Typing Teachings, Movements, and Communities: Traders

By "traders" I am referring to the community of stock market and currency traders. Just as in backpacking, there are many different approaches to trading. Some people espouse a very technical approach, analyzing the technical characteristics of each trend in great detail, while others maintain an intuitive approach (in the non-socionic sense). Some people trade alone, while others discuss every move with their colleagues. On the whole, however, the integral type of the trading community seems to be LIE.

: If there is a 'search' in trading, it is only for new information and approaches. However, this information is finite and potentially accessible to other traders, so when it is found, it is generally kept to oneself. Compared to backpacking -- a much more adventurous activity -- receives even less emphasis among traders. Traders don't "go" anywhere, really.

: Willpower and the desire to succeed and overcome obstacles is emphasized a lot more. The nature of trading means that many must fail in order for others to succeed. This fact injects a great deal of into the community. People share stories of their financial ups and downs and how they pulled themselves together and overcame losses. However, this is not the primary subject of discussion among the community of traders.

: Technical details are the main emphasis in the trading community. People try out different trading platforms, indicators, methods, algorithms, systems, etc. and talk about the pros and cons of each in great detail (while taking care not to give their "secrets" away -- contrast that with the LSE backpacking community). People discuss facts about companies, markets, news, events, economic growth and decline, etc. and talk about how this might effect their stocks or currencies. We can see already that is applied in the context of (what is happening and what will happen; how one event is connected to another) rather than (what is needed and how to satisfy needs).

: This aspect is just as repressed among traders as among backpackers. Trading is largely an individual pursuit, and success is experienced individually or in a small group, so there is no way group bonding or "fun" can occur.

: A great deal of foresight is required to trade, and traders encourage each other to try to envision what might happen and to be prepared for it and keep their calm when it does. Compared to backpacking, trading by definition involves a focus on the past and the future. "What do you think will happen?" is one of the most common questions among trading circles.

: Satisfying needs and taking proper care of yourself is deemphasized, as it seems to be almost irrelevant to success, which depends far more on the ability to guess right and see the future.

: Just as in backpacking, in trading there are many viewpoints, but no "doctrine." In fact, the very nature of trading breaks down any doctrine; as soon as too many different people start thinking the same things and acting the same, someone else can step in and steal all their profits. This fact preserves a plurality of "doctrines" and makes practice and correct vision much more important than how well one understands trading gurus' writings. Success in trading is measured in dollar signs, not the ability to elucidate one's views.

: Ethics and morals are largely irrelevant to a trader's work. Compared to backpacking, there may be less value placed on among traders, or perhaps it is paired with (emotionally supporting those you have material ties to) rather than with (being nice to everyone in the world) as in backpacking? Compared to backpacking, the competitive and speculative nature of trading means that people are often nastier to each other. At the same time, if someone has experienced failure, the trading community will give him moral support and encouragement (after all, most people fail, so learning to keep one's head up and try again is key), whereas the backpacking community would chastise the person for any dumb mistakes made.

Typing Teachings, Movements, and Communities: Backpacking

To analyze the community of backpackers, I am going to have to slightly adjust the definitions I used to type teachings and religions so that they apply to the new context. For example, in a religious context is more about community service and building a rational, well-managed society. In the context of backpacking and other physical pursuits, is more about technical knowledge (esp. of equipment) that allows one to achieve the greatest results.

Where do we find the community of backpackers?
People of all different types backpack. Some go in groups for fun and relaxation. Others go solo and walk as far as they can. Some hike in 5 km, camp, and get drunk or stoned, while others meticulously build their hiking diet and count grams/ounces and calories. There are many different styles of backpacking, and many different levels of prowess and technical difficulty.

However, if you look at online backpacking communities where people talk about backpacking in the greatest depth, you find that not all viewpoints are equally represented. Some aspects of backpacking are discussed very little and are basically considered private or irrelevant, while others are discussed publicly in great depth. In other words, backpackers and the backpacking community are two different things. The first are hard to type, while the second is easy. When backpackers meet others on the trail or online, they tend to revert to the common language of the backpacking community. As I have discussed elsewhere, this is -- in my opinion -- the key to seeing what integral types (socionic 'types' of communities) are all about.

So, among the backpacking community:

: The "searching" aspect of outdoor experience is welcomed in backpacking, but is not widely emphasized. People think of new adventures and look for new ways of experiencing backpacking and share them with other backpackers online and in person, but when discussing them they quickly switch to discussing the technical details of what they want to do or have done rather than focusing on the search itself.

: Will and personal power are sometimes important aspects of backpacking, but they are not widely discussed in the backpacking community. In many circumstances the "will to succeed" and "overcome at all costs" is frowned upon, because you can die. The physical danger inherent in backpacking, the non-competitive nature of 99% of it, and the length of time spent outdoors means that people must be cautious and take care of themselves rather than try to overcome obstacles through the use of willpower. is subdued in the community as a whole.

: Discussion of technical details and characteristics of gear, routes, food, etc. is ubiquitous in the backpacking community. "What is the route like?" "What backpack do you recommend?" "What are the advantages of a tarp over a tent?" etc. are extremely common questions asked. The answers require a knowledge of the technical characteristics (weight, fabrics, coatings, price, where to buy, who has used it, durability, etc.). The more of this kind of knowledge someone in the backpacking community has and shares, the more he is esteemed. In fact, in almost all cases the decision to join a backpacker's forum is based on the need to discuss and learn about technical details.

: Emotional bonding and fun group experiences are not the main focus of the backpacking community. In fact, many serious backpackers hike solo, precluding any emphasis on except for sharing adventures when they get back (where they still focus on technical details rather than the fun they had). For , go to a children's summer camp, but not to a backpacking forum.

: The sublime, meditative, or spiritual aspect of communing with nature is rarely the object of public discussion among backpackers, though it can be read about occasionally in essays. Much more important than the ability to feel nature's vibes and experience inner growth and creativity is the ability to stay alive, warm, and well-fed by tending to one's physical needs and responding to outdoor conditions. is deemphasized and considered private.

: Developing the body and being attentive to its needs is of great importance in backpacking and is discussed all over the place in great detail. Community members encourage each other to maximize their physical enjoyment by improving gear, diet, and on-trail choices. Temperance, balance, and realism are upheld, as well as finding individual solutions to the physiological needs that come up in the outdoors. All of this is discussed in detail.

: Backpacking has a poorly developed system of ideas, or 'doctrine,' so there is not much to study. Practice is considered far more important than study and correct interpretation of writings and principles. An public emphasis on in the backpacking community would seem strange and hardly appropriate for the activity.

: The "moral" or "ethical" aspect of backpacking is rarely discussed outright, but it does receive emphasis. For instance, backpackers who "leave no trace" for those who come after them are applauded, while those who behave disrespectfully are condemned. The general culture of the backpacking community is one of great respect and courtesy, and people go out of their way to be polite and nice to each other. Compare this to the previously discussed communities of socionics and Gurdjieff, and you will see a stark contrast. However, politeness and civility are more values than topics of discussion.

Conclusion

Of the information aspects, clearly receives the most verbal emphasis in the backpacking community. Its complement, , is also clearly valued, though not discussed at length. Next we see a very strong emphasis on , with a rejection of the approach, which would apply to competitive sports, but not to backpacking. So the integral type of the backpacking community, in my judgment, is LSE.

Backpacking in the Former Soviet Union (added 3/18/2008)

There are backpacking related activities where a + approach is more dominant, for instance group expeditions in severe conditions where a chain of command is an absolute necessity. In the Soviet Union this type of mountaineering was dominant and carried over to regular backpacking as well. Mountaineering clubs would apply a hierarchical chain of command and strict division of responsibilities in situations where it was not actually necessary, in effect "practicing" for future expeditions where such an approach would be vital. In the U.S. this would be called "army-style backpacking" or something like that. In the Soviet Union this style of organization was basically applied to any kind of collective work or production related activity and came from Communist ideals as implemented by Lenin ( ) and Stalin ( ).

In essence the whole field of mountaineering in the USSR and former USSR is geared towards preparing people for difficult mountain climbing expeditions. Hikes, passes, and summits are given different "categories," and hiking clubs structure their hikes to be at a certain category of difficulty so that they can receive a certificate and be recognized for their achievement. Even the regulations for visiting wilderness areas (which are usually ignored) were made with the assumption that backpackers would be visiting wilderness in organized groups having a clear chain of command. Only now is the practice of independent backpacking beginning to gain ground on the "machine" of organized mountaineering, in part due to the much greater ease of individual travel, the greater availability of consumer goods (including adventure gear), and the vastly greater amount of information now available from different parts of the globe and on forums and blogs. Such factors tend to weaken the monopoly of + systems.

This goes to show how the same type of activity can be given completely different information emphasis in different places depending on factors of a higher order.

The Socionics 'Game'

I would like to continue the ironic tone of my previous post and talk about what involvement in the socionics sociopsychological realm does to participants. I have a very low level of group affinity, so taking a detached look at the socionics community and comparing it to others out there comes easily to me.

In essence, I see the socionics community as a game or training ground where participants practice being ILEs. As I have already written, ILE is the integral type of socionics as a sociopsychological realm. Socionics "culture" is passed along through interpersonal interaction much more than through books and articles on the subject. If one simply stumbled across some writings on socionics and took no part in the socionics community, one might easily take the ideas or descriptive framework of socionics and inject one's own cultural values into them.

That is what happened to me. During my first year of studying socionics, I discussed it only with my immediate teacher and perused books and articles about it. I had no idea, for instance, that typing people could be a public event, that different people might have different opinions on people's types, or that there existed socionics based social groups where people gathered to socialize more than to learn or practice socionics. I was in for a shock when I came face to face with the and aspects of socionics culture that I hadn't foreseen at all: specifically, the focus on definitions and classifications and using socionics as a platform for social bonding and group formation.

When one is by oneself, one can apply bits and pieces of socionics or any other systems however they feel like. But when you get together with other socionics enthusiasts, you inadvertently switch to the "group language" -- which is ILE and Alpha quadra based. This means:

• venturing forth any kinds of theories or hypotheses that might explain how things tie together (note: real-world phenomena, so , not )
• writing up your thoughts for peer review and discussion (logical analysis, especially with regards to theories rather than real-world actions/events = )
• sharing observations about "this type" or "that type" (observations are almost always within the context of a category -- -- otherwise, they are not for general discussion)
• bringing up new texts for discussion and to "figure out what it means" -- e.g. "have you read so-and-so's article on thinking styles?" ( and focus, given the nature of the vast majority of socionics articles)
• publicly typing everyone who shows up (putting people into impersonal categories = introverted logic)
• livening up group interaction every now and then with fun and games (compensatory and )

Maybe this all doesn't sound that remarkable. Maybe it applies to any sociopsychological realm? Well, let's imagine socionics had a completely different cultural focus...

1. "Hey, come over to my house tomorrow. I'm going to be performing some socionics work on some people and I need your help. I can't figure out how to do a few things."
   
2. "What does socionics say will match this shirt better? My old stonewashed jeans or these forest green slacks?"


3. "My socionics experience for the day is that I felt angry at my friend for not inviting me to the party, but then I thought of how Gammas and Deltas interact, and I was able to forgive her inside of me." "Thank you. Does anyone else have anything to share?"

Obviously, to hear anything like this would be absurd and laughable to the extreme.

So basically, the socionics community offers us a place where we can practice generating insight and large-scale generalizations, hone our logical and analytical skills, use a bit of academic-like mumbo-jumbo now and then, and gain practice building charts and other graphics. It's pretty darn good mental training -- much like taking a couple college courses in logic or math analysis or something like that.

Conclusion

A common theme of social psychology is that our social behavior is a lot more programmed than we generally suspect. Alas, at times I feel sad that socionics turns people into unwitting ILE drones, me included (at least when I'm "in" socionics). It modifies people's natural tendencies, causing them to argue over things they wouldn't normally care about (as well as find humor in completely new places). If it's any comfort, the same happens in other established sociopsychological realms, so this is hardly unique to socionics.

Socionics Doesn't Matter 95% of the Time

Did the title catch your attention? Yes, socionics does not particularly influence one way or another our interactions with 95% of the people we meet. That's because these people are cashiers at the grocery store, drivers next to us in the parking lot whom we smile at briefly, people online who send us one message, plumbers who drop by to get the grime out of the bathtub drain, etc. 95% or more of the people we encounter in life have no significant influence on our life or psychology. What matters far more than their socionic type for us is that they abide by certain social conventions and don't get in our way.

Socionics becomes generally more important than abiding by social conventions when we talk of meaningful interaction. Some random passenger on the plane who you talk to about everything during an entire transatlantic flight is meaningful interaction. So is the guy at work whose cubicle faces yours and who e-mails you lame jokes. In these situations you have time to build an attitude towards the other person. This becomes especially important if you expect to interact with the person in the future. Your attitude or understanding of the person helps you to decide how to interact with them. In these cases socionics matters.

Comments on Modern Myers-Briggs Typology

This topic has been written about numerous times before, but I will add a few more comments of my own.

Myers-Briggs Typology has thoroughly sided with the current psychological terms "extraversion and introversion" -- which are based not on Jung's work but on Eysenck's -- rather than their original Jungian meanings. Basically, what took place between Jung and Eysenck is that Jung's terms were qualitative, while Eysenck's were quantitative. In the process of quantifying Jung's original concepts, Eysenck "slid" from the original intention to what was most readily measurable, causing a drift in meaning. Here is a brief summary of the terms from Wikipedia:

The trait of Extraversion-Introversion is a central dimension of human personality. Extraverts (sometimes called "extroverts") are gregarious, assertive, and generally seek out excitement. Introverts, in contrast, are reserved, deep in thought, and self-reliant. They are not necessarily asocial, but they tend to have few true friends, and are less likely to thrive on making new social contacts.

Psychological introversion correlates highly with IQ and moderately with socionics introversion, logic, and intuition. For instance, many highly intelligent people behave like the following:

An introverted person is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people (although they may enjoy one-to-one or one-to-few interactions with close friends). They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate.

-- because the dominant culture of most groups is foreign to them, and so they have difficulty getting involved and obtaining recognition in the group. However, if you put them in a group that is a better match for them mentally or where mental powers are perceived positively, many or most of them will behave more extravertedly.

Now this aspect of psychological extraversion and introversion seems most like the introverted intuiter types in socionics:

An introvert is energized when alone. Introverts tend to "fade" when with people and can easily become overstimulated with too many others around. Introverts tend to think before speaking. When given the chance, an introvert will sit alone and think rather than talk with someone else.

It is no accident that 75% of Americans are extraverts according to the MBTI. From my socionics perspective, they have taken most reasonably sociable socionic introverts and put them in the 'extravert' category and have taken many or most highly intelligent extraverts and put them in the 'introvert' category. Basically, all high-IQ people who are not in the entertainment industry are Myers-Briggs introverts. By my observations, approximately 50% of Americans are socionic introverts.

Example: the Myers-Briggs INTJ
(See INTJ page at Wikipedia)

Forming just 1% of the population, the MBTI INTJs are a very special lot. What makes them different from the population at large is their independence of thought, creativity, and ability to go against the grain. They are strongly motivated to express themselves creatively and to elaborate complex concepts and intellectual designs. They are "acutely aware of their knowledge and abilities," which leads to great confidence, making them natural leaders.

As you can see, all these traits are highly correlated to high IQ.

The list of "distinguished INTJs" includes great philosophers, statesmen, scientists, and generals. Of the people in the list I know something about or know how socionists usually type them, here are the probable socionic types:

Friedrich Nietzsche -- possibly EIE
Stephen Hawking -- ILE
Niels Bohr -- ILE or ILI
Peter the Great -- SLE or ILE
Ayn Rand -- probably ILE
Isaac Newton -- ILI
Osama bin Laden -- ILE or EIE
Donald Rumsfeld -- LSI or LSE
General Colin Powell -- SLE
Arnold Schwarzenegger -- LSE
Thomas Jefferson -- LII
Ulysses S. Grant -- probably SLI

(Interestingly, most of these people are probably socionic extraverts!)

Based on the INTJ description shown above, it makes sense why each of these might be considered an INTJ. Each of them "did things very differently." What the MBTI has done in the INTJ's case is make high intelligence the essential characteristic of the type rather than functional operation. From a socionics perspective we can see that the direct, action-oriented Schwarzenegger has a completely different functional makeup than the theoretically-minded Isaac Newton. Schwarzenegger , for instance, had no need to conceptualize and lay out all his ideas, and Newton had no need to keep his body in continual motion. For socionics, intelligence and uniqueness are secondary traits whose effects are to be studied within the framework of their functional makeup.

Why the Reinin Dichotomies Are Trivial

The Reinin Dichotomies (more from Wikisocion.org) are a set of 15 symmetrical dichotomies -- or breakdowns -- of the 16 socionic types. They include the original four dichotomies (sensing/intuition, etc.), which are commonly called the "Jungian Foundation." Now there are 11 more, and more is better, right? More dichotomies = more accuracy?...

When I was first studying socionics, I came across two Reinin dichotomies -- "Positivism/Negativism" and "Questioning/Declaring" -- in the works of Augusta. They were mentioned as basically "additional traits that we have observed" -- a sort of afterthought to the main dichotomies, which she discussed in depth. They seemed to fit me, but they did not offer a whole lot of descriptive power beyond a narrow set of situations such as talking about ideas ("questioning/declaring") or giving evaluations ("positivism/negativism"), so I didn't pay much attention to them. Moreover, they had no theoretical explanation within socionics, so they seemed little different than observations that many extraverted sensing males have a similar balding pattern, etc.

Later I got ahold of Augusta's article The Theory of Reinin's Traits (dichotomies), which offered some prospects, but the descriptions once again were too narrow to be very interesting or useful, and many were simply too obscure to understand. I realized that most of the dichotomies came from applying formal logic to the socionics model to "see what it could do." I read through the descriptions several times, made note for a while of things that seemed to apply to various dichotomies, and gradually paid less and less attention to them.

When I got more involved with the socionics community, I noticed that many, many people were using the Reinin dichotomies in incompetent ways. By incompetent I mean that they took Augusta's or others' hypothetical descriptions at face value and were applying them to online and in-person diagnosis without demonstrating a clear understanding of the Reinin dichotomies or even the original four Jungian dichotomies. There was nothing to suggest that they were achieving greater accuracy; on the contrary, there was even more confusion due to the fact that the Reinin dichotomies -- poorly described as they are -- were being given the same weight as the Jungian dichotomies. Plus, the difficulty of using 15 dichotomies is that only four are needed to determine a type, and using more than that greatly increases the likelihood of contradictory results.

Now I view the Reinin dichotomies as an example of excess ("let's see what other structures result if we apply all possible postulates inherent in the original structure"). A sign of this is that it takes a great deal of preparation and thought to understand and begin to apply the Reinin dichotomies, and the "return on investment" is positively miniscule. By comparison, I guarantee that if you invest the same amount of time into studying comparative psychology (the psychology of animals), neuropsychology, or brain chemistry, you will gain a much greater amount of useful knowledge and insight than from the Reinin dichotomies.

But do the Reinin dichotomies "exist?" In other words, are there common traits among the types that are grouped in such a manner? I would say -- possibly, to some extent, but the commonalities are trivial -- basically not worth paying attention to. For instance, take any of the Jungian dichotomies. These dichotomies affect all areas of a person's life and operate whether a person is speaking or not, in a good or bad mood, etc. In addition, when a person must use the opposite axis of a dichotomy, he conveys a sense of 1) displeasure, 2) strain, 3) incompetence and/or inconfidence, 4) indifference, or 5) submissiveness and willingness to agree -- depending on the specific situation. Can the same be said about the Reinin dichotomies? Also, Model A and the basic four dichotomies describe ways of processing information. Is this true of the Reinin dichotomies -- for example, of questioning/declaring or aristocrat/democrat? I would argue that it isn't.

Suppose the Reinin dichotomies really were just as significant as the Jungian dichotomies. Then we would recognize a questioner even when he's not speaking. When forced to give answers to questions rather than ask questions, we would see signs of strain, etc. Or we would recognize strain when a negativist gives positive evaluations of things. However, this is not the case.

Newcomers to socionics are bombarded with excessive categories, and many or most do not recognize right off that not all the categories have equal value. Some are the product of empirical processes (lengthy observation undertaken by many people) and are the bread and butter of both lifestyle and interpersonal interaction. Others are mainly the product of logical thought, are the source of constant debate, have an imperceptible influence on lifestyle, and may or may not have an influence on interpersonal interaction. I can guarantee that if a newcomer to socionics never heard about the Reinin dichotomies, this would not hurt his ability to apply socionics one bit.

Examples of Vulnerable Function Fixations

(continuation of previous post)

As you can see, fixations can be self-justifying or self-destructive. Every fixation in real life is quite specific; those listed below just indicate general areas where fixations can form.

ILE: "I will prove to them that I am nice to everyone" or "I will prove that I am a blundering ass"
SEI: "I will prove to them that I can be highly productive" or "I will prove that I am useless"
ESE: "I will prove to them that I can foresee events" (??) or "I will prove that I have no foresight"
LII: "I will prove to them that I can be nasty and aggressive" or "I will prove that I am defenseless"
EIE: "I will prove to them that I am healthy" or "I will prove that I am sick"
LSI: "I will prove to them that I see the whole picture" or "I will prove that I am narrow-minded"
SLE: "I will prove to them that I am nice" or "I will prove that I am heartless"
IEI: "I will prove to them that I can make money" or "I will prove that I am destitute"
SEE: "I will prove to them that I can follow rules" or "I will prove that I am unable to follow rules"
ILI: "I will prove to them that I have emotions" or "I will prove that I don't feel anything"
LIE: "I will prove to them that I am healthy and fit" or "I will prove that I am can't maintain my health"
ESI: "I will prove to them that I have potential" or "I will prove that I have no talents"
LSE: "I will prove to them that I know what's going to happen" or "I will prove that I have no thought for the future"
EII: "I will prove to them that I am disciplined" or "I will prove that I am hopelessly scattered"
IEE: "I will prove to them that I am logical" or "I will prove that I am illogical"
SLI: "I will prove to them that I am happy" or "I will prove that I am depressed"

A healthy vulnerable function isn't out to prove anything, but serves primarily as an area for personal reflection.