Vulnerable Function Fixations and Their Resolution

Excessive focus on the vulnerable (4th) function can lead to a sort of mental paralysis or unhealthy obsession that robs the individual of his spontaneity and ability to interact with others effectively. The person feels like he must prove something to the world and defend his right to exist on this planet. An intense, prolongued focus can probably lead to severe psychological problems. Most likely the solution (if the problem is not yet too severe) is to have the person move to a more favorable environment with "better" socionic types and responsibilities that activate his Ego and Super-Id functions more, thus drawing away focus from his unhealthy fixations.

Here are some different scenarios that create long-term distress for the vulnerable function, and their possible resolution:

Situation:
Someone in your immediate family or social or professional circles constistently criticizes you for not meeting their standards/expectations in the area of your vulnerable function and lets their opinion be known publicly. The situation is compounded severely if this person has a higher position of authority and you are somehow dependent on him or her.

Examples:

• An ESI parent criticizes an SLE child for being unkind and heartless and for being unable to get along with others.
• An LII criticizes an IEE for his ideological (political, religious, etc.) views and constantly reminds him publicly of the disagreement.
• Professionally oriented parents expect their SEI child to make wise professional choices based on financial and career prospects and stick to those decisions and criticize him for doing otherwise.
• No one believes that a LSE's business activities will lead anywhere, and they criticize him for trying to accomplish things too fast and not seeing all the intermediate steps that must be done first.

Response:
The "victim" has a deep sense that he or she has been wrongly judged and must correct the misunderstanding in order to continue his life. However, each attempt to explain the true situation to the "offender" fails, because the offender cannot see what the person is trying to get at, simply does not try hard enough to understand, or quickly forgets the point the "victim" was trying to make and repeats the criticism again later. If this continues long enough or if there are more than one person making the same criticism, the victim may feel like the whole world is against him and that he must prove to them that they are wrong about him. Then the person begans carrying the issue around him and "proving" it to people who couldn't care less, which makes them lose interest in him and alienates him even more.

Examples:

• The SLE talks to everyone about interpersonal ethics and tries to prove that interaction should be based on (for instance, challenging other people, making demands on them to see if they can perform them, and testing one's strength and will with those of others), not (for instance, being sensitive to people's feelings, avoiding potential sore spots, and distancing oneself from people with whom conflicts may arise). Obviously, few people will sympathize with this kind of viewpoint, so the more the SLE focuses on it, the fewer people like him. If the SLE makes agreement with this viewpoint a criterion for friendship, he will end up with few friends. The fixation on ethical issues leaves him unable to be spontaneous with his creative (generating logical reasoning off the top of his head for fun and being playfully combative in logical arguments, which is typical for SLEs), which is an SLE's key to establishing contact with other people.
• The IEE talks to everyone about his disagreements with the LII, trying to pick apart the LII's logical errors from a broader perspective and show that he is wrong, even when listeners aren't really interested in their disagreements. Since defining, elaborating, and defending viewpoints is not an IEE's strong point, the more he focuses on this, the less likeable he becomes to other people. Instead of the spontaneous, mild, and fun and accepting person that he could and "should" be, people begin to see him as an ideologically preoccupied person who is not much fun to be around. (Incidentally, LIIs -- who are naturally more ideologically focused than IEEs -- can forget about ideology in a second and respond to emotionally playful and engaging activities that have nothing to do with ideology. When an IEE is ideologically focused, however, it seems like a fixation, because the person does not respond well to other kinds of signals.) The fixation with keeps the IEE from seeing the people around him and responding creatively to the emotional canvas of each situation he is in (in short, creative ).
• The SEI talks to everyone about how life is not just about work and production, but also about enjoyment and following one's true desires. This is a mundane assertion to many people, and the more the SEI focuses on criticizing all people who value their corporate positions and who think first about financial and career benefits, the less people around him are able to sympathize with him and the more it seems like he has a chip on his shoulder. This "campaign" against "bad " saps the SEI of emotional energy that is better spent having fun and generating lively and stimulating interaction () with others, which is the SEI's main tool for building relationships with others.
• The LSE tells everyone of his business plans and how he is sure to achieve his objectives despite what other people say. He talks to others about his chosen way of making money and tries to prove that it really has great financial prospects. Most people aren't that interested, though, and wonder why he is pushing the issue so much. The LSE may seem obsessed and unhealthily single-minded, as if his whole plan for life depended on a single undertaking that seems like a gamble to most other people. This over-focus on what he believes his activities will lead to () leaves him unable to sufficiently focus on satisfying real needs that have already surfaced (), which is an LSE's greater strength. And if an LSE can't do that, then he has little basis to build relationships with other people.

NOTE: Here I have described situations where the "victim" tries to fight and disprove the criticism. However, sometimes people react the opposite way -- by purposely neglecting the criticized area. For instance, the SLE becoming even more mean and heartless, the IEE giving up all attempts to logically express his views, the SEI purposely doing unproductive things, or the LSE ignoring all preliminary steps even more than before. Ultimately, this drives others away just like the fixations described above.

Resolution:
The victim physically and emotionally distances himself from the offenders and gets involved with people from his own quadra who help to straighten out his values and self-perception and stimulate him to focus on his real strengths. Gradually the vulnerable function fixation dissipates, and over time the former "victim" recognizes the fixation and learns how to avoid such situations in the future.

Examples:

• The SLE moves away from home and gets involved with friends from his quadra who help him to see that it's more important to be fun, exciting, and vocal than nice and sensitive ( value vs. value) and who accept his challenging interaction style and welcome his logical abilities. Over time the SLE builds up his own rules of thumb for interacting with other people that are based on things like considering the logic of the situation ( = what kind of situation it is, what position each participant occupies within the situation, etc.) and welcoming and responding to displays of emotion whenever they come up. This helps him to ultimately address the weakness his parent had criticized and find the correct place for in his life while not focusing on it directly.
• The IEE distances himself physically from the LII and gets emotionally involved with friends who help him to see that it's more important to be productive and get things done effectively than to have the most correctly systematized point of view ( value vs. value) and who value his spontaneous insights and bring out the friendly and emotional side in him. Over time the IEE builds up his own rules of thumb for dealing with differences of opinion and logical disputes based on an understanding of the emotional aspect of the situation ( helps to recognize when the emotional distance is suitable for a deep discussion of viewpoints and when it is unsuitable) and attaching more value to discussions that lead to productive cooperation. This helps him to ultimately address the insufficiencies the LII and others had noted and find the correct place for in his life while not focusing on it directly.
• The SEI moves away from his parents and finds a more accepting social group that is fun to be in and helps him to see that it's more important to have a systematized concept of your activities than to try to obtain profit from everything ( value vs. value), and who value his relaxed and fun-loving nature more than his attempts at productivity. The SEI comes to realize he is liked more for his ability to get people involved and emotionally enlivened. Over time the SEI builds up his own rules of thumb for making professional choices based not on a direct profit-loss analysis but on an understanding of the emotional implications of his decisions and the positive support that organizational systems provide in his life ( and focus over ). By being part of a logical system where he also has fun and enjoys himself, he is able to resolve the productivity issues he had before and be part of a group that will take partial responsibility for his professional decisions.
• The LSE gets involved more closely with types with strong and who help him to see that it's more important to develop your personal potential (interests and talents) than to choose the right high-potential enterprise and put all your eggs in one basket ( value vs. value) and who value his ability to get useful things done. By considering different new and interesting areas that show potential, the LSE comes to realize that he had closed himself off to many interesting possibilities and had been ignoring tangible needs and achievable goals for the sake of a single illusory goal. By having strong types around him, the LSE can safely shift his focus from trying to see into the future to useful activities that satisfy real needs while being sure that others near him are picking up on high-potential areas of development and can give him the tips he needs to not fall behind the times.

Experimental Text

At the recent socionics seminar in Düsseldorf, Germany I tried out an idea I had had about reading people a story containing all information aspects and then asking them questions to see which of the aspects they were better able to catch from the story. I was skeptical about the idea in the first place but decided to try it for fun. I composed the story myself and have been changing a few words here and there to improve it. It is meant to be read aloud just once:


A Story
A bizarre incident happened just last week which overturned by perception of reality and still has me puzzled to this day. I was chomping greedily on a thick, juicy hamburger -- the kind where the grease drips onto your plate with each bite and the lettuce keeps getting up your nose. By the way, by far the best ground beef for homemade burgers can be bought right across the street for just 3 Euros a kilogram and is supplied fresh daily. So I was blissfully biting into my burger when my cat gave a heart-rending screech and began hissing violently and grimacing at me like a maniac. Normally, my cat -- which is a pure-bred Siamese -- lies all day on its Persian rug, getting up just 4 or 5 times daily to take a walk around the house. He's such a lazy bum that I sometimes can barely control my urge to fling his fat, furry ass out the window or at least have my mother haul him away. My sweet mum has a tender spot in her heart for cats and other soft, furry creatures and is able to make even the most embittered pets feel welcome and at home. Ever since this mysterious occurence, I have had the strange sense that my cat is moving in a different direction in life, and our future together seems ever more uncertain.

(while not perfectly done, each sentence was intended to focus on a particular information aspect in the following order:
, , , , , , , )


Questions:
Participants were asked to write their answers to the following questions without consulting anyone else:

• (general question): What is this story about (your own interpretation)?
• () When did this take place and why?
• () Describe the hamburger.
• () Where and for how much does the author recommend getting ground beef, and why?
• () What did the cat do, and how?
• () What kind of cat is it and what is its usual behavior?
• () What does the author want to do with the cat, and why?
• () What does the author's mum do and why?
• () What does the author feel as a result of this event?

Analysis
There were a number of interesting answers from listeners that showed that they had ignored certain aspects of the story or had added something that wasn't there, but for the most part answers were not very differentiated and thus not very informative.

Criticism
One participant noted a possible hidden perspective that theoretically shouldn't have been there; the story is about a realization concerning a relationship. Another participant noted that he wasn't able to focus on all the details in the story because they seemed to have no point in the plot.

Conclusion
This type of test is interesting because it aims to get at differences in the perception of information that make types different in the first place. However, new approaches need to be tried to find something that will effectively differentiate between types.

Further Discussion of Model A Blocks

As we can see from the previous post, people prefer to be in an environment where their Ego and Super-Id functions are most activated. Other environments require strain and engage them less. This accounts for the phenomenon of quadras. In addition, these four information aspects are what types like to talk about out loud. The other four aspects people prefer to either not talk about at all or talk about very carefully, weighing one's words. This accounts for the fact that all people are closed and secretive about some things (or are perceived as such by some other people).

Super-Id
The Super-Id is interesting in that people like to talk about these information aspects and even freely initiate or provoke conversation, but they don't like to have to do anything themselves. It's like they are asking other people to do the real work. The Super-Id is not all just "fun and games"; being expected to do work or take the initiative for other people in these areas is often extremely irritating. Yet it is enjoyable to experience and talk about these areas when someone else is taking the lead and accepts responsibility for the results.

Mental and vital rings
These rings differ in that one (mental) likes to think about things, and the other (vital) -- have things happen by themselves. Thus we get:
- Ego: think, talk, and do (take the lead oneself)
- Super-Ego: think, but not talk and not do
- Id: not think and not talk, but do
- Super-Id: not think, talk, but not do
(Remember, lists like this must always be taken with a grain of salt. Of course the Super-Id functions "think" to some degree, but they like to talk more than they like to mull over things.)

Functional preferences (so-called "valued information aspects")
dfd

Blocks of Model A

Here is a sketch of some of the defining characteristics of each of the blocks of Model A. These come from observing how functions work in real life and generalizing across types. Terms are explained wherever they appear for the first time, and they or their opposites can be applied everywhere).

Ego
Enjoyable to experience (fun to be in this environment)
Easy to use (doesn't require much conscious effort or "willpower" to focus on)
Prone to burnout (gets stuck in a rut and become overworked)
Normal state of mind (what a person is usually like when interacting with others)
Very high endurance (functions can easily effectively be used for hours at a time)
High initiative (person foresees problems in these areas and manages them in advance)
High tolerance (can handle being exposed to these types of information for a long period of time)
Likes to talk (about things from the perspective of these kinds of information)
Thinks openly (involves other people in thinking/experiencing process)
Likes to do (turns talk into action)
Likes to lead (sets the tone in these areas for others)
Doesn't like to follow (others' initiative without adding new initiatives of one's own)

Super-Ego
A strain to experience
Hard to use
Tense state of mind
Low endurance
Low initiative
Low tolerance
Doesn't like to talk
Thinks to oneself
Doesn't like to lead
Doesn't like to follow

Id
A minor strain to experience
Fairly easy to use
Unusual ('weird') state of mind
Medium endurance
Medium tolerance
Doesn't like to talk
Doesn't think
Likes to do briefly
Likes to lead briefly
Likes to follow briefly

Super-Id
Enjoyable to experience
Medium-hard to use
Prone to neglect
Regenerative state of mind
Medium-high endurance
Medium-high tolerance
Likes to talk
Doesn't think
Likes for others to do
Doesn't like to lead
Likes to follow

The "Problem" of Expert Use of Weak Functions

Many newcomers to socionics and "type watching" tend to underestimate the complexity of personality and socionics' ability to handle that complexity. Many assumptions are made, such as:

• a type is "supposed" to do and say everything using its strong (esp. Ego block) functions
• types are "sensitive" about their weak functions and avoid their use or need assistance with them
• types are incompetent in the use of their weaker functions and competent in the use of their strong functions

Each of these statements is partially true, but they break down in numerous situations. It is not rare to see people who appear to have achieved great mastery of their weak functions, or display sloppiness in the use of their strong functions. These cases make some people question the validity of socionics in the first place or suggest that the person cannot be of their stated type. With a little bit of effort and understanding, however, these seeming contradictions can be reconciled.

When people display expert use of weak functions (3, 4, 5, 6), there is almost always a very good reason for it. Most often, it is related to their professional field or to a long-standing hobby of theirs. For example, mastering socionics entails understanding and being able to apply a large number of categories ( information). Within a socionics context, it may seem that someone with an excellent command of socionics is "proficient in " in general. However, that same person may display all the signs of subdued outside of the context of abstract discussions of socionics (yes, I'm speaking about myself).

Likewise, it might seem that LIE boxers (such as the Klitschko brothers, according to many socionists, me included) are "too proficient" in to be LIEs. Shouldn't LIEs be too hesitant and unsure of themselves physically to be good boxers? Again, the answer can be found by looking at these boxers' life and behavior outside of the context of boxing. Strong (especially leading) functions, in contrast, leave a heavy mark on all areas of a person's life.

Jane Fonda (who I have typed as EIE) is well-known for her popularization of aerobics as a sort of fitness guru. Wouldn't that imply strong or ? Once again, by broadening the context beyond her fitness activities, we can see that sensing is not the focus of Jane Fonda's life. She does not apply sensing to nearly every situation like sensing types do.

Countless other examples can be found. Whenever someone masters anything, they master all aspects of it at a high level. Mastery is driven by the leading function's deep personal interest, but other functions follow along as well. Mastery of aspects that are secondary to a person and require use of weak functions often comes through lengthy, repeated exposure without focusing on that aspect directly. For instance, grammar of a foreign language can be mastered by studying it heavily from the outset, by skimming over numerous grammar books and exposing oneself to grammar rules without really focusing mental energy on them, or simply by correctly repeating phrases that natives say and not even thinking about grammar.

When someone becomes a master at something, there is always some innate talent or physical basis for the mastery. For instance, the Klitschko brothers were born with large, athletic bodies and excellent coordination. Jane Fonda was born with a flexible, well-built body that allowed her to excel in fitness. Sergey Korolyov (powerhouse behind the early Soviet space program) -- a SLE on the Russian benchmark list -- was born with a piercing and inquisitive intellect.

Transcending Type

To what degree can type be transcended? Is "overcoming" or "moving past" one's type a worthy cause? Does this allow one to change one's type or one's intertype relations?

Somewhere in the book In Search of the Miraculous, Gurdjieff (a well-known 20th century mystic) said something to the effect of, "as a person I may not like many of you -- the way you walk, the noises you make, certain habits of yours, etc., but as your teacher I have the responsibility to treat you a certain way regardless of my personal sentiments." This statement, I think, sums up well the possibility of "transcending" one's type:

1. One will always have uncontrolled personal sentiments that cause them to be attracted to or put off by people on a personal level.
2. Thus, in personal relationships one will never be "free" from the laws of intertype relations, no matter how much personal growth takes place.
3. Outside of one's personal relationships, however, there is great room for learning to manage one's behavior and treatment of other people and "disassociate oneself" from one's type-related attitudes and sentiments.
4. One can, through understanding, come to appreciate the value of other people regardless of one's personal sentiments towards them, which can come to be ignored on a mental level, though remaining important in one's private life.

A hierarchy of development or understanding could be created showing how much people at different 'levels' let their type-related sentiments color their view of life, but I won't do that here. For instance, a low level would be someone who believes that entire categories of people should be eradicated, disciplined, remoulded, etc. because they "serve no purpose" and "only make life worse" (specifically for the speaker, but he projects his personal sentiments onto society as a whole). A high level of development would be someone who recognizes the limitations (i.e. subjectivity) of his personal sentiments and is able to limit their influence to his private life and personal decisions. The more one is able to separate oneself from one's personal sentiments (including type-related likes and dislikes, type and quadra values, etc.), the greater objectivity one is able to reach in one's understanding of other people and life in general.

So, transcending type is not about "changing" one's type or freeing oneself from the "restrictions" of type behaviors and intertype relations, but rather about learning to apply personal, type-related sentiments only to one's private life and personal decision making where they are truly useful and necessary.

Recognizing Group Threats

From the title it may seem that this post has very little to do with socionics, but it actually ties into the quadras and their roles in society. When we look at history, we can easily recognize periods where power was more or less centralized and when nations were in a state of alarm and readiness or in a state of ease and complacency. It seems that the presence of external threats slmost inevitably leads to a greater concentration of effort and power within countries, while the absence of clear threats generally leads to a decentralization and overall "relaxation" of society.

At the same time, there is also a tendency for centralized states to "create threats" in order to preserve the need for centralization of power. Decentralized states, in turn, downplay threats in order to preserve their comfortable, individualistic status quo. When the difference between the actual threat and the perceived threat reaches extreme levels, society becomes unstable and the whole government system can fall apart.

I believe that the ability to recognize threats to one's group is related to socionic type and to quadras. The greatest extremes in this regard seem to be the Beta and Delta quadras. Beta types are naturally attuned to the territorial expansion and contraction of systems ( blocked with ), while Delta types are attuned to recognize the traits and potential of individuals within the context of personal interaction and relationships ( blocked with ).

Beta types perceive people within the context of social groups and systems, the development of these systems over time, and feelings that are expressed between different groups. This doesn't mean that they are blind to individual traits or much more prone to stereotyping, but simply that they are more likely to talk about these aspects out loud, comfortably and naturally. Delta types perceive people as individual "case studies" who have different skill sets, relationship patterns, personality makeup, and daily habits. They are more likely to keep their thoughts about group patterns to themselves or state their observations very carefully and tactfully (which basically means restricting the use of these functions).

What this means in practice is that Beta types are much quicker to recognize and respond to threats to their group and to society at large, often banding together at the mere hint of such a threat. EIEs generate awareness of the threat within society and stir up people's emotions. SLEs mobilize people into bands to fight off attackers. IEIs and LSIs perform subtle, behind-the-scenes operations (of course, these are just broad generalizations). The "weakness" of the Beta quadra is that many Beta types are prone to see threats when there actually are none or exaggerate the danger of minor threats, thus wasting people's energy on fighting a nonexistent foe. When the danger is real, however, Beta quadra's ability to mobilize society is critical to the survival of society as a whole.

Delta's attitude towards threats is quite different. They are not good at operating in a state of fear and anxiety and try to find ways of avoiding whatever is causing these negative emotions. They prefer to make preparations in advance to reduce the likelihood of threats to an absolute minimum, because when a threat actually arises, they don't know how to mobilize for action. Because of Beta types' confidence in repelling threats, they seem less prone to lengthy advance preparations.

Examples
In my opinion, what we see across much of Europe now is a Delta stage of national ambivalence coupled with unforeseen material wealth. For decades now since WWII, European countries have been freely accepting immigrants, ignoring the cultural and now political threat that this has begun to pose. This attitude of acceptance and "extreme" rejection of anything that could be construed as racism is probably a reaction to the atrocities of WWII. Individual freedom and (probably) material prosperity are the result of this worldview, but it may be reaching its limits as threats to society grow and governments take few measures to counteract them.

Meanwhile, a Beta-dominant, xenophobic Russia is seeing threats all around them. What many people in the West don't recognize is that Russia is also experiencing a cultural revival. The benefit of being equipped to recognize and eliminate threats is, of course, a strong will to survive. The drawback is that if the threats are in fact too greatly exaggerated, maniacal leadership can lead to bloodshed and impoverishment.

The United States -- almost in the position of an island country (just two bordering countries) -- has historically flipped between isolationism and international involvement. During periods of isolationism, power tends to be more decentralized, and more energy is spent on perfecting domestic policies; during periods of international involvement, territorial interests are under threat and power becomes more centralized. Obviously, the U.S. is currently in a stage of involvement. This leads to a certain loss of freedoms within the country in order to better fight the country's enemies.

(I'll stop there for now)

"Openness" of the Mental Functions

If you look at the mental functions (1 through 4), there is a clear tendency for each function to be more restrictive than the previous one, with the 1st function most open to new information and the 4th function most closed.

The base function is open to new experience and is willing to consider pretty much any information that comes its way, even though this function forms opinions quickly and often categorically (and loves to exaggerate). The creative function has a considerably more restrictive view of reality and doesn't want to consider "useless" information corresponding to this aspect. The role function is more restrictive yet and "tries" to operate just enough to avoid major risks to one's well-being and social reputation. The vulnerable function barely tries to consider new information -- much less information that is clearly inapplicable to one's situation -- and only considers information that the individual has dealt with on a personal level.

Here are some scattered examples:

• IEEs and SEEs believe that all relationships should be good and don't want to invest in or waste time with those that aren't ideal or don't go anywhere (restrictions on 2 ). EIIs and ESIs do not shun "bad" relationships, but see them as an integral part of life that must be worked with and learned from (no limitations on 1 ).
• IEEs believe that people are the way they are and are worthy of study and understanding no matter what makes them tick (no limitations on 1). EIIs believe that people should strive towards certain ideals (restrictions on 2).
• LSEs and ESEs find recreation, enjoyment, and comfort very important, but try to "perfect" these activities by ridding them of unpleasant sensations (restrictions on 2). SEIs and SLIs are more open to experimenting with new sensations, even if not all turn out to be positive.
• ILIs and SLIs try to avoid doing any "useless" work and applying ineffective methods that don't bring any immediate returns (restrictions on 2). LIEs and LSEs are more open to experimenting with new methods to test their effectiveness, even if that means wasting energy and discovering dead ends.
• IEIs and SEIs try to brighten up the emotional atmosphere and avoid "negative" emotions (restrictions on 2). EIEs and ESEs are less likely to avoid or skirt heated negative emotional situations, because this is part of what life is about.
• ILEs are likely to ignore logical systems and classifications that they see as pointless or lacking in insightfulness (restrictions on 2), while LIIs are more open to considering any systems, perhaps to hone their logical thinking skills or to whet their mental appetite.
• IEEs and EIIs both don't appreciate coercive or overbearing behavior (who does, really?), but IEEs believe they personally need to be capable of coping with it effectively, while EIIs believe it should be eradicated altogether (greater restriction on 4 than on 3). Similarly, SEEs and SLEs have more open attitudes towards changeable, unpredictable, and finicky behavior in others and try to be prepared to deal with the unexpected in people and events, while ESIs and LSIs try to limit the possibility of unexpected changes in direction to a bare minimum (greater restrictions on 4 than on 3)

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:

• Descriptions of each IM element in each position of Model A
• A comprehensive formulation of Model A (basically, the first of its kind in English)
• Functional descriptions of each type that correlate completely with the above formulations
• Relation descriptions that correlate completely with the formulation of Model A

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, aspects of database design can be found, 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.

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.

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 as the first function, as the second function, and 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 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.