Socionics Blog

May 2006

Understanding information signals

I have made my first attempt at describing at length how to read information signals and relate them to type — specifically, in regards to typing famous people. This topic is very important, as it illustrates socionics' fundamental differences from Meyers-Briggs and other typologies. Socionics is a typology of information metabolism. Many people don't understand what that means.

The leading function corresponds to the type of information that a person perceives with the greatest degree of differentiation and most actively conveys to the outside world. The "vector" of this information is described by the creative function.

To illustrate...
In MBTI or Keirsey typology you might have a person with strong analytical thinking who considers himself an "architect rational," for instance, which corresponds to INTP in Meyers-Briggs typology. Imagine that this person is good at intellectualization, structuring and expounding on abstract ideas, etc. and fits the MBTI type descriptions offered. But from a socionics angle — based on the socionics concept of information elements — it is possible that the person has a completely different type. Imagine that this person is emotionally dynamic and energizes others emotionally in both his private and public life, whereas his intellectual interests are simply spheres of interest where he most actively tries to influence others. If the nature of this influence is emotional, and if emotional activity and emotionally influencing others are the most consistent aspect of his functioning, then he is a type, regardless of his intellectual interests and self-perception.

The socionics typology is based on information elements, or facets of reality.
"Analytical thinking" is not an information element. Nor is "working with your hands" or any other skill or personality trait. There are 8 information elements, not 100 or 1 million. They describe very general categories of reality. One of these aspects of reality is what a person perceives and conveys to others most consistently and with the greatest degree of clarity and differentiation. This is by definition the leading function!

Admittedly, what we need are more articles demonstrating the nature of different elements of reality. That would be very, very helpful to students of socionics, who tend to skip over these basics, finding them too difficult to comprehend. My descriptions of extraverted intuition and extraverted ethics are a good start, but they are only the beginning of what needs to be done.

My approach
In my recent formulations and simplification of the subject I have finally arrived at a uniquely approach (by the way, now I am talking about as a function, not as an information element), which implies the ability to look at an entire subject or situation from a distant vantage point and give it a succinct and generalized, but insightful and accurate "snapshot" characterization. In this case, we are talking about typing people and summing up the nature of their primary information contribution to the world in just a few brief sentences. Incidentally, Augusta applied the same method, as have Bukalov and other prominent socionists of types. A great many writers and journalists also take this same approach and are able to neatly summarize a person in a way that does the person justice and puts different aspects of the person's life and work in their proper perspective.

What I would like to demonstrate next is the congruence of one's primary information product in one's private life with one's primary information product in one's public or artistic life. This applies first and foremost to famous people. What this means is that the traits that one exhibits most consistently at a close psychological distance correspond to the traits that one uses to become famous. In other words, a scientist who is known for explaining to society difficult ideas through books, lectures, seminars, etc. also demonstrates this trait at a close psychological distance.

The reason I am so passionate about this is that there are many people at socionics forums who believe that famous people "fake" their public information product and are completely different in their private life, where they convey altogether different information to their surroundings. This is a misconception. My studies of famous people and of people in general show that the public information product of famous people is simply a continuation of their private information product, i.e. if they continuously demonstrate and convey at a close distance and prove this to be their primary strength, then will also be what makes them famous. To become famous you must stand out and convey something with total confidence and craft. According to socionics, this is possible only with the strongest functions — specifically, the leading function. Indeed, by definition, the thing one conveys most to others IS the leading function! I feel like I am belabouring the obvious here...

My new hobby: typing famous people

I've gotten carried away with typing famous people. What really got me interested in this topic was the celebrity benchmark project. I saw — much to my own amazement — that I agreed with the majority of the typings in the list and potentially with the vast majority of them. Until then I had doubted the usefulness of dialogue with other socionists, mostly under the influence of my original socionics teacher, who was strongly critical of other socionists and exaggerated the unique accuracy of his methodology. Over time I have drifted away from many of his methods, uncovered certain systematic errors, and have unknowingly found myself near the center of prevailing views on socionics. I have realized that dialogue can be quite fruitful and that my arguments can make sense to other socionists.

Plus, as a psychologist (by self-definition at least), I'm interested in understanding outstanding people and — through them — their work, times, and experience. Famous people tend to be closely linked to one another through personal friendships, competition and antipathy, and intellectual or artistic kinship. These relationships give clues as to which people and phenomena have been most critical in the world's cultural development. I recently bought some new books to aid me in my studies: 50 Geniuses Who Changed the World, 100 Famous Americans, and 100 Famous Politicians (all printed in Russian here in Ukraine).

The 3rd function ("role function") in real life

An experience in one of my English classes the other day demonstrated some of the characteristics of role functions. The dominant person in this group is a articulate, bossy, and elegantly dressed SEE lady. The others are ESI, LSI, and SLI. I keep inadvertently asking questions that the lady and the ESI and LSI either don't find interesting or have a hard time answering. They are often suspicious of my questions and don't understand why I am asking them. My questions are actually aimed at preluding a conversation topic, but I think they take them at face value and think I am trying to weed some private information out of them or something like that (they're one of my more difficult groups). So what do they do? The ESI and LSI respond by answering as vaguely as humanly possible, while the SEE either answers at length, gradually redirecting the topic, or responds with irritation. Fun, huh?

So, the other day, we were talking about courts and law, and I asked if there were lawyer jokes in Ukraine as there are in the U.S. (I already knew the answer). When the SEE answered that maybe there were lawyer jokes inside the profession, but not outside of it, I said that lawyer jokes were very widespread in the U.S. and... I couldn't help giving a speculative explanation why this was the case ( indulgence). I said that this was related to the fact that lawyers are a very big part of life in the U.S., while it was a "fairly new profession" in Ukraine (technically incorrect, but what I meant to say was correct — that common people didn't have nearly the degree of exposure to lawyers and that the practice of private citizens suing each other wasn't nearly as widespread as in the U.S.; plus, I was thinking specifically of courtroom lawyers, not legal consultants, which are widespread in Ukraine). The SEE lady replied carefully, weighing her words, "Richard, you seem to think that we are dumb people and that our country is very primitive. Every country has lawyers..."

So what does this have to do with the role function? In my case, I had seen a connection between contact with lawyers and the courtroom and the prevalence of jokes about lawyers (a snapshot of the situation) that I wanted to convey to them "out of idle curiosity." Someone with strong might have intuitively understood what I was trying to say and added to my idea. Someone with strong might have responded by correcting my facts ("Actually, there have always been lawyers in Ukraine..."), but the SEE felt I was trying to trick her by foisting incorrect information on her.

In my interaction with SEE's and SLE's, I have noticed that to them means something much narrower than it does to me. To them it is "erudition" — one's ability to display one's knowledge across broad subjects that don't apply directly to one's life. As a leading function, of course means more than that. It involves gathering and conveying to people interesting (i.e. potentially useful) information just for the sake of stimulating thought processes; establishing connections between seemingly unrelated facts; giving simple summarizes of complex things, etc. To types, is a tool. For types, is seen as a way of showing off. The SEE in my English class regularly feels that I think they're stupid when I make ambiguous -related comments. That evokes a strong response, because she disagrees that she is non-erudite, and wants to prove it. The ESI's do not respond at all, because they fear that they are not erudite, and want to hide it.

Dimensionality of functions
A similar simplification of the information elements always takes place with the 3rd function (as well as the fourth). These effects have been formulated into an entire theoretical description called "the dimensionality of functions" (Bukalov, 1995 — summary in Russian). This concept has since become widely recognized and used in the socionics community. The dimensionality of functions depends on their place in model A and is described using four vectors — "globality, situation, norms, and personal experience." I am currently looking for the text in order to provide a synopsis of this important article in English.

"Good" and "bad" people of the same type

Intertype relations describe the nature of information interchange between types. I haven't explained the information interaction of intertype relations in depth on my site yet — only the "superficial" side of intertype relations — how they are experienced subjectively by the partners. This is also important, of course, but it is not the main idea of socionic relations. As Aleksandr Bukalov put it in our interview,

This helps to understand why can have what feels like a good relationship with one person of a certain type, and what feels like a poor relationship with another. The socionic model is a big step in understanding interaction, but it is not everything.

Imagine, for example, that you have two supervisors. Both of them focus on conveying to others information that corresponds to their first function. This draws your attention to your own knowledge of this information element. However, one supervisor talks about things that match your views well, while the other contradicts your views. Obviously, the second supervisor will cause quite a bit more harm and distress, while the first supervisor will make you want to try and please him and earn his approval. In the first scenario, the relationship will be harmful and traumatic and should be broken off. In the second scenario, the relationship will start off seemingly well, with lots of displays of mutual respect, the effect of which will gradually wear off as the supervisee inevitably disappoints the supervisor with his rigid and simplistic understanding of the information aspect that is the other's leading function. This relationship (if it is a close one) will ultimately prove a disappointment, with feelings of offense and disapproval, and will involve the same information interchange as the first scenario, but it will not be as psychologically crushing as the first.

Function content
The difference between these two scenarios can be summarized as differences in content of specific functions. In the first scenario, the content of the particular element which is the leading function of one and the vulnerable function of the other is basically compatible. Partners share a similar understanding — one, a multi-faceted and well-differentiated understanding, and the other, a simplistic and rigid understanding. In the second scenario, the content of this element is different. When the supervisee talks about this difference, the entire self-concept and worldview of the supervisee seems to be at stake.

Pleasure vs. satisfaction

Some people seem to be better able to produce feelings of pleasure than feelings of satisfaction, and others vice-versa. To differentiate between the two, I would say that pleasure is related to stimulating the senses in a positive way in the here-and-now, while satisfaction is a sort of overall feeling of having done or experienced something meaningful or worthwhile. Hence, pleasure is sensory-related, while satisfaction is abstract. I see the difference the most easily between types with strong and those with strong . I don't know if the contrast is as apparent between and .

When you get two satisfaction-oriented people and leave them together for a long period of time, you soon feel a deficit of pleasure in their interaction. How come people stop rejoicing at the simple things and talk about and pursue only abstract satisfaction that may come only at some future date — if it comes at all? Likewise two pleasure-oriented people seem to keep pressing their pleasure buttons with no view of long-term satisfaction from having achieved something worthwhile.

When you look at your life, at different stages you may recognize a need for more pleasure, or a need for more satisfaction. This probably correlates to which functions are most in use. Each of us has his 'chronic illness' that tends to arise again and again.

[ADDED 9/11]: I have now furthered developed the topic of pleasure and introverted sensing.

Typing holes

I have been filling in a lot of type holes over the past year, but there are still some types I don't recognize nearly well enough (haven't had enough personal experience):

• ESEs, especially males
• LSI females
• young EIEs

With all the others, I think I can recognize them now fairly quickly if I work at it. I'm moving closer to my goal...

[ADDED 5/25]: My work on typing famous people has led me to a string of likely ESE's that are giving me lots of insight and exposure to this type.