don't come for me saying the 'girl boss' is too LIE I don't want to hear it!! lol if you have beef with it go argue with Beskova https://wikisocion.github.io/content/profile_beskova.html#sle-beskova

IEI Male coming soon

I saw a lot of different types for him, I saw SEE, ESI, EIE, SLE. What are your opinion ?

If someone is highly perceptive of what could go wrong or how someone's character could develop or potentially be in a different context or scenario, is this high or low Ne? It sounds conscious and inert to me. Very perceptive to alternatives and how one person or object could be in a different environment. But it's more about potentially negative outcomes instead of potentially good outcomes. It sounds too high dimensional for Ne polr. It also sounds too paranoid for Ne creative.

I've read up on the basics, took a test, investigated the type it gave me more thoroughly, yadda yadda. The description resonated a lot with me, but not necessarily in the superficial sense.

My big interest in the whole topology scene or whatever is the enneagram. That's the one I've studied deeply, I'm definitely confident in my typing there. I actually found out about socionics through the enneagram sub, mostly from randoms popping in and asking "can SEI/LII/LSI/XYZ be a 2/4/7/69???"

Over time with the natural overlap in typology communities, I kept seeing a theme pop up re: my enneagram type (8) and Ne-dom being an impossible/unlikely combo. Having read Jung's OG descriptions, the ones that only included a single function per "psychological type", I knew (based on those descriptions at least)... That's me, Mr. Ne.

I got ILE-2Ne on the test I took. Read the description, and like I said, it resonates. Seems to fit, at least in terms of how I experience myself internally. But when it comes to the more sort of interpersonal/behavioral descriptions, stuff like "how they come across", "what they're like in relationships", etc. I'm not as sure.

However, I (somewhat) ran into the same issue with enneagram initially. I'm a SO-dom/SP-repressed 8w7, with strong 5 and 2 fixes. I've also done a lot of therapy and all that, so. Generally speaking, I don't fit a lot of the stereotypes.

Which all just has me curious to hear from some people who know this system better than I currently do. How much weight would you say goes to specific interpersonal styles and/or behavioral patterns, as opposed to descriptions of the overall cognitive tendencies? How much variation is accounted for, either as a naturally occurring phenomenon or the result of effortful psychological growth?

Gimme your thoughts, if you're feeling it. My curiosity is piqued, and I've combed the dry text enough for now. I'd like to hear some more (informed) personal takes.

I read duality descriptions and it’s so hopeful and beautiful but it simultaneously also feels like this (gif attached) all of the time and I’m wondering if SLIs truly do enjoy our shenanigans and eccentricity or is that just in theory? 😭 I’m especially worried about first appearances in this case. Before I even knew about socionics I did kind of naturally gravitate towards SLI energy and I saw their personalities as very attractive but also VERY foreign like they’re from an entirely different planet. Does this go both ways?? I feel like I exude massive IEE energy and I get seen as very weird and overtly friendly at times. When I make up an imaginary SLI in my head and try to see through their eyes it feels like I’m looking at some weirdo crazy person. Do you guys naturally have an instant pull to your dual too or is it something that takes more time for you guys?? There’s a lot of cool SLI people I know but I just feel like they wouldn’t fw me because I’m so different from them

Please refrain from debating people about politics in the comments, and be respectful when explaining your views. I’m asking purely out of curiosity because I’ve noticed that certain Socionics types seem to align with certain political ideologies, and I’m interested in exploring whether there are any patterns. I’m not looking to start political arguments! :)

Edit: Guys, I literally learn nothing from you saying left-wing, right-wing, or centrist. Those labels alone tell me very little about your actual political views 😭 Also, please explain why you align with a particular ideology when commenting, or don’t comment at all.

you might be thinking "op, why did you put two dogs, they're just dogs-" let me explain.

for ESI:

kangal, a dog breed from turkiye, is one of the most loyal and dangerous dog breeds in the world. the first photo is pretty much ESI for me. it's taken after a wolf attack. kangal protected his pack. and the lamb is just thanking him. trust me, they're the embodiment of fi-se.

and swans. you might think they're just peaceful, but believe me they're not if you try to threaten them, or worse their spouse. so territorial, and jealous of their spouses. and they fall in love once.

for LIE:

albatros, them birds are not playing. they're monogamous, and they simply refuse to use more energy than necessary. they fly using the wind, not their wings. they fly for years without settling down. very si polr of them. also plus points for aura farming

and coyotes. these dudes never give up. you destroyed their habitats? too bad they already find an easier and more profitable way to eat food somewhere else. they just started another food chain for that too. they're relentless te-ni. also they don't really seek comfort, they just find somewhere to sleep, then they keep moving.

So, as the title implies, could you please rank me all of the socionics which can be ENTP MBTI?

Hello everyone! here I am today once more to bless you all with another in-depth description of bullshit Aushra wrote that is too conceptual and hardly practical. BUT THAT'S OKAY, because I'm here to change that, one document at a time.

(if I made a mistake somewhere please let me know)

Also i want to shamelessly plug my discord community which you are all invited to if you want to get typed through text (for free) as well as enjoying THE healthiest and MOST amazing typology community on discord, where we game, vc, and yap about typology! (It is for adults only so no one less than 18 allowed)

https://discord.gg/bUcetf36CU

Enjoy!

The whole ILE description by Ausra just made it seem like a person that their whole life mission is about guiding people to their full potential, when I have never met someone like this ever

Ne definition in other schools makes more sense to me but idk am I missing something?

hi! could you please take a look at this excerpt and suggest which type would be more likely to write something like this? which IME does it show, and in which positions?

thank you!

I find greetings tedious. Just think about it. Every single day, you walk through those halls, smile, shake people's hands, and say “hello.” And you repeat this process every single morning, over and over again. Why? What's the point? Is there another way? Can I, I don't know, say “good morning” once and have it last for six months, maybe?

I don't really have an issue with the act itself. It's just hard for me to understand why I have to do it every single day. This ritual serves no purpose and makes no sense to me. What do we even mean when we say “good morning”? Is it a wish, or are we simply acknowledging that the morning is good? If it's the latter, wouldn't it technically be better to assume that the morning is good by default and only acknowledge it when it's not? You'd save so much energy doing it this way. Wouldn't work if it's a wish, though.

Also, there are people who actually get offended if you forget to greet them. Can you imagine that? I'll never understand such people. Do they really think that if you don't tell them “good morning,” you don't actually wish them a good morning?

I wish there were a shortcut to this whole thing.

And this whole handshaking ritual is even weirder. Genuinely, I can never understand this. If I enter a room full of people and make the mistake of shaking hands with the person closest to me, do I really HAVE to go through everyone else, shaking their hands one by one? What if there are 200 people in that room? Goodness, what a drag. We sure love wasting time on pointless little things every day that lead nowhere.

Speaking of handshakes, there's a new guy who's been added to the team. A bright fella. Pretty active and full of enthusiasm. He reminds me of a friend of mine, so I automatically have a positive impression of him. There's just one small thing that spoils it, though.

He has the WEAKEST handshake ever.

I've never experienced a handshake this weak before. Usually, when you shake someone's hand, it's at least somewhat firm. You can feel the structure and core of a person through a handshake. This guy... his handshake felt like a squishy toy.

It left me with such a weird feeling. I don't understand why it's such an ick for me.

Anyway, what even is the point of shaking hands? Who even comes up with all these rules? Greetings, goodbyes, greetings, goodbyes, over and over again, every single day.

Does anyone actually enjoy this?

The tragic Victim rarely announces what she wants. Instead, she approaches her desires through the preferences of another person, disguising her own intentions beneath seemingly innocuous questions. The Beta Aggressor, by contrast, is often more comfortable establishing a direction, acting upon an immediate impulse, and treating a settled matter as precisely that: settled. These differences become particularly interesting when observed in the smallest exchanges, where neither individual is consciously attempting to demonstrate a particular interpersonal style.

Consider the tragic Victim and her friend, preparing to leave after spending an afternoon together. The tragic Victim has grown tired and wishes to return home. Yet rather than announcing her intention, she turns to her companion and asks, “Do you want to leave?” The question appears considerate. It grants the other person the freedom to express a preference and avoids imposing a decision upon them. But notice what has happened linguistically: the tragic Victim has replaced a statement about her own desire with a question about someone else’s. She does not say that she is tired, that she wants to leave, or that she has had enough for the day. She makes the other person’s preference the apparent subject of a decision that originated with her.

Perhaps she genuinely does not mind staying. Perhaps she is uncertain. Perhaps she simply wishes to be considerate. No isolated sentence can establish her motive. Yet when the same construction repeatedly appears across different situations, a pattern becomes worth examining.

She wants to visit a particular place, so she asks, “Do you want to go there?”

She wants to stop walking, so she asks, “Are you tired?”

She wants to end the evening, so she asks, “do you want to go home?”

Each question transfers the immediate decision to the other person, even when the underlying preference belongs to the tragic Victim herself. Her desire is present, but it appears indirectly, almost as though it requires external permission before it can be acknowledged.
Now imagine that her companion is another person inclined towards the same form of accommodation. The tragic Victim asks where they should go. Her friend replies, “Whatever you want.” The tragic Victim, unwilling to impose her preference, returns the courtesy: “No, whatever you want.”

And so they remain standing in the street, each attempting to be considerate enough to let the other decide.
What makes this exchange interesting is not that they are indecisive, as they know what they want. It is the social logic underlying the interaction. Both individuals behave as though expressing a preference risks imposing upon the other. Their courtesy becomes self-defeating: the more insistently they defer to one another, the less effectively either communicates what they actually want.
The tragic Victim has not necessarily relinquished her desires. She has simply approached their expression through the anticipated response of another person.
Now introduce the Beta Aggressor.

The same situation unfolds, but the interaction reaches an entirely different conclusion. The tragic Victim asks, “Do you want to leave?”

The Beta Aggressor looks at the time, notices that they have been standing outside for twenty minutes, and replies, “Come on, we’re leaving.”

There is no extended negotiation. The Beta Aggressor does not require the tragic Victim to formulate a complete argument for why leaving is reasonable. The decision is made, and the interaction moves forward.

Notice the difference between the two phrasings. “Do you want to leave?” opens a question whose answer may determine the direction of the encounter. “We’re leaving” establishes that direction immediately. The first invites a preference; the second communicates a decision.

In the Beta Aggressor’s case, this directness need not indicate indifference to the other person’s wishes.

Depending on the circumstances, it may reflect a conviction that a practical matter does not require further deliberation. Where the tragic Victim carefully negotiates the interpersonal implications of a decision, the Beta Aggressor may prioritise the decision itself.

One night, the tragic Victim and her Beta Aggressor relative are sitting near their church. He is already standing when she offers him some money and asks him to buy her a bottle of water with her money.

He looks at the money and tells her to keep it. Then he leaves to get the water anyway, not allowing room for her to negotiate.

The tragic Victim has approached the transaction according to an ordinary convention of reciprocity: she requires something, another person will obtain it, and therefore she offers payment. The exchange has a clear structure. Her money acknowledges that the other person’s time and effort have value.

The Beta Aggressor, however, does not accept the structure she has proposed. He does not take the money and complete the transaction as arranged. He rejects the payment, obtains the water, and returns as though the practical problem required no further discussion.
The significance lies in the small refusal: “Keep your money.”

Of course, refusing payment is not inherently an Aggressor characteristic. Friends and relatives of every personality type may do the same. The potentially relevant observation is the combination of immediate action, dismissal of the proposed transaction, and apparent unwillingness to prolong the exchange.

Then he returns with the water.

He explains that he already had cash in his pocket. He attempts to give her his spare coins because they are annoying him. The tragic Victim refuses: “No, no, they’re yours. Keep them!”

Her response is revealing in its own right. The practical issue has already been resolved, yet she reopens the question of ownership. She has received the water and has been told that she need not pay for it. Now she must also decide whether accepting the coins would violate the ordinary expectation that another person’s possessions should remain theirs.

The Beta Aggressor responds by putting the coins directly into her pocket.

The gesture is almost comically disproportionate to the disagreement. The tragic Victim continues to negotiate the propriety of accepting the money; the Beta Aggressor ends the negotiation physically. Where she attempts to resolve the disagreement through verbal reciprocity, he resolves it by making the intended outcome concrete.
The coins are no longer being offered. They are in her pocket.

This is the point at which the contrast becomes most vivid. The tragic Victim treats the exchange as an interpersonal negotiation in which both parties’ preferences and entitlements must be acknowledged. The Beta Aggressor treats it as a practical matter that has already reached its conclusion.

The same gesture can therefore be experienced differently by each person. The tragic Victim may feel compelled to refuse what she has not earned or repaid. The Beta Aggressor may regard her continued refusal as an unnecessary complication of an otherwise simple act of consideration.

Neither interpretation automatically establishes the individual’s underlying motivation. What matters for the present analysis is the observable difference in how each person approaches the interaction.

And this is precisely why I find the Victim and Aggressor romance styles interesting beyond romantic relationships.
This analysis draws upon comparisons between multiple individuals, using two people as illustrative examples. Their interactions provide a narrative through which I can examine the smaller behavioural distinctions that might otherwise disappear into abstract descriptions.

Perhaps the tragic Victim’s defining feature in these encounters is not that she cannot act, but that her own wishes become entangled with the question of how they will be received. Perhaps the Beta Aggressor’s defining feature is not simply assertiveness, but a tendency to remove that uncertainty by establishing a concrete direction.

One asks whether the other wishes to leave. The other announces that they are leaving.

One offers money to preserve reciprocity. The other refuses it, buys the water, and places the remaining coins in her pocket.

And in these seemingly insignificant exchanges, the two approaches to interpersonal interaction become visible.

The central hypothesis is that the Victim and Aggressor romance styles may describe recognisable patterns of interpersonal expression that extend beyond romantic attraction. Whether these patterns can be reliably identified and distinguished through systematic observation remains an empirical question, but their potential appearance in platonic relationships is worth examining.

So whenever I used to be into MBTI there was this concept that types could operate in their "shadow". So like for INFJ, if under enough stress, they would supposedly behave like an ESTP.

I used to resonate with that a bit because when I was a kid I was really sensitive, moody, and timid and then whenever I got to high school a switch kind of flipped. It was triggered by an experience I had where someone took advantage of my lower social status. And I vowed from that day I would conquer the social world. (I was 13 and I tried to buy weed for $200 and got sold oregano. Yes, it's funny now lol. But the older boys who sold it to me told everyone about it and it was a bit humiliating at the time.)

I was also quite neglected and mistreated in childhood so it was also likely a build up from years of feeling unseen and powerless.

There's this quote from Zamanskaya's IEI profile: "In childhood, Yesenins can be very different. From shy, modest, and obedient to headstrong, capricious, and bold." So I know this sort of swinging between behavioral extremes in adolescence has been observed by others in IEI.

So basically, I abandoned the timid, naive version of myself. I started taking opportunities wherever I could. Allowing my Se heavy friends drag me to parties. My main group consisted of an SEE, LSE, ESI, SEI, and SLE. And they were all equally as wild and determined, so I had a lot of Se firepower. They were always making connections/plans and I often didn't have to do much other than ride the wave they created.

I observed the social world and learned through trial and error how to act. I started doing things I knew would scare or thrill other people if they heard about them. I plastered my social media with images I knew would evoke certain impressions from others. I positioned myself socially, using whatever resources I had available with the end goal of creating an untouchable and desirable persona.

So when I was into MBTI and looking back at this behavior, I thought oh yeah that was my 'ESTP shadow'. But is this simply a function of the Ni-Fe ego block? Putting on a desired performance/persona? Is it just Beta quadra behavior in general? I'm just curious about the mechanics.

At the time, I knew how I wanted to come across and what I wanted to achieve long term socially and then I used my instincts and learned strategies to get there. To me this still lays firmly in the IEI ego block.

But there were times I wouldn't have been surprised if someone mistook me for an SLE, at least surface level. I was territorial, distrusting, imperturbable and clearly intolerant of feeling vulnerable.

Recently someone said we are most similar to our duals over any other type. And I think I at least half-way agree. Perhaps there are things that IEI and SLE share in common dichotomy or IME wise? Perhaps the charges of the IMEs themselves? (Fi-, Se-, etc.)

In the end I did succeed. I remember one night when I was 18 I went to a party with all the most popular kids from my high school and I expected them to treat me neutrally at best, but instead they were enthusiastic and inquired about me curiously. They treated me as an equal. This is what I had desired all along.

I suppose if I had to form a hypothesis it would be that this was Se seeking behavior expressed through the only tools an IEI has - Ni and Fe. Lacking true boundaries, self-esteem, and connection, I sought to fulfill those needs through self-destructive and superficial avenues.

So, yeah, thoughts? Do you think there's any merit in the MBTI theory or is it just complete misinterpretation? Perhaps people were simply observing shared quadra behavior without knowing it? And can anyone else relate to this for their own type?

____________

And before someone wants to come judge me for this behavior, no it was not fulfilling or something I recommend others partake in. It was a survival strategy. So don't come at me, alright?

im early today!!! stereotypical. no photos together. im getting lazy. ILI as raven, SEE as lion.

Need help. How to know whether youre NC or CN. I'm constantly flickering between being very orderly, rule-following, and disciplined to ​ being super chaotic, explorative, and undisciplined.

I'm EII-Ne if that helps.

I'm an IEI. So I'm in a new class of 20 people for financial management and this teacher walks in. Obvious SLI from the way he acts. The thing is, I find the way he explains things in class hard to understand. Aka he tends to give monologues which overcomplicates things and is outside of the syllabus.

Class participation is worth 20% of the grade. So I tried to raise my hand or answer but either he's already calling on someone else, endlessly monologuing or I'm not sure what the answer is so someone else is faster / I'm hesitant to be wrong. He said even if you give a bad answer that's still counted as participation though. ​​

First time I didn't hear he called someone else (I asked my IEE friend if he asked someone then she just stayed silent) ​​​​​so I raised my hand to answer. Then he told me to give the other person a chance.

Another time ​​I was eager to answer so I raised my hand but realised the answer was already on the board. And he said that.

I did manage to engage in dialogue twice though. And he seems to give me eye contact. ​I try to look as engaged as possible.

Anyways, I feel quite incompetent in his class. The thing is, my IEE friend understands him just fine and can answer fast. Any tips on how to stand out? Besides doing good quality work of course. I'm an overachiever so I need that A haha... ​​I mean all I can think of is just asking him questions to clarify my understanding. I'm quite stressed over this because I'm not sure what to do. I feel like I'm endlessly waiting for the right time to raise my hand. Any advice on what SLIs like? ​Or am I coming across as too desperate. I'm scared of making a fool out of myself ​

yeah, i couldn't think of a pair better than this, and they didn't have pics together. im sad. the perfectionist in me is weeping, what a tragedy. EIE as peacock and LSI as falcon.

please give me your thoughts on different animals of this dual pair. im drained 😔

Struggled a bit in a few sections

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oQDtPh6kONaNvQ9YAGnlSQb2uJh8kipQ074W8MxJVlM/edit?usp=drivesdk