When we began to study socionics on a professional level, we decided that the first thing we needed to do was to understand its generally accepted paradigm. After talking to many people who are interested in socionics and promoting it, and studying a lot of different materials on the subject, we still did not find an answer to our question. On the contrary, it became clear to us that even among well-known experts, there is no agreement on what socionics really is.
We believe that this is the reason for the many difficulties we have encountered in trying to convey the essence of socionics to others. It is impossible to create a holistic understanding in someone else if their understanding of the fundamental aspects of it is fragmentary in nature. It also makes no sense to waste energy explaining where another person is wrong: there will always be new contradictions and objections to your words.
It is much more effective to build everything from scratch: that is why we created this website. Anyone who studies “imperative socionics” in parallel with the generally accepted “classical” concept (without mixing them into one whole, but considering them as two equivalent views on one phenomenon) will eventually understand which theory is more consistent. Thus, in this note, I will try to describe the main theses of our concept of socionics from scratch, so that you can form your own idea of it.
First thesis:
First and foremost, socionics studies the information that exists in nature – the data by which we learn about the properties of the world around us. Our body perceives it, and our psyche realizes and controls it.
Depending on the source that generates information, we can identify four information properties: Sensing, Intuition, Ethics and Logic. Each property carries combinations of different characteristics that information possesses: it can be static (abstract) or dynamic (concrete), rational (comprehensible) or irrational (sensible) and introverted (primary) or extraverted (secondary). Thus, we can identify eight information aspects: introverted Sensing, introverted Intuition, introverted Ethics, and introverted Logic, as well as extraverted Sensing, extraverted Intuition, extraverted Ethics, and extraverted Logic.
Second thesis:
Observing people, we see that they interact with information in different ways, and the peculiarities of this process are described using the model of information metabolism. We distinguish three stages of information metabolism: perception, processing and assimilation. The first is responsible for the fixation of information by the psyche, the second for its processing over time, while the third is responsible for our formation of new experience.
Third thesis:
Since we perceive information from four different sources, it is easy for our brain to divide it into properties. In addition, it has different properties, so the brain also freely divides it into aspects. If this did not happen, we would not see the difference between concepts related to different aspects, for example, between sensations (Si) and assessments (Fi). But we do see them, which means that our brain has also divided them.
Fourth thesis:
Thanks to the fact that information can be divided by properties into rational and irrational, as well as into static and dynamic, our brain learned to differentiate mechanisms for working with it during evolution. In accordance with this, the properties of Accepting/ Producing and Mental/Vital emerged: the first pair is responsible for how the brain will process information, while the second is responsible for how it will be perceived by us. Thus, at the intersection of these properties, four pairs of functions were formed: accepting mental, accepting vital, producing mental and producing vital. With their help, the brain learned to work with information differently depending on what it is.
However, it is clearly not enough to perceive the eight aspects of information, which is why other processing properties also emerged, such as Inert and Contact. Thus, the initial blocks were divided in half, and with different combinations of properties, we began to understand different functions, which together represent what we call Model A.
Fifth thesis:
Mathematically, to describe a set of eight elements (in our case, the functions), only three pairs of dichotomous properties that describe their operation are sufficient. However, from a combinatorial perspective, there can be more of them – seven pairs of properties. This happens as follows: if we take two independent properties, we can divide the functions into four pairs (for example, accepting-inert, accepting-contact, producing-inert, and producing-contact) and, based on the combination of these properties, obtain a new third pair of properties. Just as we know that the friend of my friend and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the friend of my enemy and the enemy of my friend is my enemy, here the combination of two pairs of properties gives us another pair: Strong/Weak.
Thus, strong functions are accepting inert and producing contact, while weak functions are accepting contact and producing inert. If we analyze what exactly combinations of these properties give us, we will understand what kind of meaning can be embedded in Strong/ Weak. That is, it is essential to understand that they are not taken “out of thin air,” but are derived logically.
By multiplying other properties in exactly the same way, we will get three more pairs of properties: Ordered/Cluttered, Tracking/Insulating and Valued/Unvalued. Then, based on how the model works, we can divide them into primary, secondary, and tertiary, where primary properties are those that directly arise from the aspect properties, and secondary and tertiary properties arise from the combination of primary and secondary.
Sixth thesis:
Thanks to this, we can fully describe the eight IM functions: for example, the Leading function is defined by the properties of Accepting, Mental, Inert, Ordered, Strong, Tracking and Valued. Other functions are described using another combinations.
Seventh thesis:
The IM functions were formed in order for us to work with information about the world. This became possible because our brain was able to divide the flow of information into eight aspects and then created one thinking function for each of them. As a result, by combining the resulting functions with the aspects they process, we get different types: for example, Dumas is a type whose Leading function works with the aspect of introverted Sensing (and other functions work with other aspects respectively).
Having sixteen IM types, like functions, we can divide them into groups using dichotomous traits (often called Reinin traits). For example, there are Tactical/Strategic – these traits arise when irrational aspects are distributed between inert and contact functions. Thus, Strategic is when inert functions work with information related to Si and Se, while contact functions work with information related to Ni and Ne. And vice versa, when Inert is combined with Intuition and Contact with Sensing, we get Tactical. Accordingly, we divide types into tacticians and strategists.
Similarly, we can fill in the other six pairs of function properties with information, resulting in ten new pairs of type traits: Static/Dynamic, Rational/Irrational, Introverted/ Extraverted, Carefree/Farsighted, Yielding/Obstinate, Intuitive/Sensing, Ethical/Logical, Tactical/Strategic, Emotivist/Constructivist, Decisive/Judicious and Merry/Serious. Each trait is derived from its corresponding pair of function properties and can also be divided into primary, secondary and tertiary traits.
Eighth thesis:
Thus, we can conclude that the type of information metabolism (TIM) is a combination of properties through which its carrier perceives, processes, and assimilates information across different aspects. On the other hand, TIM is also a combination of traits that describe how a person interacts with information in a particular sphere. The first definition relates to the functional way of describing the type, while the second relates to the trait-based approach.
Often in the socionics community, some say “we use model A”, while others say “we use Reinin traits”. However, if we look at this impartially, these approaches complement each other, and to be more precise, they are two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to engage in socionics using only one of these methods, as they are interrelated and cannot exist separately.
Ninth thesis:
By filling the model of the IM with information aspects, we obtain a type of information metabolism. Depending on which aspects we place in the positions of the functions of model A, we get different types of information metabolism. There are a total of sixteen types, each denoted by its pseudonym or abbreviation (for example, Don Quixote — ILE).
As mentioned earlier, the type can be described in two ways: functional, which is determined by which aspects are in the positions of the functions (and thus, the properties through which they are perceived, processed or assimilated), and trait-based, which describes the characteristics of a person’s interaction with information in a particular sphere. For example, it is said that Don Quixote has Leading Ti, Creative Ni, Role Se, etc. Each function implies a set of properties through which it works with its aspect. Thus, the model of this type is recorded:
The sign approach describes the “Don Quixote” type as follows: it is a static, irrational, extraverted, carefree, yielding, tactical, constructivist, intuitive, logical, judicious and merry type.
Conclusion:
Thus, we have come to understand what sociotype is. Note that each new position in our theory was derived from simpler foundations. First, we described information, then information metabolism, and finally, types of information metabolism. Only in this way can the concept of socionics maintain its integrity and take on a scientific form.
In the future, when justifying each detail of this theory, we will be able to rely on generally accepted provisions of existing sciences. For example, when describing the nature of sensing information, we will use knowledge of biology, and when describing the work of IM functions, we will use neurophysiology. Otherwise (as is customary in “classical” socionics), there will be a lack of coherence between the elements of the theory, and we will not be able to justify where they come from since we will be confined to our subjective experience of observing type carriers. Naturally, no one will seriously consider such a proof base in the scientific community, and it will be impossible to reproduce any experiment that confirms that this theory is adequate rather than reflecting the world of the author’s fantasies (as happens, for example, in astrology).
I hope you now have a better understanding of how the socionic type is organized, where the properties of IM functions, model A, and type traits come from, as well as what is common to the functional and sign approaches to describing TIM.
I also recommend reading the following articles in this series: the first describes the sequence of the complexity of information in nature, the second deals with how the properties of the functions describing the operation of model A are derived within our framework, and the third deals with the structure of traits.