Real-Life Socionics: A Missionary Experience

I have said elsewhere that I believe socionics accounts for a large portion of the feelings and issues that people experience when they deal with other people on close terms (in close relationships, friendships, and work partnerships). This confidence comes from having lived for extended periods of time with dozens of people of practically every socionic type.

One experience in particular stands out as being a particularly intense "socionics incubator" -- that of spending two years as a missionary for the LDS (Mormon) church. Unfortunately, back then I knew nothing of socionics, otherwise I would have paid closer attention to certain things and gained a lot more information than I can in hindsight.

At that time, I believed that my relationships depended on my attitude and people's good will and personal effort, but my analysis in hindsight has not borne out this point of view. In no case was I able to significantly improve, much less overcome, the dynamics of poor relationships with other missionaries I had to work with. All other missionaries I knew had similar experiences, some with the better relationships grouped towards the beginning of their period of service, others -- like me -- with the better relationships towards the end. By asking around after my missionary service, I found that most former missionaries considered 1/4 to 1/3 of their mission partnerships to be "good relationships," with the rest being various shades of difficult or ho-hum.

The conditions I was in were virtually ideal for a large-scale socionics experiment:

• Missionaries lived and worked in twos (occasionally threes) and were required to be together 24 hours a day and manage all their affairs together, including housework, planning their proselytizing activities, running meetings, and teaching lessons together. This ensured maximum contact with the other person's personality and internal makeup and minimized the effect of common interests and non-socionic factors which are very important during the initial stages of making friends.
  
  
• Missionary "companionships" were unisex (i.e. only boys with boys) and were selected by mission leadership with almost no input from the missionaries themselves. Missionaries generally considered these choices to be inspired and so generally had an initially positive attitude towards their new partners and generally put in a good-faith effort to get along. This meant that people's expectations of their mission partnerships were generally the same. There was some "interference" in the fact that mission leadership often had an idea of what missionaries thought of each other, and this caused a slight loss of randomness in companion selection.
  
  
• All missionaries were required to do basically the same tasks, and all positions in the leadership hierarchy were determined by mission leadership. This reduced the role of rank and power in missionary relations. However, one missionary in each pair was "senior," the other "junior" (almost always determined by length of service), which may have produced a slight bit of "interference." Also, since our mission was in Russia and 95% of the missionaries had to learn a new language, their differing degrees of language acquisition also may have affected interaction and "pecking order" to some degree. However, my experience is that these things -- while often cited by the missionaries themselves as influencing their partnerships -- actually changed little, and these were just surface factors that people could easily latch onto to explain the relationship difficulties they were having.
  
  
• Companions generally spent from 1 to 3 months together -- a sufficient amount of time for interaction patterns to develop and solidify. My experience was that by the second or third week together the basic pattern had taken shape that would determine the rest of their time together.
  
  
• Missionary life provided a number of objective indicators of relationship quality. For instance, when walking around missionary companions would very often inadvertently maintain a certain distance between them that corresponded to their degree of psychological comfort around each other. For some this distance was negligible (they would almost always walk side by side), while for others the distance could be 5 yards or even as much as 100 (!) yards. Another objective indicator was whether or not missionary companions studied together in the mornings as they were supposed to. I found I was able to study together on a regular basis only in the best of companionships, and that in all others I would subconsciously avoid this awkward activity.

A lot of time has passed, and I have not yet been able to figure out absolutely every companion's type, but each year brings a few more pieces of the puzzle. Here I will talk about how my interaction played out with mission companions of different types (my intertype relation with them is listed after their types).

IEI - Extinguishment

I spent my first five months with an IEI during a period when I didn't know anybody and was often listless and depressed. Part of these feelings were the result of our relationship, which I would characterize as "love-hate." On the one hand, I could air my thoughts and feelings and say what I felt around him (that's generally the effect IEIs have on people), and on the other hand, his mannerisms and "everything about him" would suddenly intensely irritate me, and I would feel like physically pushing him away from me and getting him out of my life space. This physically aggressive reaction was very bizarre for me, and I see it as him drawing out of me a complementary reaction, which for me (IEE) is a source of negative energy, not positive as it is for types. I likewise "forced" him into something of a role, and he took on most of our food-buying and cooking responsibilities.

On a less personal note, I was highly impressed with his communication abilities, especially compared to many other missionaries who seemed to entirely lack such skills. It seemed he could talk to anyone and smooth over any conflict. Despite his mild and meek nature, displays of aggression never seemed to intimidate him, even when I was totally scared. At the same time, I was constantly disappointed by the kind of people we were teaching (especially lots of Beta quadra old ladies), because I couldn't connect with any of them, and felt almost entirely cut-off from any kind of network of friends. Furthermore, something about our interaction was making it impossible to keep anything remotely like the strict schedule we were supposed to be adhering to, making me feel like a chronic rule-breaker and a "bad" missionary.

I spent two days with him once after my mission. I had the best of intentions and wanted to be friendly, upbeat, and genuinely interested, but the same love-hate pattern resurfaced almost immediately, and I left dejected about my inability to change anything.

Since then, I have been drawn to and confounded by similar qualities in other IEIs I have become friends with.

SLE - Super-Ego

I was with this person for 4.5 months during a period when we both had different administrative positions and worked in different rooms of the same office. Remarkably, we managed to limit our interaction to a bare minimum, punctuated by rowdy and awkward attempts at being friendly or jolly around each other, as well as heated arguments with raised voices and accusations. He would accuse me of subtly treating him like dirt, and I would harp on his bad attitude and lack of interest in self-improvement. Once we began shouting at each other (which is extremely bizarre for me) at the office after almost everyone had left, and another missionary had to intervene to get us to calm down.

At the time, I considered this by far my worst partnership ever, but when we met after our missions, I was amazed to feel no bitterness whatsoever toward him, only a kind of distance and respect, and sensed the same from him. We were both friendly, and I felt no emotional entanglement with him, unlike the IEI. I couldn't fathom what had been the cause of our "terrible" relationship as missionaries.

Subsequent relationships with SLEs have never been close enough to "blossom" into the same pattern, but I have noted the same awkward and rowdy friendliness that comes from each mimicking the other's behavior and speaking style and ending up jarred and worn out from overusing the Super-Ego functions.

LSE - Activation

I never lived together with an LSE companion, but I had regular long-range friendships with them (in contrast to the SLIs, who only seemed to recognize and maintain friendship if they were living with the person or shared activities with them). The friendships went like this: Something about them would make me sense they would be receptive to my personal, unconventional views on mission-related topics, and I would start to unload my accumulated insight onto them. They would listen and respond with great interest and start telling me about some of their observations and experience that supported my insight. Sometimes my choice of these people would surprise me, because they generally seemed like more involved, traditional, and go-by-the-book people (sometimes strikingly so) than I was, and yet they would find what I was saying highly interesting and useful.

Each of these friendships was more talk than action. I don't remember actually materializing anything with any of them, but it was highly therapeutic for me to be able clear my mind by laying out all my insight for other people. I think the "therapy" for them was having a context where they could talk about people and social relations around them (Super-Id topics for them).

I have found my other relations with LSEs since then to be more talk-oriented, with less joint activities than with SLIs. I have also discovered pitfalls in trying to do business projects together (each fancies himself to be the leader and makes decisions unilaterally).

SLI - Duality

I had two dual mission companions, and both periods were positive and brought me many new ideas and new projects. With each of them I could freely voice all the products of my imagination, and this would naturally lead to a desire to experiment with some of them together. With the first companion, for instance, we almost immediately began a complete housecleaning that even had a conceptual foundation (!). We renewed the proselytizing activities that had gone slack with the previous companion (the SLE) and had far more fun, but were only together for 1.5 months.

I was with the second SLI right after the first and had time to go much farther. Our joint projects included studying The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People together and an ambitious attempt at self-perfection and approaching our work from an entirely new angle. We felt that our mastery of communication and instruction had increased tremendously, but I didn't realize at the time that this improvement was contingent upon the relationship itself and would not last long without it. We also tried experiments with nutrition, exercise, and health (typical, though not universal areas of interest). We also began learning Ukrainian together for fun (he was a Russian-speaking Ukrainian).

Since then I have found that inventing new joint activities related to self-improvement and self-education are typical results of a dual friendship with an SLI. However, at a distance these relationships are tougher to maintain through the years than with LSEs. SLIs can be notoriously difficult to keep in touch with, and they rarely invest much time in things and people that aren't part of their lives at the moment. Perhaps it is also that the dual relationship strives for a closer distance than is possible through correspondence, while the more talk-oriented relation of activation is well-suited to letter-writing.

to be continued shortly.

Introverted Extratims and Extraverted Introtims

One of the challenges of socionics is figuring out how to associate levels of social extraversion with socionic extraversion and introversion. Myers-Briggs Typology has essentially incorporated social extraversion as one of its four dichotomies, but in socionics it is not so simple. While there may be some correlation between social extraversion and socionics extraversion, it is too weak to be a consistently useful typing instrument. Also, equating the two closely can lead to potentially harmful stereotypes that suggest that people "should" be behaving more or less extravertedly than they actually are.

Social extraversion itself can be a bit hard to diagnose, but is generally more apparent than socionics extraversion and introversion. A person's current mood, state of health, interest level, and feelings towards the people around him may strongly influence his level of initiative and gregariousness, so it may take some time to get an accurate impression of a person. Some people may be easily diagnosable as typical extraverts, others as typical introverts, but a large percentage of people are somewhere in the middle.

If you meet a pronounced social extravert who is always in the center of attention, always getting people together, and always making lots of noise and monopolizing situations, chances are he or she is also a socionics extravert ("extratim"). The same goes for pronounced social introverts who don't like meeting new people, prefer listening to speaking, and are wary of everything new and unfamiliar. But these are not the only types of people.

The extraverted introtim

These people tend to be socially involved and feel comfortable expressing themselves publicly without feelings of self-consciousness. They tend not to think a lot or hesitate before speaking out loud and are highly verbal. In social situations they often appear to be using an extraverted function (often their creative function, but not always), but their values and perspective come from their leading function. The difference between an extraverted introtim and an extratim is that when they are being "active" and "extraverted," introtims are not really keeping track of the world around them, but are focused on themselves, whereas extratims are following and studying their environment at the same time. Also, their attitude towards the extraverted function they are applying (especially their creative function) is more careless, as if they don't attach much importance to it and are just engaging in it for fun. When an extratim uses his or her leading function, there is a greater sense of purpose, awareness, and urgency. The extratim has the intention of actually affecting others with his leading function, whereas an introtim using his or her creative function seems to be just playing around for personal needs or enjoyment.

The introverted extratim

Many, if not most extratims do not use their leading function for social expansion in every situation they find themselves in. Some actually do, but many others are quite deliberate, observant, and socially detached. Even people with leading or can be like this. These extratims generally speak and act deliberately, often with a bit of hesitation and reservation. They seem less open about their intentions and always seem to be considering something in their minds. They don't have the need to air their thoughts to practically everyone they meet like more gregarious extratims, but are more selective about when to express themselves. In social situations they often appear to be using their creative function (or another introverted function), but their values and decisions come from their leading function. What makes these extratims different from introtims is that they barely respond to other people's initiative, whereas even extraverted introtims are usually receptive and supportive of others' initiative. When an introverted extratim uses his creative function (and other introverted functions), he does so "carelessly" or "for fun" -- more just to get a kick out of it (suggestive function) or because he is in the mood at the moment (creative function). When an introtim uses his leading function, there is a sense of seriousness and greater concern and carefulness about what he is saying and doing.

Compare, for instance, the playful theorizing of ILEs and SLEs with the weighty thoughts of LIIs and LSIs. Or the haphazard and situational emotionality of SEIs and IEIs with the deliberate and focused emotions of ESEs and EIEs. The situational technical solutions of SLIs and ILIs and the productivity and efficiency-based life philosophy of LIEs and LSEs. Or the playful and changeable friendliness of SEEs and IEEs with the long-term alliances and moral awareness of ESIs and EIIs.

Each function can be used to observe and think/feel as well as to act and speak, regardless of whether the function is introverted or extraverted. "Introverted" people observe and think more, while "extraverted" people act and speak more readily. Hopefully, the above descriptions will help realize how to tell apart some of the less obvious extratims and introtims without assuming that such people are acting "out of type."

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.