Inter-system correlations

The question of whether type X in system A correlates with type Y in system B is as old as typology. Nonetheless, this topic holds an especially renewed interest in pop psychology in the last few years, with very many people posting their own original content of spreadsheets suggesting which combinations of common typologies they deem possible, or unlikely, or impossible (or sometimes "possible only in fiction".)

Virtually every single inquiring mind who engages with this question approaches the topic incorrectly. The answer to the question of whether a type 4 in the enneagram can be a seemingly dissimilar type such as the SLE is yes, by definition since these systems are independent of one another.

A more clearheaded, useful question is: How common is it for a type 4 to be an SLE? Or, addressing the question of seemingly dissimilar combinations' existence in practice, as opposed to in principle: Have you ever seen an SLE 4? If you have, how confident were you about both types? And, if you have can you show me about them so that I can judge the types for myself?

If nobody has any examples of the combination, that speaks for itself about its frequency. And if people do have candidate examples to share, even candidates that they are not very sure of, then the discussion and debate can proceed in earnest. As with anything else in typology, the proof is in the examples and the case work.

Instead of asking questions based on examples, discussions in the pop typology community usually proceed to argue about definitions and descriptions, with such comments as "A 4 cannot be an extroverted type since it is in the withdrawn triad", or "The type 4 is described as being in touch with their emotions according to description X by author Y, and the SLE is described as the opposite by author Z, so they must be incompatible." Of course, such arguments depend on descriptions and author interpretations, and abstractions of categories into language. The interpretations of different authors are not in absolute concordance, just as the typings of different practitioners are not absolute concordance. More importantly, descriptions in text are maybe interesting to examine and interesting for beginners to get a foothold in a system, but they are not as effective a way of conveying understanding of types as examples in the flesh that can be seen, heard, and tasted. Which, is the kind of content that this blog was created to disseminate and will still disseminate after this theoretical interlude regarding issues in practice.

Dimensionality and Axial Post-Dimensionality

This post does not have examples of cases, I continue writing about thorny theoretical things that are not instructive examples. It involves the topic of dimensionality, a framework for thinking about socionics types that I resoundingly reject. This topic is only very little better than sheer nonsense. If theoretical nonsense does not interest you, feel free to ignore this post. However, the idea of dimensionality has a foothold in western socionics content from other authors, so it might be of interest to navigate.

The presence cube model

Other authors, including Jack Aaron and Ibrahim Tencer define functions as expressing different strength and value parameters. Specifically, the ego and superid blocks are considered valued, while the ego and id blocks are considered strong. This distinction also exists in Augusta's work, although in Augusta's work it seems very little emphasized; it seems to me that the emphasis on the different flavors of functions is more modern. Generally, valued functions are seen as psychologically rewarding to attend but not necessarily skillful, and strong functions are considered skillful to attend, but not necessarily rewarding. (Throughout this post, I will refer to the idea of separation of strength and value as "the presence cube", although the presence cube is a model developed by Ibrahim Tencer linked above. Other authors like Jack Aaron do not use the same terminology, but his idea similarly involves separate strength and value and I will also refer to his modeling, and other authors' that I will not name here, as the presence cube). 

Dimensional Strength, or just dimensionality was an addendum theory developed by Vladimir Ermak and Aleksandr Bukalov in the 90s. It characterizes gradations of strength within the weak and strong blocks, and also suggests that the skilled use of functions varies in generalizability; high dimensional (high strength) functions have access to more domains of reflection than lower strength functions. Almost nobody in the western community pays attention to the specifics of these domains regarding whether people have access to experience, norms, situations, and time; instead they regard dimensionality as mere gradations of strength.

It is important to recognize that dimensionality is aquadral. The creative function and ignoring function have identical dimensional strength, despite the ignoring function being out of the quadra. In the presence cube, the value dimension is called "priority" and is a simplification, but a reasonable approximate measure of which quadra blocks are emphasized in the different types within a quadra. As such, the presence cube model is a combination of quadras and aquadral dimensionality. Western Socionics in general is the idea that socionics is a theory of quadra values. The presence cube model with both quadra values and dimensional strength is thus a kind of hybrid model, that socionics is a theory of quadras but not entirely so, although Tencer, Aaron and other authors tend to regard quadras as the more important variable than dimensionality, which makes their models recognizably Western. However, the model that follows, which views socionics as entirely a theory of quadras and entirely ignores dimensionality, is more Western.

Axial Post-dimensionality model

The presence cube making use of dimensionality alongside quadra values has been heretofore the more popularized flavor of Western socionics. I wish to point out some flaws of dimensionality and the presence cube and present a different and simpler model.

What is a strong function, anyway? Socionics is a model of information metabolism, which means that it is a model of how different people differently pay attention to different sorts of information. The idea of strength and value as separate, independent parameters of functions implies more, that not only is there a hierarchical rank of some domains that are more attended and some that are less attended, in addition there is an assumption that these hierarchically ranked attentions are qualitatively different in their skillfulness and in their rewardingness. Likewise, some functions (e.g. the ignoring) are skillful but unrewarding, and hence, the theory goes, ignored and hardly ever utilized, while others (e.g. the mobilizing) are rewarding and therefore subject to frequent practice, but are inherently unskilled, and are never fully grasped as skillfully as those people who have this function as a stronger function.

The presence cube model has the following bad features:

1. It assumes that some functions are rarely used, but nonetheless skillful, which is hard to measure (i.e., in principle how do you observe someone being skillful at something that they rarely or never do?).
2. There are two parameters of function quality, value and strength. Two parameters are harder to measure, and harder to understand, than one.
3. Having additional free parameters in a model dilutes the explanatory power of that model.

In my model, there is only one parameter to measure per function, degree of attentional visibility, which I call strength. With fewer independent things to measure, it is more straightforward to measure change in function strength over time, which led me to my idea that the superid functions level up over time, and thus change their strength as people grow and work on their weaknesses.

In this model, the mobilizing function is a strong function, and the ignoring function is a weak function and blind spot, equivalently weak or weaker than the vulnerable function. The fact that dimensionality describes the mobilizing function as weaker than the ignoring function is the most glaring issue with the concept. I can not understand what property the ignoring function has that makes it stronger or more skillful than the mobilizing function in any respect whatsoever, as dimensionality predicts. It is very hard for me to understand why the ignoring function which is rarely or never used could be considered strong in any way. The classical view that the mobilizing function is weak, makes more sense, and the classical notion of the mobilizing function as "stubborn" or misguided can be seen sometimes, usually in young people that have not developed much confidence and not developed their superid functions very well. But usually, people have a lot of confidence in their mobilizing functions, and emphasize this function a lot, and make it externally visible -- and by using it frequently and leveling it up early on in their lives, they usually become skillful at it pretty quickly.

I came up with the following simple math to translate between my axial view of model A, and the parameter of function strength output:
strength = axis*balance

In other words, each of the four function axes (e.g. Ti and Te) has a overall strength level and an imbalance towards one end. The logic axis of the LSE is very strong, as it is the dominant axis, but extremely weighted towards Te, in other words extremely imbalanced. The logic axis of the EII, by contrast, is much weaker overall, and more balanced.

As an example of this model for proof of concept, with sort of ad hoc made up numbers:

LSE

Str(Te) = Str(logic) * balance(logic) ≈ 0.99*0.99 ≈ 0.99

Str(Si) = Str(sensorics) * balance(sensorics) ≈ 0.9*0.7 ≈ 0.63

Str(Ne) = Str(intuition) * balance(intuition) ≈ 0.7*0.97 ≈ 0.7

Str(Fi) = Str(ethics) * balance(ethics) ≈ 0.5*0.45 ≈ 0.23

Str(Fe) = Str(ethics) * (1-balance(ethics)) ≈ 0.5*0.55 ≈ 0.28

Str(Se) = Str(sensorics) * (1-balance(sensorics)) ≈ 0.9*0.3 ≈ 0.27

Str(Ti) = Str(logic) * (1-balance(logic)) ≈ 0.99*0.01 ≈ 0.01

Str(Ni) = Str(intuition) * (1-balance(intuition)) ≈ 0.7*0.03 ≈ 0.01

This pretty well matches the function visibility weights that we normally see in people. Note that these parameters, axis strength and axis balance, are 8 parameters, same number as if we treated each function as having independent strength (and fewer parameters than the presence cube in which each function has an independent strength and value, so 16 parameters to measure). 

The "developmental parameters" which change over time can be attributed to the balance of the suggestive functions axis, and possibly the axis strengths for the weaker axes will become better developed as people work on their weaknesses and improve them. Most of the parameters will likely be more stationary. Importantly, axial post-dimensionality allows for modeling these developmental changes as nonstationary measurements over time without introducing more parameters. We can simply model the development of people improving their weak points as increases in axis strength over time, while leaving the axis balance stationary. 

The post-dimensionality axial model is better than the presence cube model.

1. Axial post-dimensionality has fewer parameters to measure than the presence cube.
2. It explains why equivalently valued functions in the presence cube have different strengths.
3. It explains the property of the role and demonstrative function as being "half valued" -- which the presence cube also models, but with different numerical outputs. (specifically, the presence cube considers the demonstrative 4D+2P as much stronger than the role 2D+2P, which I think is dubious, and the ignoring 3D+1P as equal or roughly equal to the role 2D+2P. Tencer suggested to me a modification, where P (valuedness) is weighted more highly than D (dimensional strength, which allows for the role to be stronger than the ignoring; however, unless the coefficient for dimensionality is zero or very close to zero, the strength of the ignoring is estimated too highly for me)
4. It more clearly describes what parameters are changing than the presence cube when developmental changes occur as people improve upon their weaknesses.

Dimensional strength is a bad theory and should be discarded. The presence cube which incorporates dimensionality is a bad model and should be discarded. 

Derivation of Reinin Dichotomies

This post is theoretical and does not have any examples of cases. It involves Reinin dichotomies, a topic which is sheer nonsense. I attempt to illustrate why Reinin dichotomies are sheer nonsense. If dense theoretical nonsense does not interest you, feel free to ignore this post. 

Reinin dichotomies are defined as linear combinations of Jungian dichotomies. The Jungian dichotomies are introversion/extroversion, intuition/sensation, logic/ethics, and rationality/irrationality. To illustrate these dichotomies, I use Sergei Ganin's terminology, such that an LSE is called ESTj, which is different than the MBTI ESTJ which has the same Jungian dichotomies. 

As an example, ES+IN types are farsighted, whereas EN+IS types are carefree. To be more precise, the ESFj, INTj, ESTp, INFp, ESFp, INTp, ESTj, and INFj are farsighted, and the ENTp, ISFp, ENFj, ISTj, ENTj, ISFj, ENFp, and ISTp are carefree. The farsighted types are those that are both extroverted and sensors, or both introverted and intuitives. The carefree types are those that are both extroverted and intuitives, or both introverts and sensors.

All of the Reinin dichotomies are linear combinations of Jungian dichotomies in this way.

There are six Reinin dichotomies that are combinations of two Jungian dichotomies. I define these as second-order Reinin dichotomies.

Farsighted ES+IN, carefree EN+IS

Yielding ET+IF, obstinate EF+IT

Dynamic EJ+IP, static EP+IJ

Aristocratic ST+NF, democratic SF+NT

Tactics SJ+NP, strategy SP+NJ

Emotivist TJ+FP, constructivist TP+FJ

There are four Reinin dichotomies that are combinations of three Jungian dichotomies, or in other words, combinations of one Jungian dichotomy with one second-order Reinin dichotomy. These are defined as third-order Reinin dichotomies.

For example, the positivist/negativist dichotomy, which is the ESTX dichotomy, can be defined as E+aristocracy, S+yielding, or T+farsighted. The large group resulting from these definitions are all equivalent. 

Negativist EST+ENF+ISF+INT, positivist ESF+ENT+IST+INF

Judicious ESJ+ENP+ISP+INJ, decisive ESP+ENJ+ISJ+INP

Serious ETJ+EFP+ITP+IFJ, merry EFJ+ETP+ITJ+IFP

Process STJ+SFP+NTP+NFJ, result STP+SFJ+NTJ+NFP

The remaining Reinin dichotomy, asking/declaring is the only fourth-order Reinin dichotomy, which predictably is derived from a Jungian dichotomy and a third-order Reinin dichotomy, or by any two non-overlapping second-order Reinin dichotomies. The large group resulting from all of the combinations is the same. This proves that even though a combination of all four Jungian dichotomies is needed to make this Reinin dichotomy, even though there are 16 ways to assemble the four jungian dichotomies, there is only one way to construct a fourth-order Reinin dichotomy, which is sort of an interesting algebra result even in spite of the semantic meaninglessness of the Reinin dichotomies.

My primary purpose in describing the derivations of Reinin dichotomies is to point out that their definition assigns them no meaning. What is the significance anyway of grouping the SJ and NP types together, across from the SP and NJ? As an exercise for the skeptical reader, I challenge the reader to think of a convincing explanation for the significance of any Reinin groups. 

The biggest problem with Reinin groups is that they are totally aquadral. The Reinin groups posit some (maybe undiscovered) similarities between types of all different quadras. If you see types as expressions of their quadras, these proposed sweeping similarities between both sets of opposite quadras are hard to make sense of. The Reinin traits have nothing to do with the structure of the socion based on quadras 

Even if you completely rejected grouping by quadras and focused more on jungian dichotomy traits and dimensionality, concepts that I reject in socionics, the Reinin groupings relate some very opposite MBTI types (the Reinin dichotomies are a valid mathematical construction in MBTI whether anyone uses them in MBTI or not, since only the Jungian dichotomies are used to derive them). In mainstream MBTI (and in very much of eastern pop-classical socionics), type similarity is often seen by the number of jungian dichotomies in common which hypothetically underly some traits. Using this type of similarity as an assessment, the Reinin groups are also broken.

Reinin dichotomies are in fact so broken and incompatible with any other major ideas in socionics that the schools of socionics that focus on Reinin groupings (the ones that is most familiar to me is the school following the works of Vladimir Mironov) are essentially outcasts that regard no other major principles in socionics, such as quadras, IM elements, intertype relations as important, and their only activity is to characterize the objective observable nature of Reinin traits. I talked with a Russian guy who came to a meetup in New York City one time, perhaps around 2013 or 2014, who was primarily exposed to the Mironov school, and it became clear very quickly that we had very different views of socionics, when I explained to him that i view socionics as a theory of quadras, he said, paraphrasing, "I never heard anyone say anything like that before, I only thought people really focus on Reinin dichotomies, it's the only thing in socionics I've ever thought of as real" 

The School of Humanitarian Socionics, by Viktor Gulenko, at least trends heavily in this direction and seems to focus principally on complex dichotomies while paying little attention to the quadras and IM elements, something Gulenko has done for decades. Another notable school is the "introverted socionics" of Semyon Churyumov, who redefines intertype relations as qualities of types and develops a new intertype distance measure of Reinin dichotomies, which is very confusing.

Overall, Reinin dichotomies have no significance. They are haphazardly constructed to group all of the different types of opposite types. They are incompatible with quadras. They are also incompatible with concepts of dimensionality and jungian dichotomy similarity in mainstream MBTI. Indeed, assuming the semantic meaning of the Reinin dichotomies was described by Reinin and Augusta as something to be cautious about, even while they both assumed, for some incredible reason, that they had some highly significant, yet undiscovered meaning. Reinin treated most of his discussion about what was the significance of his dichotomies, as speculative hypotheses. The descriptions that he did come up with, that have been propagated today as semantically descriptive of the Reinin traits, are quite vague and in some cases pretty inconsistent across the very different types in the socion. For example, the positive emotionality oriented alpha quadra has in it the supposedly glass-half-empty negativist types LII and especially SEI, which is difficult to rationalize and should be seen as inconsistent with basic quadra values. 

Prior to Reinins derivation of the Reinin dichotomies, Augusta had already defined the large group of askers and declarers, and provided the semantic interpretation that askers ask more questions and declares make more declarations in their speech patterns. This interpretation is not very consistent with quadra dynamics, since it suggests for instance that the SEE, which has significant access to the independent-mindedness of the Te+Ni block of the gamma quadra, it is still considered an asker (it is difficult to understand conceptually why the harsh judgment block should be an asking block, as well). But, I guess that this hypothesis led Augusta to be more interested in the idea that the other elaborated Reinin combinations also had significant meanings too, even though she had no justification for this assumption.

Of course, the Reinin dichotomies include two quadra dichotomies. These are certainly not meaningless. (They likewise also contain a dichotomy that relates the opposite quadras, which is worse than meaningless, it is directly the reverse of quadra similarity). Besides the two quadra axis groups, the other 9 Reinin dichotomies are meaningless, including the 5 other dichotomies that can also be derived by some other properties in model A, which still equate some similarity between extremely different types. A broken clock is right 2 times out of every 11.

Lambsauce

Lambsauce was interviewed:

Before we begin, let me give a bit of context. On this blog, I strive to make content that will be accessible to a reader in the future, that has never met the subject, and doesn't need to have met the participant who we are analyzing in order to experience and understand the sort of person that the participant presents themselves to be. But, of course, I have met these paricipants, and sometimes I have extensive experience with these participants outside of the narrow window of content that I am curating for the future viewer. As in this case, where I knew the participant, who the interviewer accurately describes as infamous, long before I ever bothered to watch this interview; in fact I only watched the interview to make this post. I had already very firmly made up my mind about Lambsauce's type well before perusing the interview. And, as a word of warning, understanding the correct type certainly is possible from the interview and there are many clues available. But, it was more obvious, from interacting with Lambsauce over the internet, and observing him from a distance, for an extended time, and I will discuss later my observations from that modality.

One clue that presents itself immediately, as Lambsauce begins talking at about 00:30, already, he shows bitingly critical remarks of the opponents of his discord server, the Jungle, as though preparing for a verbal sparring match with such critics. Even though he restrains himself, his critical outlook contrasts with the interviewer's calm, welcoming disposition.

Lambsauce has a very obvious tendency to monologue freely, to rant openly and with bluster about a wide range of topics and to change the subject frequently in his stream of consciousness.

Lambsauce has a stern, focused, intense expression throughout the interview.

Lambsauce is and analytically deconstructive and verbally combative, perhaps, as though, welcoming a debate. At 3:00, but also throughout the entire interview, he at least discusses rigor of his positions on many intellectual topics, especially personality models that he mentions repeatedly (for example, around 50:00, although he slips in to speaking about this subject during his long unfocused monologues throughout).

Some use of singsong or mocking tones as voice modulation, for example at 14:30

Lambsauce has a dismissive attitude towards other people's ideas, and often as well towards other people directly. As at 31:00, where he calls other people "retards" in no unclear terms for their ideological positions about personality modeling. Lambsauce claims to be an open-minded person, and gives an interesting answer at 45:00 in response to the question of when he last changed his mind, to which he says, all the time. But, immediately, he proceeds into a digression about other people being extremely wrong a lot, and having no evidentiary basis for their ill-formed views. Overall, in spite of his repeated claims for open-mindedness, we can see that Lambsauce is a highly stubborn, ideologically charged and often ideologically uncompromising person. Although, referring to some observations not from the video, he is not lying that he does change his mind; he has done this many times for instance in his typing work, changing frameworks fastmindedly and at seemingly random times, making him look stupid and clumsy and suggesting that he obviously did not understand the model or the subject or both, to begin with. This can be understood as partially supporting his claim of changing his mind, but more fundamentally, he is not an openminded person; rather an extremely recalcitrant, discriminating person, and who appears not to be aware of his own extreme tendency towards stubbornness and opprobrium.

Lambsauce is, in my view, an SLE. He is prone to debate and to verbal conflict, and it seems the arena of intellect is the main arena where he prepares for challenge, although Lambsauce also uses language at other times emphasizing his competitiveness and his own attitude that he was lacking confidence in the past and had to, by his own bootstraps, pull himself together.

Lambsauce's style is exaggerative and confident, and makes ludicrous, exaggerative claims (for example, at 32:00 where he grossly exaggerates the ideological consensus of typists, by mainly focusing on his narrow group of followers and ignoring completely the very large number of other typists that fervently disagree with Lambsauce about many typings). Yet, while Lambsauce's confidence, and dismissiveness of other people's negative ideas can be seen readily, he claims repeatedly to have been anxious, unconfident, and in the past to have struggled with passivity and depression. Yet, he acknowledges his confidence at the present moment, as well as his stimulation seeking behavior, and inclination to (1:01:00) "scream it [the 'interesting' information he has to share] in [others'] face[s]". His emphasis on his own prior passivity and anxiousness, is, perhaps not an untrue characteristic of his experience, but certainly exaggerated in his tendency to decide what to present to us in his inner monologue at the present time.

The "meat" of ideological matters, whether other people are right or wrong in their conclusions, is something that he is willing to very freely challenge, but as an overall theme, can be construed less as understanding the evidence (which Lambsauce claims many times to do), but really as presenting a sound argument in a debate. In other words, his approach is not trying to solve the questions independently about the world by examining lots of evidence disconnectedly, it is more a process of building, and presenting persuasively, frameworks that are well justified, and ironcladly built, defending some idea positions. The persuasive, and combative disposition of Lambsauce's inner-monologue-presented-as-debate, speaks to this. This debating style, characterized by the ideological conflict of the beta quadra, is a feature of Se blocked with Ti. In Lambsauce's case, his highly analytical tendency to challenge, but also often to randomly switch frameworks, and his view of himself as a "depressive nerd" suggests a better fit in orientation to Ti in the ego block, rather than the super-id of the EIE. Likewise, he seems very little concerned (although partially he just did not focus here) on the way other people receive his tangential monologue, somewhat unlike Fe dominant types, but perfectly fitting the mold of Fe mobilizing types that are only beginning to realize the importance of not irritating other people in their way of relating -- which he seems overall to be dismissive of; again recall his defensive reaction at 0:00:40 into the interview.




I will also, for this exercize, post in full my comments about Lambsauce from another forum, in which I argued, speaking generally, that Lambsauce is the SLE, based on his behavior over a long period of time on discord. The extent of his belligerence, and tendency to argue with others without really letting them get a word in, may not be obvious from the interview, but as before, there are numerous hints.

He seems very willing to take a direct, belligerent approach towards others, and almost instinctively puts forward ideological positions in a challenging "this is the way it is" stance. Despite his more regular certitude, he also has an inherent inconsistency and flexibility, classically characteristic of the SLE in the application of ideology, which manifests occasionally in his tendency to "negotiate" with other authoritative figures to reach an ideological consensus, and which I predict would also manifest in occasional random changes to ideologies held (NB this analysis was written a year ago, I had not observed random shifts to lambsauce's ideologies at the time, but clearly this prediction has held correct) [editors note, i wrote the parenthetical edit about this protracted prediction long before writing this blog post]. His approach to socionics is clearly rather scattered in its source material and his interpretation of interview subjects is naturally (and probably somewhat incorrigbly) hurried and impatient, and his conclusions are generally based on discretized answers with chunked information. Ideological opponents are drowned out in a neverending sea of dyspeptic verbiage, which is putatively based on reason; in a deeper view, it is also a not-so-subtle form of messaging conveying expectations of ideological conformance. Despite his intellect, he is not really a very idea-oriented person to begin with, his intellect easily falls within a typical range of the SLE (which is not to say that SLEs cannot be even more intellectual). His overall public image is relatively clumsily managed, as he fails largely to recognize that other people often do not concern with his ideological games on intellectual subjects, he does a generally poor job of reading others' lack of interest in his widely ranging authoritative commentaries and does not make himself well liked beyond a relatively narrow circle of followers that don't seem to mind his bossy mentality.

Silveranstavern interview

I interviewed silveranstavern (as you can see, the video was recording the game I was playing during the interview, in which I was only doing a fishing minigame to acquire resources, which I do during interviews because this takes approximately 0% of my attention).

Some observations that I jotted down to myself while I was reviewing this interview:

Slow, contemplative cadence of speech.

Silverantsavern presents himself very quickly as an open book, a straightforward person willing to let the interviewer, and the listener, peer inside his brain pretty openly. Within the first few minutes (2:00) he discusses also his explicit principle of openness, and provides a relevant example of his upcoming ayahuasca experience. He has a relaxed, easy disposition, as if inviting the listener to be at ease in the conversation.

He is inclined to somewhat bold actions, including for example (25:00) moving to Colombia without knowing the language. This was an intentional move, perhaps not a spontaneous action, but quite a bold, life-changing one.

Silveranstavern demonstrates some spontaneous revealing of tangible, intimate details. Compared to some people that are really allergic to being specific and inclined to generalize, Silveranstavern's openness extends into telling his history in really a lot of unfiltered detail, although in many ways, maybe in more of the interview when not guided by my specific requests to discuss some examples, he often drifts into speaking abstractly, and philosophically about complicated and spiritual topics. It's easy (for me) to imagine him, in a different conversation and a different context, eliding much specificity about what he's talking about and talking abstractly himself indirectly through buddhist phenomology, without all that much slice of life to connect it to reality -- although, maybe not, that's not how our conversation went, and the interview context is an artificial context which different people approach very differently.

The section starting around 26:00 where silveranstavern discusses the circumstances of his first marriage and his exiting that situation with children that are not fully grown, is interesting for its window into silveranstwavern's emotionality and his choices in challenging emotional situations -- and also, for his selective attention to describing in laborious detail his own emotional responses, while not focusing much on how other people felt about his actions. He seems to have a disinterest in narrating other people's points of view, and maybe even a sort of flippancy about discussing other people's emotions, almost as though it's pointless to focus on or speculate about, others' inner states.

The section and its story displays a high level of adaptability and flexibility, and willingness to take life as it comes, but also a deeply resigned passivity -- an expectation that other people will do what they will do, and there is no point in ever trying to change them or fight about the circumstances of one's life (or, in this case, his childrens' lives, either -- something that some people fight vociferously over). I don't believe this passivity is only a product of buddhist self-awareness, I think this "passive, relaxed attitude" runs more deeply and has always been there (and at points in the interview, he seems to affirm this idea that he has always been chill), although maybe it's true silveranstavern's experience with mindfulness makes him more inclined to specifically ruminate about his experiences that are in his control, and not to talk about other people who aren't in his control.

There is some explicit mention at times of the principles, ethos, or "code" used to live by (28:30).

Silveranstavern gives a pretty good, detailed overview of his kids' personalities and character. He is capable of discussing in some detail the character of others (which he was clearly prompted to do).

At 1:44:00, there is a relatively open, unfiltered conversation about silveranstavern's perception that he is a "lighthearted" person, that he prefers to be lighthearted rather than serious, although he also mentions in his self-perception that he has the ability to create a degree of seriousness at appropriate moments in life, while preferring nonetheless to travel through life more lightheartedly. While this is all self-perception that he tells me rather than shows me, it is consistent with his chilled out disposition throughout the entire interview.

At 1:53:00, there is a short, but interesting conversation about nonmonogamy in which silveranstavern describes that his current relationship is founded on the principle of "relationship anarchy" -- which seems, in addition to being an unusual way of approaching relationships, very abstractly codified, and also, maybe returns to the concept above of regarding inner emotional states, (as in, in this context, other people's expectation about how relationships might develop) with some degree of flippancy.

I type Silveranstavern as an LII. Broadly, the most important themes that stand out to me as principally influential from the interview, are silveranstavern's chilled-out relaxedness, his interpersonal passivity and lightheartedness (i.e., nonseriousness) that he discusses, with which he traverses through life. This passivity is characteristic of Si-valuing introverts, and is a very separate way of being than the indifference and usually more substantial judgments of Ni valuing types. Ni dominant types are passive in their own ways, and also have capacity with Se suggestive for bold action (that is often inconsistent) -- and silveranstavern shows a capacity for bold action, but also an overall really loose, lighthearted, chilled approach to his surrounding circumstances. It took me some time in the interview to unpack the complex, abstract, and generally buddhism-influenced self-presentation, but when I understood this chilledness, it left me clearly with the idea of an Si valuing type, and in particular, of an Fi-devaluing Si-valuing type, with a more distant connection to seriousness. The LII with Fi role has a pattern, where they sometimes have a sort of almost-but-not-quite scornful attitude towards people who are too emotional, who can't seem to figure out how to "relax" to the engagement level of their surroundings. The LII type is outwardly subdued, and also, usually subduedly respectful of others' expressions of sincerity, and so this almost-scornful-but-not-quite reaction is not always outwardly obvious, but they nonetheless may find it overbearing, although also tolerable and doable, to focus on inner emotional states for too long, whether themselves or others, and they may also desire not to subject others to too much of their own inner turmoil.

I think silveranstavern might not see himself as "flippant" as I described above, with respect to understanding, navigating, and describing, other people's inner emotional states. Although he may not see himself as regarding others' emotions with flippancy, he probably would nonetheless agree that he focuses, and in this focused infinitely more, on his own inner state of mind, than speculating or describing the actual or hypothetical states of mind of others, something he did very little of in comparison to his own very lengthy and very precisely analytical description of his own motivations for his actions. Regardless of exactly the words used to describe it, in my view this flippancy or inattention to the emotions' of others, coming short of a wholesale indifference or incompetence at dealing with emotional situations, but maybe a light preference not to a lot of the time, is totally fitting with Fi role in the alpha quadra where a preference for positive emotionality is predominant. This is the primary piece of evidence that points me to a particular quadra.

It's also easy to see silveranstavern's unrestrained openness as like that of Ne ego types, and his often analytical and abstract approach to conversations, and his occasional forays into discussing important principles more readily than details, as signals of Ti values. Those signals are fuzzier, especially occasional discussion of principles -- the LII doesn't usually tend to express their principles as dogmatic ideologies that they rant about, in the way that can be seen sometimes in the spontaneous ideological ranting of LSIs and SLEs -- it's harder sometimes to see this type as ideological, because, they present themselves as more flexible than ideologically principled, and the discussions of principles and codes, however abstract, could just be explained as passing concepts in conversation that aren't very indicative of highly structured or principled thinking. Which is true, I don't view this observation as very definitive.

It doesn't seem very likely to see him as an extrovert, although sometimes the Ne dominants can have a mix of passivity in boldness; they usually are more principally bold in spite of their avoidant tendencies, while silveranstavern in my view is more principally passive, despite his boldness.

Blocks are subcategories of Quadras

This post deviates, as my other description content does, from example-focused content. This is probably the most theoretical post that will ever be made on this blog.


People have sometimes asked me, without additional context, to explain blocks. I define blocks and their associated characteristics as follows.

A block is a combination of two elements of opposite rationality. All elements of common rationality have a defined pattern of compatibility or opposition. In other words, Te conceptually has an inherently oppositional relationship to Fe and Ti, and an inherently complementary type of opposite relationship with Fi. However, in Augusta's model of IM there is no inherent complementary or oppositional relationship between Te and Si, or more generally between any rational and any irrational element. Therefore, blocks such as Te+Si, Te+Ne, etc. can be seen as describing meaningful independent combinations of elements whose combinations constitute thematic types of information metabolism (i.e., psychological filters), similar to how IM elements themselves are thematically meaningful IM elements. Each block is specific to one quadra, and each block is a specific emphasis of that quadra (e.g. Te+Si is a delta block, since both elements are delta). Different types within different quadras, emphasize the quadra's values differently, and may or may not have a strong expression of each individual block (e.g., the LSE strongly expresses Te+Ne, but maybe expresses more weakly Fi+Si). In other words, all blocks are subcategories of quadras.

Blocks can be ordered or unordered. An ordered block X+Y emphasizes the first element X of the block as more present than the second element Y. An unordered block, can be written either as X+Y or Y+X, and does not emphasize either element as more present than the other. For example, the ordered block Te+Si could be seen as the delta flavor of Te, which describes the LSE, while the unordered block Te+Si is the block which defines the delta ST. There is heretofore no standard notation for differentiating the ordered block Te+Si from the unordered block Te+Si. I suggest, where meaningful, to clarify the difference between the ordered block Te+Si and the unordered block Te+Si by saying ordered Te+Si or unordered Te+Si. Another possible terminology for unordered blocks is Te=Si. It's fewer characters. I am not a terminology nazi, keep your concepts clear. 

A classical block is defined as a block with both elements in the mental ring, or both elements in the vital ring (alternately, either both elements are static or both are dynamic). A skew block is defined as a block with one element in the mental ring and the other element in the vital ring (alternately, one element is static and the other is dynamic). Sometimes classical blocks are also called standard blocks or accepting-producing blocks, even though the name "accepting-producing blocks" is a misnomer because classical blocks and skew blocks alike always feature one accepting and one producing function (the fault for this name is mine alone). Sometimes I also call them heteroverted blocks to be unambiguous. 

This post establishes definitions for five extensions of model A whose elements are blocks, in other words, subcategories of quadras. Rather than make creative names for these models, the names of these five models are A8, A8-skew, A16-unordered, A16-ordered, and A32, and the functions of these models will use block notation. I believe of these five models, A16-ordered is the most interesting and practical. 

These models differ in the number of functions because of their different choices of allowing the order equivalency, whether the ordered blocks are equivalent to the opposite ordered block, and are therefore unordered, and the skew equivalency, whether classical blocks are equivalent to their corresponding skew blocks leading with the same function. 

Model A32 has the most functions because it makes neither equivalency. 

Model A16-ordered, the most natural model, makes one equivalency, the skew equivalency, but holds the order inequivalency. Model A16-unordered does the opposite, making the order equivalency, but separates the skew blocks separate.

Models A8 and 8-skew, have the order equivalency, and have separate skew and classical blocks. If they allowed the skew equivalency, there is a transitivity problem, and the model would reduce to A4, a model which already exists in socionics, which is, the four quadras, with no subdivisions. 

The models are defined more formally as follows:

Model A8
Model A8 has 8 functions, which are defined as 1+2, 1+4, 2+3, 3+4, 5+6, 5+8, 6+7, and 8+7. Equivalent function names such as 2+1 are possible, but in Model A8, 1+2 is the same as 2+1.
The functions of Model A8 are the classical blocks of the quadras; in other words, the 1+2 function of the LSE is, delta ST, as in, the unordered block Te=Si. 
In model A8 there are no skew blocks. Defining that the classical block 1+2 is equivalent to the skew block 1+6, would break this model since it is unordered, since 6+1 would also be equivalent to 1+6 and 6+1 would be equivalent to 6+5. Therefore allowing for a skew block to exist in model A8 would make all blocks in the same quadra equivalent. Therefore the model would have 4 elements and not 8, so we must disallow this equivalency.

Model A8-skew
Because the Model A8 does not describe skew blocks at all, you could additionally define a new model very similar to model A8, model A8-skews, which uses skew blocks instead of classical blocks. In other words, the functions of this model are 1+6, 1+8, 2+5, 2+7, 3+6, 3+8, 4+5, and 4+7. The function 1+6 of the LSE is therefore, the delta extrovert block (i.e., the unordered block Te=Ne). It is not necessarily clear to me that this model is of more application than model A8, which emphasizes the classic construction of clubs in quadras like Delta ST, which is in my the view the most basic category subdivision of quadras.

Model A16-ordered
Model A16-ordered has 16 functions, which are, 1+2, 1+4, 2+1, 2+3, 3+2, 3+4, 4+1, 4+3, 5+6, 5+8, 6+5, 6+7, 7+6, 7+8, 8+5, and 8+7 These functions are all classical blocks. In this model, the classical blocks can be defined to be equivalent to their corresponding skew blocks, because now there is no transitive equality between 1+6 and 6+1, since the two ordered blocks are considered different depending on which function is "in charge." Therefore, the eleemnts in this model are "quadra IM elements." As an example, in the LSE, the function 1+2, which is Te+Si, is delta Te, which is equivalent to Te with Ne, which is also a valid description of delta Te. Delta Te contrasts with other elements, like gamma Te, and is also distinct from, delta Si, and delta Ne, although they closely related elements to delta Te. Likewise, the Delta Te used by the LSE as function 1+2 is the same delta Te used by the SLI in their function 2+1, and the IEE in their function 6+5, and so on, in other words, the elements of A16-ordered are quadra-element combinations in every respect.
It is worth noting also that, delta Te can be alternately defined as, the Te of the LSE. A16-ordered is the only model of the five models described here in which each socionics type has a unique block as it's leading function (this relationship is an isomorphism). 
To my readers that know that my emphasis is on quadras, it will make sense why I find this particular model, A16-ordered, of particular interest. This is likely the model with the most reasonable set of descriptions for how an individual of a certain type in socionics might represent an element. For example, the LSE has a particular attitude towards delta Te, it is their main, leading function, but characterizing their attitude towards gamma Te, which is not exactly the same as their leading function, but similar, may be well enough specified to write a description about. By contrast, writing descriptions about how individual types, like the LSE, would relate to elements differently in model A16-unordered, and model A32, are both more challenging to meaningfully specify, especially for non-ego-block blocks. (In A32, each type has two blocks that correspond to that type's identity, ie it's leading function, namely 1+2 and 1+6, and since both of these blocks describe the same type's leading function, it isn't so clear how different they are).

Model A16-unordered
Model A16-unordered has 16 functions, which are, 1+2, 1+4, 1+6, 1+8, 2+3, 2+5, 2+7, 3+4, 3+6, 3+8, 4+5, 4+7, 5+6, 5+8, 6+7, 7+8
This model represents classical blocks and skew blocks as separate functions. In other words, the LSE has as their function 1+2, Te+Si, which is distinct from function 1+6, Te+Ne. In addition, the blocks are unordered, such that The LSE's function 1+2 Te+Si, is identical to the function 1+2 of the SLI, which is also Te+Si. However, the SLI has a different function 1+6, Si+Fi, than the LSE. This model therefore describes as its elements, all possible unordered quadra blocks.
Whether or not it is sensible to write a description where the LSE's unique relationship to blocks not of its own quadra, for instance, how the LSE as a type expresses Ne+Fe, compared to Ne+Ti, is not really clear if this is grasping at straws. That said, the elements of this model are interesting to talk about because different quadra blocks represent different emphases of quadras.

Model A32
Model A32 makes both of the distinctions in A16-unordered and A16-ordered, of separating classical from skew blocks, and distinctly addressing ordered blocks where one or the other element is in charge. Therefore, the 32 functions of A32 are 1+2, 1+4, 1+6, 1+8, 2+1, 2+3, 2+5, 2+7, 3+2, 3+4, 3+6, 3+8, 4+1, 4+3, 4+5, 4+7, 5+2, 5+4, 5+6, 5+8, 6+1, 6+3, 6+5, 6+7, 7+2, 7+4, 7+6, 7+8, 8+1, 8+3, 8+5, and 8+7.
This is the set of all possible blocks representing all possible quadra emphases in every subtlety.
A full description of every type's attitude towards every function in this model, is definitely too complicated to be of use. It is fair to say that it is already grasping at straws to describe that the LSE's attitude of Ne+Fe is a meaningfully different thing to their attitude of Ne+Ti, without additionally adding more functions of extremely similar attitudes, like Ti+Ne.


One of the reasons for discussing these models is to compare one's views on how the different types have different attitudes towards blocks from other quadras. Some disagreements exist among western socionists about how emphasized certain non-quadra blocks are. Ibrahim Tencer, for instance, wrote about a 16 element model which he calls model A2 (Ibrahim, provide me with a link to the description of model A2, all I could find that is not deleted is this, which to the best of my recollection isn't structured the same way as your original article and is filled with confusing nonsense language). Ibrahim argued, for instance, that in many types the block 6+7 was used a lot compared to 6+5, which seems overall dubious but I agree that certain types (like the EIE's use of Se+Fi) seem to use 6+7 more extensively than others (like the SLI's use of Fi+Se).

A full elaboration of all of the different function attitudes in all of these models is beyond the immediate scope of this article. However, I will provide a brief outline of functions in model A16-ordered, the most interesting model here defined.

Function 1+2 This function, which is the main quadra expression of the identity type, is, well, the main quadra expression of the type, which is emphasized the most fully in their interaction with the world.
Function 1+4 This function is the main quadra expression of the kindred type. Like many other adjacent quadra blocks, it is probably not very often emphasized by an individual, but it is probably relatively easy for many people to understand.
Function 2+1 This function is the main quadra expression of the mirror type. People use this function extensively, as it is the main form of expression of their creative function. Like the creative function in model A, it is not "on" at all times, but it is a much more recurring emphasis than 2+3.
Function 2+3 This function is the main quadra expression of the supervisee type. Probably, this function has an inconsistent emphasis, certainly less persistent in its presence and goals than function 2+1. That said, as a kind of creative function, that is not on all the time, it might be on occasionally as a way in which people interact with the role function more easily than dealing with the role function.
Function 3+2 This function is the main quadra expression of the business type. This function is likely the more well represented by Augusta's description of the role function in general, which is partially valued, partially used, and has an element of colloquial super-ego feeling that one should be doing better with this function, but a lack of drive to interact with it with consistency.
Function 3+4 This function is the main quadra expression of the super-ego type. It is hard to see why anyone would focus on 3+4 rather than 3+2. As an opposite quadra block, this is pretty substantially opposed to the individual's own quadra values. Probably this block is hardly ever focused on at all.
Function 4+1 This function is the main quadra expression of the supervisor type. Between 4+1 and 4+3, both are blind spots, but probably if people's attention is redirected towards the vulnerable function, it would be redirected more readily to the 4+1 information.
Function 4+3 This function is the main quadra expression of the conflictor type. It's hard to see why anyone would focus on this preferentially to 4+1. It should be the least attended block in A16-ordered (Keep in mind that this block is equivalent to 4+7, but does not include the demonstrative function, whereas block 7+8 is equivalent to 7+4 but does include the demonstrative function.
Function 5+6 This function is the main quadra expression of the dual type. It is the main manifest weakness of the individual. Whether it is easier to access 5+6 or 5+8 is open for interpretation. If we considered skew blocks, you might consider that 5+2 is relatively more accessible and relevant, whereas 5+4 is relatively disattended. But, by the same token, the influence of the demonstrative function might make 5+8 a relatively more obvious pattern of interaction, than the "dual's" suggestive function 5+6 that seems an elusive weakness.
Function 5+8 This function is the main quadra expression of the semi-dual type. As before, it is a potentially open question whether this is easier to access than 5+6, or whether it is altogether less of a focus. One interpretation is that this block is relatively unused and unattended, and the 5+6 block is the weakness and point of growth. What do you think? Does it vary between different types?
Function 6+5 This function is the main quadra expression of the activator type. This is clearly the main expression of the strong mobilizing function, in people who strongly express the mobilizing function, which is a majority of people.
Function 6+7 This function is the main quadra expression of the beneficiary type. In all cases, I conjecture that 6+5 should be used more strongly than 6+7. But in the case of some types more than others, there is more reason to feel that they might use 6+7 more extensively. Overall, I would think of 6+7 as a relatively minor cousin to 6+5, but one which still has some emphasis in some cases.
Function 7+6 This function is the main quadra expression of the mirage or illusion type. To the extent that people focus on their ignoring function, it seems likely that they will probably focus on 7+6 much more than 7+8. But, it seems overall very likely that people will completely ignore them both, while interacting with the ignoring function primarily from the lens of 1+2 instead, or, possibly, 2+7 rather than 7+2.
Function 7+8 This function is the main quadra expression of the contrary or extinguishment type. This is the total opposite value of people's quadras and almost all of the time it will be the "true" ignoring function, ignored completely.
Function 8+5 This function is the more likely avenue of considering the demonstrative function compared to 8+7. 8+5 should probably be considered the "true" demonstrative function that is seen as a strong function in some balance with the creative function 2+1.
Function 8+7 Compared to 8+5, this function is much more likely to be seen as a waste of time or misguided approach, and probably will not be attended very much.

Ordered blocks are 16 element models and share some structural equivalence with other 16 element models. The most notable alternative 16 element model in practice are the signs of functions in Model B and Model G, developed by Aleksandr Bukalov and Viktor Gulenko, respectively. Both of these models describe their elements not as Alpha Fe and Beta Fe, etc., but instead as Fe+ and Fe-, etc. They additionally impute some semantic meaning of the positive and negative charge attributed to these elements. The semantic meaning is dubious; it makes sensefor certain elements, e.g. it makes sense to describe Delta Fi/Fi+ as positive in its judgments while Gamma Fi/Fi- is negative in its judgments. But other elements are complicated, for instance it would be logical to think of Alpha Fe as positively valenced and Beta Fe as negatively valenced, but the actual signs in model G are reversed, where the ESE has Fe- and the EIE has Fe+. Likewise, Delta Ne is described as Ne- while Alpha Ne is Ne+, the meaning of which is confusing to understand and much less obvious to apply in practice. I suggest therefore to disregard the semantic meaning of signs entirely and instead conceptualize these models as erroneous formulations of quadra-based blocks.

Also, while I refer to ordered blocks by their quadras, for instance, Alpha Fe which is the same as Fe+Si, the signed functions in the Gulenko and Bukalov models are not necessarily quadral. For example, in Model G, it is normally described that the ESE has Fe+, Si-, and, additionally, Ne- and Ti+ (whereas, the LII has Ti- and Ne+ instead). Therefore, in this model the ESE is not described as having access to Alpha Ne, but rather has Delta Ne as either the main or only type of Ne in the mobilizing function (probably the only type, since in Model G the 16 element model is not elaborated). This is aquadral, and in my view should be considered a design error. In other words, model A16-ordered is the correct 16 element model of signed functions, and model G's charges are an error. (Model B charges are different than Model G charges, but they also are aquadral in the mobilizing function. In Model B, alpha Fe is called Fe-, whereas in Model G it is Fe+, but in both models the ESE has delta Ne instead of Alpha Ne. As an aside, Gulenko used to follow the same charges as Model B, but he changed his mind in or prior to 1998, discussed here https://socioniko.net/ru/articles/sign.html)

Machine Learning Socionics Test

I am now developing a data-driven and self-reported likert style socionics questionnaires. The test items in the inventory are brought together from various different sources, and I have no idea what variables many of them measure, and moreover I have made no attempt to create any answer key to figure out what they measure. The idea of this test is to examine whether different representatives of different types will give systematically similar answers such that a machine learning classifier could predict the type a human diagnostician would assign. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been done before (if you know of anyone that has done a similar project, please let me know in the comments), in any typology (I am aware that Viktor Talanov collects extensive self-reported data in a vaguely similar vein, but does not employ machine learning to classify types, in fact his questionnaire appears to take a totally theoretical rather than data-driven approach in its design).

In order to train the classifier, a large amount of sample responses of people known to be each type is needed. In order to collect a lot of data in a way where I am confident of the ground truth types used to train the classifier, I am offering free diagnostics interviews to anyone who participates in the project and submits their answers to the lengthy questionnaire (and whose type I am not already confident of from another method). In order to do diagnostic work on a large sample, I need to be able to collaborate and discuss any interviews done with other people in private, and likewise it is important that other interested researchers and skeptics be able to examine and potentially reclassify the ground truth types in order to fully evaluate the method. As such, the interviews will be recorded and shared privately for research purposes with some people I trust, but do not need to be publically available to the world as the other interviews on my blog are. Interviews must be done over voice, although video is preferred. 

This free interview service will not last forever, but probably this project will take a very long time.

The questionnaire is divided into five sections which can be taken separately and at different times (since the whole thing is quite long). All five sections must be completed. If you have already completed Vladimir Vincent's quadra research test, you do not need to complete the first section (labeled Section V).

Section V

Section R

Section L

Section P

Section T

To participate and schedule interviews, please first fill out the questionnaire with a good email address to contact you at, and I will contact you. If I do not get in touch with you after you complete the questionnaire, feel free to email me at aestrivex at gmail dot com.