"Looking-Glass" Socionics

This paper contains an attempt to construct the traditional socionic model using an alternative set of functions.

Since Jung, it has been customary to classify logic and ethics as rational functions, and sensing and intuition as irrational ones. Indeed, at first sight this position appears quite unambiguous. Rationality means a sequence in which the elements are connected to one another. In the case of logic, we consider a logical connection, an algorithm that orders facts and connects them to one another within a particular structure - Ti, or, conversely, “unfolds” a structure into a sequence of actions - Te. In the case of ethics, an emotional connection between subjects is considered, in which a subject either transmits their state to others - expression, Fe, or, conversely, receives it from others - empathy, Fi.

Irrationality, by contrast, means the absence of sequence and connections, in which the individual element itself, with its particular characteristics, comes to the fore. In the case of intuition, we consider the subject’s informational potential, knowledge of the external world (Ne), or the subject’s ability to perceive information from the external world through changes in the unconscious inductively elicited by the movement of that information - Ni. In the case of sensing, the subject’s material potential is considered, their ability to concentrate possessions around themselves - Se, or their ability to perceive the properties of material objects through bodily sensations arising from changes in the body at the moment of direct contact with these objects - Si.

The initial arrangement is clear. However, is it really so unambiguous?

Let us imagine a system in which sensing and intuition are rational functions and are responsible for a sequence of attitudes and actions, while logic and ethics are irrational and associated with spontaneity and individual adaptability. Thus, instead of the 8 classical functions, there will be 8 alternative ones here. Instead of the familiar Ni, for example, there will be Ni prime (Ni’). Like classical Ni, Ni’ is an intuitive, central, and dynamic function; however, it is not irrational and introverted, but, conversely, rational and extraverted. Te’, like Te, will be dynamic, serious logic, but introverted and irrational. Similarly, all the other functions will also have extraversion/introversion and irrationality/rationality polarities opposite to those of the classical functions.

The content of the 8 new functions is as follows:

Rational functions:

Ni’, “intuition of constructing the future” - a function that creates an image of the desired future and endows it with ideal features, so that it becomes a dominant factor determining the individual’s behavior; it is responsible for the ability to advance purposefully toward the desired future under conditions of high uncertainty; it is associated with an interest in situations and activities combining high risks and substantial opportunities deferred into the future; with “probing” possible future trajectories through provocations; with constant dissatisfaction with what has been achieved; with a readiness for extreme exertion, struggle, overcoming oneself, and heroic actions (up to and including self-sacrifice), and with avoidance of a relaxed and pleasure-filled but aimless (“petty-bourgeois”) existence.

Ne’, “intuition of preserving possibilities” - a function of consistently protecting existing possibilities against their improvident squandering and transformation into a consumable resource; it is responsible for the capacity for self-restraint in personal consumption and aspirations concerning material possessions and status for the sake of ideal values perceived as eternal; it is associated with low self-esteem (against the background of which the value of the rest of the world subjectively increases); with a desire to leave something behind and pass it on to other people, and with an interest in altruistic self-denying service; with rejection of the values of consumer society (“take everything from life - here and now, without thinking about the consequences”); but also with weakness in the individual’s competitive, “go-getting” qualities, an absence of pronounced personal desires, and depressiveness.

Si’, “sensing of care” - a function of regular sensory care for the surrounding material world; it is responsible for the desire to correct abnormal deviations that arise (illnesses, an unkempt appearance) not only in oneself but also in surrounding people and objects; it is associated with energy and optimism, with a striving for a healthy, physically active lifestyle; with the ability to maintain the rhythm of routine activity, but also with the inertia of this rhythm, the inability to rise above everyday life and assess the efforts being made in terms of their prospects or lack of prospects over a long period of time.

Se’, “sensing of protection” - a function of adherence to principle in maintaining one’s surroundings in their familiar, unchanged state; it is responsible for forceful defense of one’s established way of life, one’s property, and one’s territory against any encroachments from outside; it is associated with conservatism, attachment to familiar settings, surroundings, home and/or workplace; with suspicion toward the new and unfamiliar (the new is rejected as a precaution, as a possible source of threat); in general - with detailed perception of static configurations: such that even minor deviations from the familiar norm are registered and evoke a desire to eliminate them.

Irrational functions:

Ti’, “logic of independence” - a function of independence of thought, the absence within it of constraining attitudes imposed by society; it is responsible for speed and flexibility of thought, the ability to make decisions without outside assistance, the ability to anticipate and neutralize others’ logic in argument and confrontation, to seek out weak points and “loopholes” in existing systems and laws and use them to destroy these systems, the ability to build systems adequate to the task at hand from scratch, balancing emerging contradictions as the situation requires; it is associated with a predisposition toward antisociality (the world is perceived as a “wild jungle” in which one must rely only on oneself and develop one’s own strength, knowledge, speed of thought and action, as well as the ability to create and use weapons).

Te’, “logic of expediency” - a function of independence of action, the absence of synchronization of one’s actions with those of other people; it is responsible for covert observation of processes occurring around oneself and for quietly directing events along the required course without others noticing; for the ability to use existing tools as efficiently as possible and without unnecessary expenditure of energy; it is associated with asociality of an introverted kind - dispassion, avoidance of expressive behavior of any kind; with an interest in activities that other members of society avoid because of their outward unattractiveness, but which are nevertheless important for that society’s survival.

Fi’, “ethics of contacts” - a function of attention to another person’s individuality as a set of stable traits; it is associated with the ability to understand other people’s individual characteristics and the motives for their actions, with a talent for establishing informal interpersonal contacts; but also with chaotic and illogical thinking (since it ignores typical, recurring elements of reality) and impulsiveness of behavior.

Fe’, “ethics of impressions” - a function of attention to nuances of other people’s behavior; it is associated with the ability to adjust flexibly to other people emotionally, the ability to put them at ease and “charm” them; but also with an inability to act purposefully over a long period of time (since it ignores typical, recurring events that form the main “stream of reality”), and with seeking patronage.

As you can see, the “black” functions here are introverted, and the “white” ones are extraverted.

On the basis of this classification, let us try to construct Model A within it.

Let us take, for example, the ESE type.

The leading function of the ESE must be extraverted and dynamic. Of the 8 new functions, Ni’ and Si’ satisfy this condition. Since the ESE is a sensing type, its leading function is obviously Si’. The creative function is opposite to the leading function in its extraversion/introversion and rationality/irrationality polarities; in this case, Te’ and Fe’ are candidates for this role, and, since the ESE is an ethical type, it is Fe’. Continuing further, we construct the entire model:

1. Si’ - leading (see the definition of Si’ in the list above)
2. Fe’ - creative (creative adjustment to society’s emotional state, can read other people’s mood and improve it, sees the need to develop this quality in themselves)
3. Ni’ - role (when establishing new contacts, is prepared to be accommodating, to sacrifice some of their interests for the sake of future relationships, is capable of a one-off provocation - for the sake of initiating communication, etc.)
4. Te’ - vulnerable (is unable to act in isolation from others, dislikes those who conceal their intentions and activities)
5. Ne’ - suggestive (likes idealists who invariably follow an idea even when doing so runs counter to personal gain - because they have a clear and unambiguous program concerning what should be striven for at a global level)
6. Ti’ - mobilizing (is activated by someone else’s logical initiative, even if it is not approved by tradition - but is objectively needed; likes people who possess independence of judgment and action, who are prepared to go against society’s opinion if it is clearly wrong)
7. Se’ - ignoring (although they are skilled at managing household affairs, their possessive instinct is nevertheless muted; on the contrary, they are hospitable)
8. Fi’ - demonstrative (can unobtrusively enter into communication with people, arrange contacts for themselves and others, without particularly focusing on this topic).

Similarly, a model can be constructed for any other type. As we can see, in the new coordinate system, the left and right blocks of Model A have exchanged places for all types - that is, the model as a whole has become the same as that of the mirror type (of course, taking into account the changed extraversion/introversion and rationality/irrationality polarities of the functions). This is precisely why I called this system of functions “looking-glass” :)

It is not difficult to see that, as a result of this restructuring, the entire system of intertype relations has also undergone changes. Thus, for all types, the semi-dual and mirage partners, and the kindred and business partners, have exchanged places, while the rings of benefit and supervision (attention!) have reversed direction.

For example, the ILE’s leading function will be Ti’, its creative function Ne’, and its vulnerable function Se’. The EII’s leading Ne’ corresponds to the ILE’s creative function, whereas the ILE’s leading Ti’ corresponds to the EII’s vulnerable Ti’. Thus, the ILE becomes the EII’s supervisor. On the other hand, however, the LSI’s leading Se’ will correspond to the ILE’s vulnerable Se’, while the ILE’s leading Ti’ corresponds to the LSI’s creative Ti’. Therefore, in the new system, the ILE becomes the LSI’s supervisee.

And so on and so forth.

Now, the questions themselves.

1. Are there any premises that give the classical version of socionics (and of the socion) greater priority over the “looking-glass” version? Apart from the tradition going back to Jung? What else can explain, for example, the priority of the traditional direction of the asymmetric relations of benefit and supervision over the reverse direction?

2. If both versions of the socion are on an equal footing, then it is probably worth taking a closer look and considering which of the two versions it makes sense to use in which cases.

   For example, it seems to me that “looking-glass” socionics will better describe the relationships between types with a creative accentuation - that is, those variants of these types in which the primary and most salient trait is a deficiency in the vulnerable function (in the classical interpretation), while the leading function, on the contrary, is not so prominently expressed and does not appear so excessive.

Copileft Ivan Romanov, Saint Petersburg, 2019

The article was first published on Socioforum in May 2017.

The author permits free reproduction of the material on this page provided that a hyperlink to the source is included.

Subsequently, the author did find some considerations as to why the socion is nevertheless asymmetric in terms of the unidirectionality of the relations of supervision and benefit, and set them out in the article “On the Values of Dual Pairs”.