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.