Thinking about things this way helps to preserve a flexible view of human behavior, concreticize socionic knowledge, and understand what is going on at any given moment.

May 14, 2007

How to Create a [Socionics] Cult

(or any other, for that matter)

Nearly any psychological, religious, or ideological concept has the potential to form the basis for cult-like groups. To have a cult, you need just four components:


  • a belief system that describes the way things ought to be
  • the belief - whether explicit or implicit - that there is only one way to arrive at the way things ought to be
  • the belief - whether explicit or implicit - that individuals cannot achieve the desired state without leadership
  • a leader or hierarchy whose authority is unquestioned
The more literally these four points are taken in a given group, the greater the psychological power and destructiveness of the group. The most controlling cults leave their members unable to function normally among people outside of the group (form relationships, interact comfortably, etc.) and unable to make personal decisions or judgments without consulting cult leadership.

The easiest kind of cult to imagine is a religious cult that believes there is only one specific way to get to heaven, and that only the group's leadership has the authority to guide people along this path.

Other ideologies can also form the basis for cult-like groups. Tightly-knit groups of followers of psychological theories and practices can at times look and act like cults. So can adherents of idea systems. And, of course, totalitarian governments create mass "cults" based on political ideology, nationalism, or adoration of leaders.

Cult genesis

Cults always, or almost always, form around an individual with an unusually high level of personal conviction. This person strives to create a group and become a teacher figure to the group. The teacher's conviction and categorical worldview move him to weed out people who are interested but do not accept all the teachers' views and values. As soon as there is a stable group of adherents who accept the teacher as the ultimate authority, a small cult is born. From here on the group simply needs to replicate itself effectively.

A socionics-based cult?

Unfortunately, there are a number of socionics groups in the former Soviet Union who display marginally cult-like behaviors. Perhaps by writing about this possible "application" of socionics, I can help weaken the influence of such groups in the future.

Socionics itself is not a cult, just as people who get together to read the Bible are not a cult. However, socionics, Bible study, or nearly anything else can provide the context for the emergence of a cult-like group.

One variety in socionics is the authoritarian teacher who possesses a special technology for identifying types that no one else has or is able to use properly. They claim extremely high accuracy in type identification (sometimes 100%) and scoff at all other socionists, who are "completely in the dark." All these socionists seem to have a low convergence rate with other socionists in their typings of famous people.

Often, students of these socionists have no idea that their teacher is a poor representation of socionics as a whole. They are not aware that the socionist's convergence with others is low, that the socionist's approach is criticized by mainstream socionics, and that their teacher has little or no credibility in the professional community of socionists.

Students of these teachers are gradually "infected" with their teacher's views. They believe that the socionics community is "all messed up" and that their teacher has given them the only version of socionics that really works. They feel hostility towards other socionics groups who speak a somewhat different language than their own. They can even acquire the persecution complex of their teacher.

A milder version of cult-like behavior in socionics is the typical socionics "school." When you hear or read the phrase "our school believes..." or "our school considers...", you have probably found one of these groups. These groups are typically somewhat more intelligent than the first kind, but there is still the sense of group beliefs overriding personal ones. Adherents of the school feel and act like spokesmen of the school when interacting with people from other socionics schools or groups.

The views school adherents express are usually not truly their own (or else they would speak in the first person). "So-and-so says..." is not yet cult-like behavior, since the person is simply quoting a recognized authority. Within socionics "schools," people typically have a sense of group belonging and adherence to the common viewpoint that comes through in their speech (e.g. "we believe..." or "our school says..."). They become unwitting spokesmen of the teacher's convictions.

In certain cases this may be quite harmless - particularly when the "spokesman" feels like he is participating in the discovery and formulation of new principles and technologies being developed in the school and is thus truly competent to speak for the group. In most cases, however, this independent view is lacking.

Readers should be aware of this kind of behavior in socionics and in many other spheres of life in order to not be fooled or manipulated.

Apr 20, 2007

Socionics Seminar Report

Day 0 (Apr. 19):
Met at 8:30 pm at the Lord of the Moon pub to scout out the place. Had some food. Began discussing some socionics topics of interest, as well as information about ourselves. Rick, Peter ("Expat"), Kristiina.

Day 1 (Apr. 20):
Met at 10:00 am, stayed 6 hours. 7 people present. Had mostly unstructured discussion on all sorts of topics in socionics. Discussed Reinin dichotomies, hidden agendas, how much of relationships is determined or explained by socionics, the role of cultural communities behavior and intertype relations.

Day 2 (Apr. 21):
Met at 10:00 am, stayed 9 hours. 8 people present. I had a long exercise (2.5 hours) where we talked about an apple from the standpoint of all 8 information aspects, analyzing the process and results along the way. Then we had some more general discussion. Later Olga discussed a typing method and talked with each participant about their results. We also looked at sets of photographs and even videos of people and discussed their types. For me this day brought an incredible amount of insight as well as optimism about the usefulness and potential of socionics.

Day 3 (Apr. 22):
Met at 10:00, stayed till 2:00, then went to the British Museum together, followed by a rest on the lawn. 5 people present. Talked a lot about relationships between types with numerous specific examples. Olga gave a presentation on a more "ethical" approach to applying socionics. Last day of the seminar!

Apr 15, 2007

IEE Extended Type Description

Introduction: I have been working on many short type descriptions, and I decided to try writing an extended description of the one I know best. I doubt I will write others this long.


Ego block: extraverted intuition blocked with introverted ethics

The central, most dominant qualities of this type are related to extraverted intuition. Leading extraverted intuition implies being motivated to pursue “intangible,” but external territory – specifically, access to opportunities, contacts with interesting and potentially useful people, or a key position as gatekeeper of information channels or social networks. IEEs have a well-developed vision of their own and others’ capabilities and mission and are motivated more by access to prospects and important information and people than by visible, material assets and rewards.

IEEs are drawn to situations and issues where they expect significant change to occur. They want to be a part of evolving situations, relationships, and issues where hidden potential is just beginning to materialize. When they are taking part in developing something long-term with high potential to influence people’s lives, IEEs feel a great deal of personal power and enthusiasm. They are capable of ardently – even viciously – defending their mental conception of their own and other people’s potential and mission. It is nearly impossible to influence their opinion on these matters, as they trust only their own perception and expect others to accept it as being authoritative.

Leading extraverted intuition implies that the qualities that they notice, remember, and search for in their surroundings (and in other people) are mainly intangible and uncertain rather than material or visible, but have the potential to materialize into something real and important or significantly influence events – for example, innate traits, applications, and capabilities of things, people, and situations.

IEEs like to always keep their options open and avoid cutting off their access to new opportunities. They feel best when they both have it all and are not tied down in the least. They expect their intimate partners will both love and nurture them and not burden them down with permanent responsibilities, material expectations, or a predictable lifestyle.

IEEs’ extraverted intuition is primarily applied to the human world of introverted ethics rather than the abstract, impersonal world of introverted logic. They are naturally better at having an impact on the quality of people’s relationships, inner sentiments, and self-concept than on influencing the world of abstract ideas or organizational systems. They have an innate interest in ideas and concepts that can influence people’s lives for the better and help them reach their inborn potential. They are quick to offer people (who they are remotely concerned for) suggestions on how they can develop themselves, increase their professional potential, and develop a working life strategy. The basic message of the IEE’s advice is this: “broaden your horizons, try out new things, get out of restrictive situations, discover new abilities and facets of yourself, and search for opportunities that best fit your innate qualities.” IEEs are focused on getting into the best external situation rather than getting by in existing situations.

IEEs always seem to have a bit of extra energy in their day-to-day life; they always seem to be carrying one too many bags in their arms, taking on one too many responsibilities, watching one too many TV shows before going to bed, and consistently overextending themselves in many other little ways. Their naturally expansive nature leads them to pursue enticing external goals to the detriment of the proper maintenance of their inner life (true of all extraverts).

In their normal state of mind, IEEs continually have “random insights” flash into their mind about things they have been reflecting about. These insights take precedence over things they are supposed to be doing at the moment, and the IEE has to briefly stop and think about them. When they are working, IEEs have frequent random impulses to look up various information, do something else for a moment, or briefly pursue some idea of theirs. This mental quality means that IEEs usually perform multiple aspects of tasks at once, jumping from section to section as the inspiration hits them (if it hits them at all).

IEEs are able to keep a mental image of the whole task in mind as they work on separate parts of it. They enjoy working on the overall concept and strategy of tasks and are good at modifying the concept mid-stream without missing a beat. This is because they almost continually hold in their mind an image or awareness of the overall situations they are in and turn the situations around in their minds to look for new high-potential directions to take or problems that may await them in the future. Externally, this mental process manifests itself as unexpected, yet deliberate behavior that betrays a “higher level of strategy.”

When solving problems, IEEs prefer to try something new or invent their own approach rather than use a tested method or known solution that is certain to work. This sometimes leads to brilliant solutions, but it also often leads to IEEs stubbornly reinventing the wheel. IEEs insist on exercising their imagination in things both major and minor. They prefer guesswork, perceptive speculation, and experimentation over executing algorithms and basing their conclusions only on what is known for sure.

IEEs easily think in terms of what “could happen” or what “might have been.” They easily imagine how things (situations, relationships, events) could be different if some critical factor or event were added or removed. This allows them to model events and analyze trends, but it also means they can harbor regret for years for making critical, far-reaching errors (SLIs, in contrast, prefer to drive regrets from their mind).

IEEs have a natural sense of the paradoxical and absurd in life and society and can put this to use in conversation and humor. They are usually witty and enjoy saying things that are unexpectedly absurd for laughs.

IEEs easily remember and catalog information about people’s interests, expertise, talents, and personality in their minds. They do not need to be next to a person to maintain a sense of contact with him or her, but can feel genuinely close to people who are far removed from them in time in space. They are driven to establish and maintain contact with people whom they have some sort of personally significant connection to, even if that means just one letter or visit a year or less. For IEEs, a sense of closeness comes after they and their partner (whether friend or stranger) share extraverted intuition and introverted ethics information about themselves – especially personal experience that led to key insights and had a significant impact on their personal development. Sharing such revelations is a favorite “peak experience” of IEEs and can produce an intense feeling of kinship and spiritual closeness.

IEEs’ strong introverted ethics implies a natural ability to create a friendly, open, sincere atmosphere where people can freely demonstrate their innate traits (which serves their central extraverted intuition interests). They shun feelings of social awkwardness and easily acquire the skill of making people feel comfortable and accepted. They effectively use their warm and genuine smile and maintain the optimal psychological distance with the people they communicate with. This means purposely limiting contact and one-on-one situations with some people as well as pursuing personal contact with others where there is potential in the relationship that needs to be developed.

By cleverly and purposefully regulating the degree and extent of personal contact with other people, IEEs typically are able to avoid negative emotions, disappointment, and offense and preserve participants’ sense of autonomy and spontaneity. The flip side of this innate ability is a hypersensitivity to feelings of awkwardness and incompatibility. IEEs want to be able to choose for themselves whom they interact with and can easily feel repressed and abused if they are not given this opportunity. They are better at selecting compatible, mutually interesting combinations of people than adapting to situations where they must interact closely with people who do not match them ideally. They feel that the natural expression of individual qualities should take precedence over the proper maintenance of relationships (which reflects the priority of extraverted intuition over introverted ethics).

Super-ego block: extraverted sensing blocked with introverted logic

In formal or unfamiliar situations, IEEs typically try at first to appear very organized, controlled, “with it,” and mobilized for action. They hide their usual spontaneity and warmth and put on the controlled, serious mask of a resolute, action-oriented person. They do this to avoid potentially painful criticism from representatives of society at large (i.e. from the strangers they are dealing with). This state of mind is emotionally taxing, and after they are sure the people they are dealing with have accepted them and don’t intend to criticize them, IEEs loosen up and allow themselves once again to be spontaneous, frivolous, friendly, witty, and engagingly enthusiastic about their personal interests.

When IEEs are around people with strong desires and a commanding presence (leading extraverted sensing), they unwittingly copy or challenge the person, in a sense showing that “they can do it, too.” If attacked verbally or physically threatened in a forceful form, they instinctively respond in the same spirit rather than immediately backing down. At other times, their aggressiveness and forcefulness may flare up because of irritation, but they use these tools ineffectively and rarely achieve their goal using them (unless the other party takes pity on the irritated IEE and decides to back down to preserve the IEE’s own sanity).

IEEs are generally slow to anger, but if they feel others are trying to take advantage of their weakness, they become demanding and confrontational. However, as soon as they see that the other party is intimidated and has made the first steps towards satisfying their demands, they relax and begin showing understanding and sympathy for the other person’s “difficult” situation. In the end, IEEs often don’t get what they want from confrontational situations, but they feel good about having “put up a fight” anyway. In short, IEEs can only be forceful and categorical for brief periods of time.

IEEs don’t believe in forcing themselves to do difficult things. Instead, they want everything in life to be a new experience that grabs their interest and motivates them without them having to exert any extra willpower. As much as they may try, IEEs are almost always unable to keep an exercise or diet schedule for an extended period of time. Changes in mood and interest level easily reduce their resolve to zero. IEEs find that they are unwilling and unable to force themselves to do most things, and that resolve must grow by itself (this reflects the preeminence of introverted sensing over extraverted sensing in their motivational structure).

IEEs don’t identify strongly with tangible things, possessions, and property. If they lose these things, they easily forget about it and even feel relieved to be free of the material burden and turn their focus to the future. Wherever possible, IEEs strive to be free of material responsibility and the burdens of ownership and management of material assets that would tie them down and monopolize their time and attention.

IEEs feel uncomfortable and threatened by revealing information about the different “categories” they belong to (various organizational, cultural, and ideological affiliations – whether formal or informal – and even categories of people defined by weight, race, IQ, or any other formal measure) and hence subjecting their affiliations to public examination and criticism. They want to be treated in accordance with their “true self” and personality regardless of their affiliation to various groups or categories. If they feel they have been put in the “wrong” category by someone who should have known better, they feel deeply wronged and can harbor ill will for years.

IEEs feel more comfortable expressing their views, opinions, and experience to people they have established a personal, trusting connection with than in formal discussions where people may criticize their ideas and formulations and ignore their good intentions and personal experience. When IEEs focus on presenting information in an impersonal, systematic manner, they often appear overcontrolled and uptight. When they let themselves focus on the vision and experience of what they are describing, or freely jump from aspect to aspect of the subject, the quality of their ideas actually increases, and they do a better job of captivating their audience.

IEEs show interest in abstract ideas that have great explanatory potential. However, once they have assimilated the ideas, they are better at talking about personal experience and observations related to the ideas rather than the logical content or structure of the ideas themselves. They avoid using new categories or systems until they can see worthwhile applications to people’s lives and belief systems.

IEEs prefer to examine people’s individual reasons for their behavior rather than judge behavior through the lens of systems of rules or concepts (introverted logic approach), or judge the person based on how well he or she satisfies other people’s demands (extraverted sensing approach). IEEs assume that people’s behavior always has an objective root in their past, their upbringing, or their internal makeup. They cannot condemn a person for what he was programmed to do by his past or his personality. However, they condemn people who ignore extraverted intuition insights and understanding that they feel should be obvious to everyone (each type tends to harshly criticizes those who reject “obviously correct” behavior, thoughts, sentiments, or attitudes related to their own leading function).

Super-id block: introverted sensing blocked with extraverted logic

IEE’s passivity in introverted sensing is the flip side of their focus on extraverted intuition. Their persistent, multi-faceted efforts in developing external prospects and nonmaterial potential leave them in need of frequent, varied, and relaxing sensory experiences on a daily basis to refresh them and balance them out. IEEs are mostly dependent on other people and situations to generate and monitor these experiences, as they are unable to direct their attention at them long enough to produce the necessary effects on their own.

Like other extraverts, IEEs’ inner lives easily turn into a contradictory mess of chronically neglected needs. A lack of attentiveness to their own inner needs can make IEEs petty, irritable, and slobbish at home even as they maintain an air of competency, insightfulness, and enduring optimism in society and at the workplace. As they see this happening to themselves, IEEs may decide it’s time to pack up and move elsewhere to get a fresh start in life. But unless new people are added to the recipe, lasting changes in living will probably not occur.

IEEs aren’t very good at touching other people in a spontaneous, natural way. If they do decide to take the initiative in touching someone, it is usually done too abruptly and deliberately (through their role extraverted sensing, which produces a rough, external action lacking in sensitivity to the other person’s physical state). However, they are good at responding to being touched by others. They like gentle touching and soft caresses, nothing rowdy or abrupt.

Judging by IEEs’ behavior when communicating with others, as well as their clothing and appearance, it would seem that sex and sexuality are the last thing on their minds. Rather than use conversations as outlets for flirting that could lead to sexual feelings, they concentrate on understanding the other person’s personality, thoughts, and feelings and push any physical impulses they have to the back of their mind. As they chat charmingly with an attractive person of the opposite sex, they sincerely believe that they are only having a stimulating conversation. Learning to participate in overtly sexual flirtation is a mind-boggling, fascinating experience for IEEs. However, they are waiting to be led there by others. They are dependent on their partners’ gentle encouragement in physical intimacy.

When trying to satisfy their physical needs – not only through eating and sleeping, but also through relaxation and recreation – IEEs have a hard time fully switching their attention to these activities unless there is someone next to them who is engrossed in the activity, or they are in an unusual state of mind. Much more often than not, IEEs eat without fully realizing what and how they are eating, hunched over in an uncomfortable pose, or perched precariously on the side of their chair. At any moment, it seems, they are ready to jump up and return to what they were doing. They tend to put off eating until they are thoroughly starving if preparing food will require more than a few habitual actions.

introverted sensing is about much more than satisfying one’s physical desires; it is also responsible for listening to oneself and one’s inner wishes and desires in a more general sense. IEEs find they often lose touch of what they themselves want to do, as they keep responding automatically to interesting “invitations” from the outside world. They find people fascinating who are able to ignore external stimuli and focus on pursuing their own desires regardless of external pressure. IEEs often feel overextended and un-cared for. Learning to listen to and follow their internal desires is a revelatory experience for them. However, they routinely forget how to do it without outside prompting. They have a hard time fitting what they are doing at the moment to their current state of mind. Yet when they do not correlate the two, they become finicky, irritated, and infantile without understanding the reasons for their change of mood.

IEEs do not typically have a good memory for things to do, algorithms, or technical characteristics. To compensate, they like to make lists of things to do, lists of pros and cons, and exhaustive, “insightful” instructions for themselves and others. They like to automate work processes as much as possible so that they do not have to think about them anymore. However, new procedures, instruments, and techniques always come up that inevitably cause the IEE stress. They require explicit, painstaking instructions and can become mentally paralyzed and exasperated if logical assumptions are made along the way that they are not aware of.

IEEs have difficulty focusing on tasks to be done unless there is a sense of urgency, a particular state of relaxation and mental clarity, or someone nearby who is already working on the task. IEEs don’t like to perform familiar tasks with a known outcome, but prefer starting something with a degree of novelty and an uncertain outcome.

IEEs often miss the simple logic in other people’s behavior as they analyze the person’s entire personality and motivational structure. Without coaching from introverted sensing and extraverted logic types, they may never realize they are being blatantly lied to, offered a good deal, or shown sexual interest. These things tend to slip past them.

extraverted logic in the Super-id means that IEEs often lose track of the effectiveness of their actions and can get carried away with details or sub-tasks that they don’t recognize as being relatively insignificant to the job as a whole. They require frequent tips on how to save time, make rational choices, and manage the work they have to do.

Id block: introverted intuition blocked with extraverted ethics

Occasionally – most often when they are alone – IEEs fall into a dreamy, reflective, and introspective state where they suddenly lose all interest in pursuing external goals and stimuli. This is a good state for writing something poetic or allegorical, for composing or improvising music, writing an introspective diary entry, or doing something else creative slowly and methodically. These states are satisfyingly creative, but become unproductive and irritating to the IEE if they last too long. When interacting with others, IEEs much prefer to access their usual extraverted intuition state which focuses on finding answers and possibilities in the outside world, rather than introverted intuition, which focuses on finding answers inside oneself and one’s perception.

IEEs are warm and friendly, but not usually very externally animated or loud. However, they can become very animated and expressive for brief periods of time, imitating other people, modulating their voices like types with strong extraverted ethics, and acting out situations using rich facial expressions, body movements, and intonation. IEEs may seem naturally gifted at this, but they do not keep it up for very long and quickly revert to their usual calm, upbeat, smiling selves. For them, introverted intuition and extraverted ethics states are unusual, altered states of consciousness and, while IEEs show some competency in them, they are not a big part of their day-to-day lives.

IEEs usually feel awkward and shy when other people are very emotionally animate or verbally profuse around them, especially if they direct their emotional displays at the IEE. IEEs have a hard time expressing genuine emotional involvement and excitement (for example, jumping in the air and shouting “yippee” as you clap your hands) and don’t like situations where this kind of excitement and team spirit is expected of them. They feel more comfortable and confident expressing their personal sentiments one-on-one or in a small group than expressing group sentiments.

Mar 27, 2007

Extraverted Intuition in Society

Introduction
Society is a differentiated entity. It contains love, war, caring, aggression, invention, traditionalism, and all other traits found in humans. These traits tend to collect in pockets. If you go into the academic world, you'll find a higher concentration of traits such as strict rational thinking and a lower concentration of traits such as comradery and tenderness than in the population at large. If you enter the world of night clubs, you will find a high concentration of sexuality and a low concentration of rational thinking. Society has places where every human characteristic we have in us finds its full expression. (Stable communities with pockets of certain traits form the sociopsychological realms I talked about yesterday). This applies to information aspects as well.

So, where do we find pockets of extraverted intuition in society?

Concentrations of extraverted intuition are to be found wherever something big is just beginning and the outcome is unknown. "Big" is a subjective concept; it can apply to both an important new theory that might change the way the world views things and to a new acquaintance that might lead to something important later on. At any rate, we are talking about the beginning of things that will cause changes in the outside world, as opposed to internal or invisible, qualitative changes. A new business will be created; a new couple will form; popular conceptions will be overturned. We see pockets of extraverted intuition wherever these things are about to happen. More specifically, this means more people of extraverted intuition types paying close attention to and trying to participate in new developments.

Ironically, as soon as what was expected to happen actually materializes, or the outcome becomes known, the extraverted intuition energy and attention dissipates and heads elsewhere (essentially, extraverted intuition types stop paying attention). If what has been created is a visible, tangible asset that can be owned or taken away, extraverted sensing congregates. If the result is a technology or reliable means of production, extraverted logic gathers. If the outcome is a fun, exciting, or emotionally moving activity, extraverted ethics comes to the forefront.

The race of extraverted intuition against introverted logic in socionics.
I've already discussed the integral type of socionics. So far, extraverted intuition is in the lead. Important connections and insights have been made, but the theory is raw, unfinished, and sometimes contradictory. Many people think something "big" might be done with socionics, but no one knows for sure. As long as this outcome remains unclear, and new insights and connections are being added to socionics faster than existing connections have been formalized and fully integrated into the theory, extraverted intuition is winning. As soon as the introverted logic "termites" crunch through and digest all the existing material and even reach the most recent insights, introverted logic will win out. In the article I linked to above, I discussed the possibility of the integral type of socionics shifting to LII or LSI as socionics reaches the limits of its expansion and applicability.

If introverted logic ever happened to become the primary focus of socionics, it would take a long and convoluted evolution before extraverted intuition became dominant again, if ever. This is because the extraverted intuition types would have mostly left the field or stopped investing energy in it. Something very important would have to change in the external situation to create fundamentally new opportunities for the field to the degree that the surge of extraverted intuition interest would overpower introverted logic traditions.

The same thing that happens on an organizational level happens on the individual level as well. For instance, as soon as I stop writing down new insights (or mental connections) and begin restructuring and reworking old ones, the extraverted intuition emphasis disappears and is usually replaced by extraverted logic (creating material that "works better" for the user) or introverted logic (improving logical consistency and clarity).

As we can see, we are unwitting tools in the hands of larger-scale processes. Each of us is unconsciously drawn into performing certain tasks of group significance that go far beyond our own physical survival, based on our socionic type and other personal traits.

Back to pockets of extraverted intuition in society...
Obviously, every field and activity imaginable will have at least some minor concentration of extraverted intuition somewhere in it, as there is potential for at least some significant change or potentially interesting outcomes in every community or system at certain moments in its development. For example, if we take the field of oil drilling, at the dawn of the oil era extraverted intuition was likely focused on imagining how much oil there was and whether it could be used for anything. As it became clear that oil was a useful resource, extraverted intuition focused on making contacts between businessmen interested in developing the oil industry that might lead to future partnerships and breakthroughs. As oil drilling became a common practice, extraverted intuition shifted to trying to guess where else there might be oil around the world. Today, extraverted intuition is preoccupied with what will happen when the oil runs out and what alternative energy sources might be developed.