Implications of the socionic structure

It is no secret that there are many differing opinions on how socionics should be viewed and practiced. However, I believe there are certain fundamental notions that the socionic structure itself implies, and as long as you subscribe to socionics at all, those notions will remain true regardless of your specific interpretation of the theory. In this post I would like to outline them and explain why I think they follow.

Socionics teaches that everyone, including you, has one and only one sociotype, with a function stack that determines their relationship with different kinds of information. This means that you have strengths that most people do not possess. If we assume that the sixteen types are more or less equally common, then only 1/8 of the world population has as much awareness of your (strong, conscious, accepting) lead as you do, and only 1/8 can apply your (strong, conscious, producing) creative as well as you can. Only 1/16, those with the exact same type as you, can do both at the same time. And let me be clear that I do not believe this fact to mean there is a linear connection between a person's type and their chance to succeed in a given activity or profession. Some connection definitely exists, but, much like with behavior, other factors (e.g. education, motivation, dedication, experience, work capacity and consistency) also play a substantial role. Moreover, the same activity can be approached in different ways - Wassily Kandinsky's paintings are quite unlike those of Paul Cezanne, but both are still seen and appreciated as artists. What your proficiency with your lead and creative does imply, though, is that due to statistical probability you will encounter situations and challenges that you will be able to handle better than anyone else present. A person who can surpass you at everything does not exist, because, even if they are the same type as you, the unique blend of your life experiences, personality and function stack will still leave you with some abilities that differ from theirs, and different situations require different solutions. 

But you do not only have strong functions - you also have weak ones, those in which you are inherently limited. Therefore, when you interact with the environment, there is always some information you miss. In fact, there are things which most of the people you encounter will be able to understand and navigate better than you. Situations may come up where you feel like some things are straight up impossible to understand, and those who do claim to understand them are either delusional or lying. You may feel like certain perspectives make no sense, and the only explanation for people ahdering to them is stupidity. And you may certainly be right in some of those cases; I would never encourage you to blindly succumb to peer pressure. Hovewer, it is also possible for you to be missing something that other people do not, and I believe it to be a good reason to approach every situation in a open-minded, non-judgemental way, and to avoid making assumptions until you know more. There is a similar concept in Zen Buddhism which is known as "shoshin", or "beginner's mind":

It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner would.

Everything stated above applies to everyone else for the exact same reasons. Because everyone has strong functions, there are things that every person is or could be good at. Moreover, there are things everyone is or could be better than you at, which is either conditioned by them being stronger than you in certain elements if your types are different, or by a unique spin their personality and experiences put on the inherent abilities you both have if your types are the same. This implication may be the hardest to accept, because it means that the people you might look down on, those you consider dumb, vapid, boring or talentless, those you hate and despise, even those you would deem to be the worst people who ever lived... All of those people still possess genuine abilities and gifts, hard as it may be for you to see it in some of them. 

But everyone also has blind spots, and this is the final notion following from the socionic structure that I think is important to be aware of. The information pertaining to your stronger elements is likely to seem obvious "common sense" to you, but for many other people it will not be so. And if someone does not appear to understand something you consider obvious, it does not necessarily imply malice or stupidity - instead it could be a failure to notice, evaluate or apply the information in question due to it being related to that person's particular blind spots, even though the person is perfectly capable in other areas. And if you are not sure which it is, it is more charitable and more prudent to assume the latter until you know more, especially considering that due to your own blind spots you may end up in a similar situation yourself (perhaps even with that same person). 

At the beginning of the post I stated that, if you subscribe to the theory of socionics, it should make the notions I outlined true to you. But what I myself believe is not that they are true because of socionics, but rather that they are an integral part of the human condition itself, the upsides and downsides to our innate differences. The fact that socionics captures them and provides a structure for them is what makes it a good framework, and it is also something that gives this theory value beyond its descriptive ability. The biggest value of socionics, in my opinion, comes from the fact that it makes these truths undeniable and impossible to ignore without twisting the theory into something completely unrecognizable. Subcribing to socionics means that you have to accept that everyone, including yourself, your idols, your enemies and your loved ones, has real, tangible strengths and weaknesses, and that, in the words of the creator of socionics Aushra Augusta: 

Together [the sixteen types of information metabolism] form a unified system thanks to which man was able to become man and build everything we call “culture” today. A single way of processing information, or information metabolism, is unproductive. ... Humanity’s strength is in the diversity of its intelligence - the existence of the sixteen types of IM.

Behavior

I believe that, when it comes to socionics, few questions are as important as the one I am going to address in this post. Your personal answer to this question will color everything else about the way you see the system and the way you practice it. The question is the following:

What is the relationship between socionics type and human behavior? 

Are certain behaviors inherent in certain types while being impossible for others? And if not, how come we can still use behavior as evidence in typing? Let me try to outline an answer. 

I will start by saying that the structure of socionics is actually very simple, with only two things being really integral to it:  

1. the nature of elements, i.e. what kind of information this element covers;
2. the nature of functions, i.e. what kind of relationship a person has with an element in this position (it should be noted that two blocked functions are intrinsically linked and therefore mutually influenced by one another). 

All other concepts in socionics are a consequence of this structure, and of these concepts the most fundamental is type. 

What is type? It is something we get when we map elements onto functions. The result of this synthesis is the nature of specific elements in specific positions, i.e. what kind of relationship a person has with specific kinds of information. Personality traits and behaviors are therefore not a part of any type's core definition - the only things that are integral to a type are parts of the socionic structure it is based on. 

But is behavior not a consequence of type? And if it is, would that not mean that behavioral tendencies are inherent in types, after all? It is fairly obvious that the way we perceive and interact with information has a huge influence on everything we do and everything we are. But, while behavior is a consequence of type, I would argue that it is not a consequence of just type. Rather, I see behavior as a result of a "collision" between several things: 

1. type;
2. the context of the situation;
3. other factors that influenced and continue to influence the person. These include, but are not limited to, culture, upbringing, past experiences and mental health. 

What this means is that, while behavior is a consequence of type, the connection between behavior and type is not linear. There is not a single person on Earth whose personality and behavioral tendencies did not change at all over the course of their lifespan. People change, sometimes beyond recognition, but their socionics type stays the same. 

Still, we do not have direct access to another person's mind, so behavior is all we have to go off of if we want to type someone. And it is definitely possible to use behavior as evidence of type, but in order to do so we must take into account the context of the situation and the person's past and present experiences. We must explain how this behavior follows from type for this specific person and in these specific circumstances. Behavior in itself, without knowing the context and the person, is not evidence of type and should not be ascribed to specific types, nor should we say that any behavior is impossible for the specific types. 

I realize that this condition makes it harder to practice socionics. It means that we can never do it perfectly because we can never know all the factors needed to type someone with full certainty. Even when trying our best, occasionally we will still fail and make surface-level typings with faulty reasoning. But I think that we should still strive for a nuanced and situational approach to typing, because, when practiced well, socionics can be an amazing tool that can aid us in understanding others and ourselves - something that it can hardly do when types are viewed as nothing more than mere clusters of personality traits and behavioral patterns. 

How Te leads are misunderstood

In one of my previous posts I wrote about Si leading types being misunderstood in relation to their suggestive Ne. While these types do indeed tend to maintain homeostasis in their personal lives, it is erroneous to conclude that a lack of novelty is what they naturally desire. On the contrary, usually Si leads absolutely dread boredom and monotony. But, since their Ne is weak and unconscious, not only do they fail to discover new opportunities on their own - often enough they are not even aware that it is possible for these opportunities to exist in the first place, and that there might be something they are missing in this area. To such Si leads a lack of opportunities would appear as a sad, but inevitable fact of life, rather than something to be fixed. And this is why, should someone present them with something novel and original, they are likely to be highly appreciative of it. 

This is just one example of the way I see the suggestive function in general. It is 1D, so it is one of the two elements the person lacks most in their life, and it is unconscious, so the person is not aware that they are missing it. Thus, when they receive information on their suggestive, it feels like fulfilment of a need they did not even know they had. It tends to feel like a revelation and inspire excitement or even awe, and after being made aware of the existence of this information the person starts craving and seeking more of it. 

I believe that, like with the Si leads, the way many members of the socionics community imagine Te leads completely fails to account for their suggestive. As a result, popular stereotypes portray these types in a very shallow and misguided way, which might prevent real Te leads from typing themselves correctly. In this post I would like to partially remedy this and direct my readers' attention to a literary example, which I believe to be a wonderful illustration of the way suggestive Fi feels and manifests.  

First we need to establish what kind of information Fi represents. While I am not sure I could provide a proper definition, I believe that Fi is connected to the person's ability to become cognizant of their own and others' personal narratives - inner lives, values and desires. Fi provides a link between the person's inner world and their actions, and this link is what allows us to use our observations of people in order to learn what they want and believe. In that sense Fi is similar to Fe, but while Fe connects our observations of people's behavior to short-lived, situational information about them (such as their emotional state), in the case of Fi the information is about that which persists between many situations and interactions (such as people's values).  

One of the big issues for all types with 1D Fi is an inability to connect people's external behavior to their internal lives. To them others may appear as black boxes - something that can be observed, but whose inner properties are hidden and inaccessible. When it comes to self-awareness, this leads to 1D Fi types struggling with their own sense of identity. A person's identity is something that differs them from the rest, it is a concept that only makes sense when there is a comparison to be made. Therefore, one's identity can only be understood in contrast with the identities of others. But 1D Fi types struggle to understand others, which means that they have less to work with when they try to understand themselves (you could say that they have less material to refer to and compare themselves with). 

There is a difference in how xLEs and LxEs deal with this challenge. For xLEs Fi is conscious, so on some level they are aware of their own shortcomings in this area (I wrote about this topic more extensively in one of my previous posts). If they do not want to admit this weakness, this leads to them consciously moving away from accepting what their own and others' actions reveal about the person's inner world, if anything at all. Even more worryingly, in an unhealthy state they may reject the very existence of huge parts of their own individuality, and convince themselves and others that their desires and motivations are less complex than they really are. 

For LxEs Fi is not conscious, which is why they often seem to lack awareness of their internal landscape. Rather than wanting to disown their inner complexity, undualized LxEs may simply be blind to it. And, just as Si leads maintain homeostasis in absence of Ne, so do Te leads overprioritize achieving tangible, material results in absence of Fi. Neither of these are inherently moral choices on the part of the individual - rather, what these tendencies show is that when information is lacking, people default to doing things they know and understand best, which happen to be covered by their lead. These tendencies are often portrayed as core traits for Si and Te leads, but in actuality it is a response to a non-ideal, imbalanced situation in which these types do not get all information that they need. 

But what happens when Te leads do receive Fi? Like I stated earlier in this post, I believe Fi information is connected to people's personal narratives that get revealed through their actions. What someone's actions say about them, what kind of person they show them to be. This information provides Te leads with understanding of the kind of narrative they themselves are living, which in turn allows them to decide whether this narrative is what they truly desire. Rather then achieving for its own sake, now the Te lead is able to act in a way that is meaningful to them. And I believe that, unless severely unhealthy, they tend to perceive this chance to achieve personal integrity as a priceless gift.

Nowhere does this get demonstrated as clearly as in Jack London's novel Martin Eden. Aushra Augusta, the creator of socionics, used London's name as a nickname for the LIE type, and thinking about this novel I am starting to understand why. Like London himself, Martin Eden is an LIE, and at the start of the book he is a poor and uneducated sailor. Through sheer chance he ends up visiting an upper class family and is completely blown away by what he encounters. Notably, what he finds so impressive is not their wealth, possessions or status - rather it is their very way of being, the way they carry themselves and talk, what they talk about, the gentleness they show each other. To Martin meeting this family serves as a catalyst - he realizes that human beings, including himself, have spiritual depth that he previously was not aware of. Through contrast between himself and this family Martin becomes aware that he may not be fully satisfied with the kind of narrative that he himself is living. However, on his own he still does not have enough information to resolve this, so he turns to books. 

Books provide Martin with a framework to analyze others and himself, and for the first time in his life he is able to explore the depths of his own soul and his own spiritual longing. He discovers the kind of narrative that he finds admirable, beautiful and inspiring, and vows to embody it. In pursuit of this goal Martin becomes incredibly productive, optimizes his day so as to not waste any time, and spends every free minute on self-education or writing. Yet none of this effort is explicitly motivated by a desire for wealth - one the contrary, on several occaions Martin explicitly refuses to look for a long-term job that does not fit his quixotic dream, regardless of its financial prospects. Instead he strives to become what he considers his ideal of a person - someone educated, well read, with refined thoughts and feelings, a philosopher and a poet. While understanding the importance of money and material resources, he never prioritizes them and instead treats them as a means to an end. His reverence of beauty and love is what truly drives Martin, and his own transformation is perceived by him as the luckiest thing to have ever happened to him, even though at first it hardly brings him any worldly success. 

I do not want to spoil the way this book ends because I hope that after this post at least one person would become interested to read it for themselves. But to describe what happens in socionics terms - during his encounter with the rich family Martin becomes aware of the existence of Fi information, and then starts receiving it directly from books. This provides him with much needed context for his own experiences and his place in the world, and awakens his desire for more, thus enabling him to make the most out of his strong functions. Yet the entire time Te information (which he has in abundance) is treated by him as something much less important than Fi information (which he, as an LIE, has serious difficulty producing). This is exactly what I saw happen in real life, and due to the extreme accuracy and depth of this portrayal (no doubt based on London's own experiences and struggles) I believe Martin serves as a great example of an archetypal LIE. 

The essence of "valued - subdued"

It is my strongly held opinion that all elements are information and therefore neutral, not linked to specific motivations, desires and agendas. But if so, what does it actually mean to “value” an element? Can a person “like” some types of information more than others? How does this manifest in practice? While I am not saying that answering these questions is impossible (and I think that Augusta’s definition of “verbal – non-verbal” is quite accurate and usable), answers vary to such a degree that it often leads to miscommunication and confusion rather than improved understanding. This makes me think that, if we want to resolve this issue, the “valued – subdued” dichotomy should be seriously reexamined. Instead of treating the concept as self-contained and axiomatic, we should look at what makes an element valued in the first place. Only after understanding the basis of the dichotomy can we begin to form an adequate picture of the dichotomy itself. 

It is not hard to notice that “valued – subdued” is at the intersection of “strong – weak” and “mental – vital” (strong mental and weak vital elements are valued). “Mental – vital” signifies which information the individual is consciously aware of, “mental” being synonymous with “conscious” and “vital” with “unconscious”. I believe that this dichotomy, although often overlooked, is the one that justifies the existence of “valued” and “subdued” as separate, observable categories. 

Let us compare the suggestive and the vulnerable – two functions that are both weak and cautious. This makes them 1D, which in turn means that the information covered by the two corresponding elements is the hardest to produce independently. While it is possible to improve these functions through continuous trial and error, results get achieved much quicker and with less strain if, instead, the individual “borrows” someone else’s understanding, receiving the information from another person, internalizing it, and then incorporating it into their own life. For the sake of this post let us consider it an axiom that 4D elements are the only ones able to provide 1D elements with the needed kind and amount of information; while I believe this to be the case, in order to properly justify it I would have to get into the essence of the “bold – cautious” dichotomy, which I am not yet prepared to tackle. 

The unconscious suggestive is not aware of what it lacks, or even of the very fact that it does lack something. Only after the information is already received does the suggestive realize that previously this information was missing. However, for the information to land, it must be expressed very clearly – otherwise, due to its own lack of awareness in this area, the suggestive will not be able to recognize it as valid and needed. This is why the element providing information to the unconscious suggestive must itself be conscious, as only conscious elements possess the awareness needed to achieve the necessary level of clarity. Out of two 4D functions only the lead is conscious, which is why in duality the lead is paired with the suggestive. The informational exchange happens directly and overtly.

Unlike the suggestive, the vulnerable is able to consciously process the information covered by the corresponding element. This also means that, on some level, the vulnerable is always aware of its own inadequacy, making it a spot of painful insecurity, one where the individual feels least in control. And people always, without fail, attempt to control precisely those areas where they feel least in control, which leads to us trying to “tame” our vulnerable. Most often this manifests as the individual restricting the entire domain of their vulnerable to what they themselves are aware of, believing that what little information they are able to produce in this area is the full extent of the information anyone can ever produce. “No one can know that,” “it is impossible,” “people are just seeing something that is not there” is how we typically comfort ourselves in such cases. 

Of course, this is not ideal. For successful functioning we require external input on our weak functions, and the vulnerable is no exception to that rule. But when the corresponding information is delivered by the lead, directly and overtly, the vulnerable compares it to its own conscious understanding of this domain. And, because strong elements naturally possess much more information than weak elements, the understanding provided by strong elements ends up being different – more confident, more nuanced, more in-depth, larger in scope. This directly confronts the vulnerable with the fact that there is more to the element than it is able to perceive (the fact that the individual already knows on some level, but is often unwilling to admit to themselves because it would shatter their illusion of control). In such a situation the individual is forced to either accept their limitations, or fall even deeper into self-denial – and, naturally, both of these options are highly unnerving. 

As a side note – I do believe that going through this discomfort is not only useful, but may even be necessary for growth and psychological development. It may be a long needed wake-up call, something that forces the individual to accept that their perspective is not the only one that exists, that they have limitations other people do not share, and, most importantly, that it is completely natural and not something they should be ashamed to admit. However, this process of growth often gets impeded by pride. If the individual is unwilling to curb their ego, they will keep trying to protect it from injury even to their own detriment. This often determines whether the individual’s relationships with their supervisors and conflictors are likely to become fruitful. 

We have established that, by default, receiving direct information on the vulnerable is uncomfortable. Even after a lot of self-work it is likely to remain somewhat exhausting, shattering the “Now I have finally mastered it” illusion again and again. For this reason, despite its potential for growth, the pairing of the conscious vulnerable and the similarly conscious lead is not ideal for constant information exchange. Something less direct, less obvious, less overt would be more fitting for the vulnerable’s specific needs. 

These needs are fulfilled by the demonstrative, a function that, unlike the lead, is unconscious. Despite having a lot of information, the individual is not able to consciously process it, share and use it with full awareness, and deliberately focus on it. The demonstrative is constantly expressed, but the aforementioned fact gives its expression a particular vagueness. Instead of being direct, it is closer to a particular “aura” the person has, something that “oozes” from them, happens “by itself.” This allows the demonstrative to bypass the vulnerable’s defenses. The information from the demonstrative feels roundabout enough that it does not directly impose on the vulnerable’s worldview, instead leading to this worldview changing from within after this information is internalized. 

To sum it all up: the suggestive, being 1D and unconscious, needs to receive information from someone who is 4D and conscious in it, because only then will this information possess the necessary level of clarity. The suggestive is not likely to become a point of insecurity, nor something the individual tries to control, because most of the time the individual is not aware that they are missing something in this area. All of this makes the suggestive most receptive to direct, clear, overtly expressed information. This kind of communication makes the suggestive and the lead appear “valued” (I would call it “direct”). 

The vulnerable, being 1D and conscious, makes the individual feel out of control due to not being able to produce enough information in this domain. This, in turn, leads to the individual trying to attain the illusion of control. Any direct attempts to change the vulnerable’s rigid worldview are likely to make the individual uncomfortable, reminding them of their own limitations (of which they are, on some level, already aware). This makes the vulnerable more receptive to the kind of 4D information that is roundabout and not focused on. This kind of communication makes the vulnerable and the demonstrative appear “subdued” or “unvalued” (I would call it “indirect”). 

Finally, it is incredibly important to realize that “valued – subdued” has nothing to do with the information itself being more or less “valued” or “liked.” Instead it is entirely about the form in which the individual prefers to receive this information or is able to give it. Both of these are determined by the element’s strength and whether it is conscious or unconscious. While I am not yet able to provide a detailed description of this mechanism for the 2D and 3D functions, I hope that my breakdown of the 1D and 4D functions was a sufficient illustration.  

Why Ne and Si are an axis

It is common knowledge that socionics elements are paired into four axis: Ne-Si, Fe-Ti, Ni-Se, and Fi-Te. These pairs of elements are intimately tied together and are unable to exist with each other – you cannot value one of them without valuing the other, and a person leading in one element is seeking the other from their dual. 

However, an important question to ask is here is “why?” Why, exactly, do these specific elements necessitate each other? I think the answer must lie in the nature of the elements themselves. In order to justify this unification and make it not arbitrary, something about their very essence must be connected. 

My personal suspicion is that paired elements somewhat “flow” into each other – you cannot use an element in any meaningful way without engaging with its “companion.” At the moment of writing this I feel like I do not have a clear understanding of how this actually manifests for three out of four axes. However, I believe I got close to the essence of the connection between Ne and Si, so I will attempt to summarize my thoughts on it. 

I see Si as information about the interdependence of concrete, currently existing processes and factors. Through this element a person can connect a particular whole with the specific factors that go into it. Thanks to this they will know which factors can be changed or adjusted on order to bring the whole closer to its desired state. For example, when making a soup, an individual strong in Si can understand the connection the soup’s ingredients have to its taste, and how a particular ingredient will affect this taste. Thus, if they want to achieve a particular taste for the soup, they will know which ingredients need to go into it and in which proportion. 

On the other hand, I see Ne as information about different states an object can be in. This is why it gets called “intuition of possibilities” or “potentialities,” since a potentiality is something that could exist, but does not yet. Returning to the soup example, Ne is the element through which an individual can understand which tastes it can possibly have. 

Where, then, is the connection? I would define it as the following: information about possible states an object can be in (Ne) is impossible to utilize without knowing how to bring an object into a particular state (Si). Likewise, one cannot deliberately change the object’s state (Si) without knowing the possible states it can be in (Ne). One of these elements cannot get realized without the other. 

Of course, each person uses all 8 elements in their daily life. Just as an Ne lead would utilize Si to make use of their Ne, so would an Si lead utilize Ne to make use of their Si. However, the suggestive is naturally weak, and what the person can do through it on their own is limited. This is precisely why it is so important to get support on it, especially the dual’s support. Without such support an Si lead is at risk of being locked into a cycle of monotony (not knowing what is possible beyond what they already know and are already doing), while an Ne lead is at risk of ineffectiveness (knowing what is possible, but not knowing how to reach it, often resulting in inaction or a lot of activity that does not lead anywhere). 

I will end this post with a small tangent. I often see people claiming that Si leads want to maintain “homeostasis” or “equilibrium” at all times. However, I am not convinced this is the case, as it seems quite contradictory to the fact that these types are seeking Ne. I believe that, while there is indeed a tendency for some Si leading types to maintain homeostasis with very little changing in their day to day lives, this phenomenon is not a result of their desire, but rather is something they cannot avoid without support on their suggestive Ne. In other words, if they do not receive enough Ne from other people, these types do not know which changes are possible and how their life could be different from the way it currently is. Thus, they end up doing what they already know and what already worked for them in the past, leading to homeostasis. Rather than being normal and desirable, this tendency should be recognized as a sign of the individual being undualized. 

Archetypes and Hamlets

I used to think that an archetypal approach to socionics is not desirable, which is why I disliked the very idea of type descriptions. I believed that it is reductive to describe a specific person and then claim that all members of the same type are like that – after all, behavior is highly influenced by circumstances that have nothing to do with one’s socionics type, such as one’s age, country, culture, upbringing, financial situation, mental health etc. It seemed obvious to me that there is way more variety in human personalities, and that such a huge portion of the population as a (roughly) one-sixteenth cannot, and does not, act as similarly as the type descriptions would have you believe. Therefore, I used to say, when determining someone’s type, one should only focus on their model A function stack. Instead of saying someone is an IEI because they are gentle, dreamy and creative, justify their leading Ni, vulnerable Te, suggestive Se etc. Everything less than that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

For the most part, that is still what I believe. I maintain that archetypes, such as those evoked by type descriptions, should never be used in place of a proper model A justification. However, as I gained more socionics knowledge, I became more tolerant to the idea of archetypes itself – if done right. But what does it mean to do an archetype right?

Firstly, archetypes should always be confirmed through personal experience with people of the type, and the reason for which you believe those people are that type should not be based on the archetype in question. In other words – if, after reading an IEI type description, you decide that all dreamy people are IEIs and those who are not dreamy cannot be IEIs, what this means is that you have created a vicious circle that will prevent you from ever being able to break your initial assumption. If an IEI who is not dreamy does exist, you will not type them IEI in the first place, and will not recognize them as evidence against your assumption that “IEI = dreamy”. To avoid this, you should have at least several people whom you typed IEI through model A and without the aid of archetypes, and use them as a reference for what IEIs are really like. Only after you notice some common themes between those people can you start forming an IEI archetype.

The word “theme” is important since, in my opinion, an archetype should not include specific personality or behavioral traits, such as “IEIs are dreamy” or “Se leads are domineering”. Instead it should be closer to a particular theme that permeates the type’s life and is dictated by the function stack. The idea of “vices” as used in enneagram is, perhaps, the closest to what I am thinking of here.

This brings us to EIEs.

In truth, talking about EIEs is the initial reason for which I started writing this post. I was asked to describe how I see this type, and when I was pondering this request, I realized that I would have a hard time fulfilling it without resorting to archetypes. And this is because the thing that made me feel like I finally understood EIEs was a song, which I will talk about in a bit. First, let’s establish a baseline.

In my understanding, socionics sensation focuses on what currently exists. Si is dynamic; it focuses on the interdependence of existing processes and factors, i. e. how different factors go together to create a whole, and which of these factors can be changed to change this whole. Se is static; it focuses on the external properties and positioning of the objects occupying real or metaphorical space, i. e. how these objects can be moved or forced to change their form through pressure applied to them, as well as how this pressure can be resisted. Sensation is concrete.

Since socionics sensation focuses on what currently exists, this means that, to avoid overlap, intuition has to focus on what does not currently exist. Ni is dynamic; it focuses on sequential interdependence of processes and events, i. e. which past events led to the existing state, and which events are likely to happen in the future based on the way things are now. Ne is static; it focuses on all different states an object can possibly be in, aside from what it is like now (this is why Ne is linked to potential). Intuition is abstract.

EIE is an intuitive type (weak sensation, strong intuition). Due to this, and especially due to their vulnerable Si, an EIE’s understanding of how to directly change the existing state of things is noticeably limited. I think that an insufficient understanding of this fact is at the root of many mistypes in the community, with highly energetic, boisterous and forceful individuals getting typed EIE because of their supposed valued Se. In reality an EIE, like all intuitive types, will always be a bit detached from the concrete situation they are a part of. An EIE will not be able to force their way into the situation and directly change its course, since that ability requires sensation. Instead an EIE will wait for a good opening and capitalize on it, injecting themselves into the situation with minimal energy expenses.

Now let’s talk about the song I mentioned before. That song is Rock 'n' Roll Suicide by David Bowie, who is widely acknowledged to be an EIE (an accurate assessment in my eyes). 

The song is a monologue directed at the audience, including the following lyrics:

Oh no, love! You're not alone

You're watching yourself but you're too unfair

You got your head all tangled up

But if I could only make you care

Oh no, love! You're not alone

No matter what or who you've been

No matter when or where you've seen

All the knives seem to lacerate your brain

I've had my share, I'll help you with the pain

You're not alone!

These lyrics mark the point where the tone of the song changes. The music starts sounding more intense, more oppressive and grave. Bowie’s voice grows more full of emotion and less controlled, to the point where, at the very end, he is screaming his lines rather than singing. After that Ziggy Stardust, the character portrayed by Bowie, gets torn apart onstage.

Now this post is going to get very subjective, as I will give my interpretation of this song. If any Bowie fans are reading this – I apologize if it is incorrect, but I want to talk about the associations that formed in my mind as I was listening to it.

The lyrics express a deep, sophisticated empathy to whoever might be listening, and an equally deep desire to bring them relief. Bowie’s delivery makes the latter half of the song sound as a desperate plea, and if you watch the live performance, even his facial expression looks pained during that part. 

I interpreted that pain and that desperation as a result of Ziggy desiring to alleviate others’ pain, desiring it more than anything else, but seeing no way to actually achieve it. The only thing he can do is plead with others so that they see themselves through his own eyes, and offer them a temporary ecstasy of unity. And, despite his burning passion – or because of it – the character is already doomed, destined to die on that stage. At that point he does not even care for self-preservation, perhaps ready to sacrifice himself.

Listening to this I felt like I finally understood. Because EIEs are Fe leads, they are able to truly feel and internalize others’ emotions, even the most painful ones. And, because EIEs are Ti suggestives, deep inside even the most cynical ones are likely to desire justice. Leading Fe and suggestive Ti are one and the same, they cannot exist without each other – and being able to empathize with others’ suffering so strongly will naturally lead to a desire to right that wrong. But there is a core difference between an ESE and EIE – an EIE is intuitive, so their ability to directly alter the situation is limited. An EIE is more likely to feel stuck, seeing all the suffering but feeling unable to do anything about it. Due to this an EIE is more likely to become jaded and nihilistic, and to start feeling like the world is a horrible place and cannot be fixed. And if they do, still, try to inflict change, it is likely to come with a self-sacrificing streak, due to their weak sensation leading EIEs to feel like it is impossible to make an impact without getting harmed in the process. And that is the difference between an ESE and an EIE: an ESE is more hopeful, which comes from their higher ability to actually change the undesirable situation directly – something that to an EIE is way less achievable.

This was my example of an archetype. As you can see, my understanding is very instinctive and still not fully developed. However, I hope that I was able to offer some insight or a new perspective, since I was planning to write this post for a while. 

Duality

It is a commonly held view that, as your perfect complement, your dual will take everything you struggle with on their own shoulders, making your life as difficulty-free as possible. Of course, this view is especially prominent in relation to the vulnerable function - the idea of never having to deal with such a weakness on your own is understandably attractive, and who is best suited for handling it instead if not the dual, the one who has the same element as one of their two strongest ones? This idea of duality implies that it is desirable to have someone else constantly protect you from the difficulties you would otherwise face, so that you can safely live as if the worrysome information does not exist to begin with. 

But let us suppose duality is exactly that, and you did manage to find a perfect dual - how would it actually work? The only way the dual could always solve your problems would require them to be involved in every single area of your life, which hardly seems possible. Moreover, if your dual left you for one reason or another, you would end up even more helpless than before, since the time you spent dualized would have you sheltered and not gaining any experience. The only solution, then, would be to find another dual as quickly as possible, and it is not hard to see why this is suboptimal. Indeed, if this was the case, duality would not be different from financial dependency in its essence, and would need to be approached and considered with the same level of caution. The fact that it is mutual makes it worse and not better - instead of dependency it turns into codependency. 

However, I would argue that real duality is much more intricate than that, and that codependency has little to do with the idea of it. While the vulnerable and the suggestive functions are weak, the commonly overlooked fact is that they can be improved. The way to do that is through gaining experience, and this is where the dual comes in. Due to their own function stack the dual is able to present information you need in the most optimal form, greatly accelerating this process of improvement. I see it as filling an empty vessel with water - on your own you are still able to find a couple drops here and there, but the dual can pour water into the vessel at a much more steady pace, while making sure nothing splashes out.  

This means that duality is not about forever staying in your respective comfort zones - on the contrary, duality makes it easier to get out of the comfort zone. The direction and the safety net the dual provides allows you to be more confident in knowing that no harm will come to you, and that you will be protected if something goes wrong. By virtue of being 4D in your vulnerable element, the dual is someone whose very existence forces you to reconcile with the fact that this information also exists, while making it feel as understandable and not anxiety-inducing as possible. Duality is not about sheltering - it is about constantly teaching each other, and this is exactly what makes this relationship beneficial; the information and experience you gain can be used throughout your entire life, even after you and the dual have parted ways.