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.