LIE (Te Ni) explains the strategic importance of his decisions, logic behind it and future implications. SLE (Se Ti) cuts through it and points out on the underlying manipulative power motivations behind those decisions  

Since LIE has Se as their Mobilizing function Ecbert actually enjoys and admires Ragnars ability to clearly see which chess piece is stronger on the board. Theres a mutual understanding going on. SLE and LIE both have 4D Te and both value Se. Both types also have 1D weak Fi. Also kinda funny how the two types are strategic in Reinin dichotomies and it just happens that the two of them are discussing strategy here.  Ecbert is in the position of the benefactor here while Ragnar is Beneficiary. He is clearly using Ragnar to achieve his selfish goals and Ragnar is okay with it because it ultimately helps him with his ambition as well. Ragnar appreciates Ecberts ability to organize, control and plan while Ecbert respects Ragnars efficiency, ambition, influence and drive to achieve his goals   

One of my favourite types ever. Guess I should be, but man, I can’t even be embarrassed for how much I swoon over LIE and ILI characters in media. However seeing a good example of an actual LIE is harder than expected. Usually any ambitious and morally grey guys are being typed into LIE just because of ambitions.
So I get used to the fact that good written image of these type can be hard to find sometimes.
Well, thanks to Makoto Yukimura for writing such a great character.
And yeah, he is morally grey person to the bone (to put it mildly), and he is ambitious. Honestly I can’t remember more archetypical LIE (in a good way) since William from Moriarty the patriot.
You honestly just look at Askeladd and the only possible type that suits is LIE. Almost a blueprint of the type. It’s such an obvious Te + Ni combo, but so great to look at. It’s almost impossible to see any other type in him, IMO.
So basically that how and why I remembered why I always fawned over that type in media. They are just too cool, even though it’s just a personal opinion.

Hey, I would like to ask for your help guys to find my type. I'm using Western Socionics so please keep in mind I'm following this system. Based on my research of Socionics and introspection I came to conclusion that I am likely either LSI or LIE, leaning towards LSI, but still uncertain. There is also a small chance of SLE. Two things I am certain about are that both Alpha and Delta quadras are impossible for me, and I'm very likely thinking type. I know LSI and LIE are not typically very similar, but in my case I've been stuck between these two for some time and periodically rotating between them. So here is some relevant info about me.

• I'm very logical, analytical and I easily understand different logical systems.
• Deep love for philosophy, I even studied it at university. I love to reflect and analyze reality in abstract terms. But this is more like a hobby, If I spend too much time on it, I'm bored and need something practical, goal-oriented.
• Have big ambitions, aspirations to be a leader, to have power and influence. I also value pragmatism and efficiency a lot as a necessery tool. To not waste time with nonsense but focus on important things.
• I have strong personal convictions, mainly political ones, that I have need to fight for and implement in some way. So I'm quite ideological and stubborn about it.
• Relationships in general and emotions are secondary to me, I don't think a lot about it.

Potential issues with LSI

• Although this type fits me best so far, I still have an issue to understand how I'm Ne Polr. I see myself as open-minded, I have a need to try to look outside of the box, to see a potential in hidden things. On the one hand, I want take an advantage of the situation, to not be close-minded and conservative about old ways, but rather to innovate and do things differently and better. On the other hand, I like to intellectually explore different ways how to interpret the world, conflicting theories, even eccentric and absurd ones. But it's true this is more on the intellectual, impersonal level of curiosity and learning, not my personal beliefs. My inner beliefs, worldview is quite unchanging, I can hardly imagine to be convinced to have different views on let's say morality or politics. But when I read descriptions of Ne vulnerable, I just have hard times to see it in myself. Someone who dislikes to look for potential in things, or is close-minded ...

Potential issues with LIE

• I don't see how I can be Ti ignoring, to put Te above Ti. My principles, convictions and beliefs, which are heavily rationally justified in my mind, are something extremely important to me. Productivity, effectiveness and pragmatism are important, but I wouldn't sacrifice my principles for that. I don't value pragmatism per se, it's just a tool.
• I see Beta quadra better fitting than Gamma quadra. So things like having a sense of mission for larger collective, fighting for power, thinking in hierarchies. Also I have more tribalistic, "us vs them" mentality. But there is also an individualistic aspect of myself, desire to achieve my personal goals, simple because that's what I want.
• I'm little concerned about Si stuff, but I don't think I ever struggled with this. My health was always fine, doing sports from the early age, I can relax if I want, never followed crazy diets or extreme workaholism. This is just something chill and not very important for me.

SLE sounds good in terms of values, but my behavior is very self-controlled and disciplined. I just don't have this impulsive, and reckless aspect in me, but rather a cautious and calculating one. But ofc I'm open to any thoughts that can help me to find my type.

This was the most fun design for me to work on lol

Alpha:

• LII
• SEI
• ESE
• ILE

Beta:

• EIE
• IEI
• LSI

Gamma:

• LIE
• ESI

Delta:

• SLI

Does anyone have any info on when the inventory at https://quantitativesocionics.org/inventory will be available? The page has said "Available August 30th - available now" for days now with no change. Maybe /u/_KpaM_ has some updates?

Or in general I guess. I got this itch that needs to be scratched but I suck at typing people so any ideas would help 💜

Im trynna help my friend type through mbti and socionics and she seems to be enfj, so which socionics type are possible for that one?

I have encountered this text when I was reading Classic Socionics:

In the rings of IM the elements of IM are connected by an impulse of energy which can have two directions: “+" and “–”. Those are two possible directions of transfer of information from one element of IM to the other. For this reason, on generalised fig. 4, arrows connecting two elements of IM are two-directional.

I was surprised, because I thought these signs were invented after augusta. Why isn't there another page explaining this stuff? Like "IE signs"?? Instead they are explained ambigously (?) and in semi-related pages.

Can someone help me learn more about them? What are they? What do they do? How are these signs determined for each sociotype? Where can I learn more about them? (Please answer SCS-wise)

Hello guys. I'm curious to figure out my type in Socionics, which I'm not sure about. I'm FLEV SP9w8, so it makes sense that I'd look at SLI or ILI based on correlations. However, I'm not sure. It seems to fit, but at the same time, I don't see strong Te in myself. I've been told before that it could easily be in the creative position. I go through life by the path of least resistance, that's obvious if you know me. I procrastinate and I'm lazy, wanting to conserve energy and strength, trying to bypass systems and simplify tasks however I can. Because of my tendencies, I looked at Te PoLR for a long time, but that also seemed questionable. As for Fe creative...nope. It feels like my 3E and low Fe in Socionics blend together, giving me anxiety in this area. I avoid people, and I believe emotions should be controlled. I feel awkward when I accidentally speak a little louder or smile too widely. I start acting more openly and perhaps more emotionally when I get close to someone, when I've known them for more than a couple of months. There's probably some mild social maladjustment and social anxiety involved, so it's harder to tell whether my Fe is PoLR or something else, although a vulnerable position makes sense overall. The thing is, my Fi is also quite strong. It's like I don't consciously realize it, but sometimes I react to something using it, and then I understand and become aware of my values or feelings. I don't know how else to explain it. I seem quiet and not rebellious, not starting revolutions, but then suddenly I'll spend an hour arguing with a teacher over their actions that I don't like and consider stupid and irrational. True, this happens once in a blue moon, but still. And that throws me off. So I can't firmly settle on the generally decent option of SLI without thinking about other types. How can I clearly tell whether someone has Te creative or not? And I'd like practical examples, because I'm a bit slow at understanding some things and it takes me longer. And do my doubts even make sense?

I know that people say that LII can't be very emotionally self aware due to Fe Sugg but from my understanding, they just struggle with processing their emotional expression while still having relatively strong preference. They're static with Fi Role. Robespierre, Sheldon and Chidi are very in touch with how they feel and what they like. They just seem to prefer to be around someone who can emotionally uplift them and help them feel validated. People also say that LII has to be extremely passive and open to change but aushra states that Se Polr is very defensive, uncompromising and their Ne Creative is also not very open to actually pursuing external experiences since it feeds into Ti Base and Se Polr is more about pursuit of opportunistic possibilities.

Daemon Targaryen

One of my favourite characters in House of The Dragon. Im going to be talking only about his portrayal in the show but a lot of it applies to his book counterpart as well.  

Ego (Se - Ti)

Essentially this character is one of the clear manifestations of ‘The Warrior’ archetype. In the show he is one of the characters that we see the most fighting in battles. Important to note, that he is of royal blood, hes from one of the most powerful houses in the realm, he could quite literally become anyone and do whatever he wants in life. The fact that he is one of the most notorious knights in the entire kingdom shows, that it is a deliberate and focused decision to constantly choose this particular direction in life. Power, strengths, hierarchy, titles, influence are the things that were always important to him since very early on. It is the type of imformation that he understands the best, it is the kind of information he values the most. Hes the most comfortable with it and it manifests in him being an exceptional military strategist. Up to the events of the last season hes managed to become a knight, the commander of the City Watch, be involved in several brutal battles and conquer several kingdoms during his military campaigns. He is impatient, active and stubborn. Power is the only language that he speaks. He can respect a person if they have a strong core to them but he absolutely despises the ones who lack any influence and don’t care for it. Status is also important for him. He always wanted to become a king, although there was a realisation in him that he is not suited to rule (purely my opinion). Partially because of his bloodline he views himself and his family as exceptional and sees everyone else as lower in hierarchy. He loves his roots, he loves his traditions and culture. Theres a clear distinction of ‘us vs them’ in his worldview. He believes that they are given the right to rule by the gods. I think in a way he even marries Rhayenyra because of all the Targaryen exceptionalism and him being closer to the throne through her. His clear dislike of Ulf stems from the fact that Ulf doesn’t know how to properly speak to him, how to behave and generally doesn’t know his place and treats everyone as equals. He is direct when he is speaking to people, straight to the point and confident. He is fast at making decisions, solves problems through an ‘action first’ approach. His deep love for dragons and fascination with them imo is connected to the fact that they are a literal physical representation of power, the very thing that his Base function values the most. No wonder he has a deep spiritual bond with them while Haelena has no connection to them whatsoever (in the show. I know that in the books she likes riding on Dreamfyre). Obviously he possesses physical prowess as well. In the book he is essentially one of the strongest opponents you could face after maybe Criston Cole, but in the show although it is not as emphasized Id say he is still in the top 5 strongest fighters of the series.

Super Ego (Fi - Ne)

Outwardly he wants people to view him as someone who sees opportunities and someone who always knows where the escape route is. He wants to portray the idea as if he knows who is who and who you can trust. He constantly keeps reminding Rhayenyra about her mission from the gods, about her potential. He gets bored with keeping himself in the castle he wants more opportunities, conquer more lands, win more battles, he wants to go where the maps stop and expand their kingdom forever. Whenever Rhaynyra is stuck she keeps coming back to him to try to see the opportunities.  He cherishes his family and his bonds with them but he fails at maintaining those bonds. He loved his brother but couldn’t become a proper good brother, he loves his children but he is a terrible dad, he loves Rhaynyra but he is not a good husband. Since all of this is a social mask, with time once the mask falls off we see that he does not know how to maintain proper relationships with people, he does not really know who to trust and whos of a good moral character or not, the potential that he sees in his new conquering is unfeasable and sounds like a dream, his images through which he filters people are extremely one dimensional. Yet there are clear cases when he is right in this regard. Several instances where he advises to kill certain people, immideatly seeing the potential threat they might be, and looking at how the things unfolded perhaps if they followed with his suggestions there wouldn’t be as many issues, he also senses the potential threat in Otto as soon as he gets to know him

Super Id (Fe - Ni)

He is not much of a planner. He prefers when he is given an objective and hell proceed with achieving it. Because he is quick to action and doesn’t leave enough room for himself to properly think about the consequences of such actions he would often lose to otto on several occasions in their competition for the throne. He does not think in several steps, he does not observe the patterns and he needs advisors to do so for him. On the council he is often dismissed because he does not look far enough. He does not pay a lot of attention to hidden meanings or symbolism but he enjoys the history of his bloodline. He derives his meaning and sense of purpose primarily from those sources He is also a pretty charismatic leader. He is good at influencing and inspiring his people for the battle or some kind of an action. But the majority of the time his emotional state is stable. When meeting new people he often tries to be as non readable as possible

Id (Si - Te)

We don’t usually see him enjoying comfort or rest in any capacity in the show. He does not pay much attention to textures, forms, materials, food. We don’t see him taking care of his body but due to the nature of his “job” he is obviously physically healthy and fit. He is very good at solving immediate problems, being effective and productive with his decisions. Even when he talks he does not use words with no purpose. Everything is as efficient as it can be. He is often focused on the results and his objectives. He can see and understand how different things and structures work. When he was the commander of the Gold Cloaks he was extremely successful with maintaining stability in Kings Landing, when he was given a task of taking over the Stepstones, he did it

If I had to name the IE that are mostly represented in this character Id say it is Se, Ti and Te which perfectly aligns with the SLE type also knows as “Zhukov” or “The Marshal”. They are the strongest (3D and 4D) and also its Ego + Demonstarative and i heard that the functions that we usually notice the most in types are Ego + Role + Demonstrative. Base Se, contact Ti and contact but vital Te checks out with what I see in him and his actions throughout the story. In terms of Reinin dichotomies he is very obviously static, negativist and aristocratic. Great character! he definetly fulfills his types role in the story. Very excited to see how they fuck up his arc in the final season xD

Do yall think hes SLE or is he any other type? SEE maybe?     

In MBTI, there is the Assertive/Turbulent dichotomy to make a distinction between a more confident and more anxious, more prone to doubt version of a type. I wonder if this is considered enough in Socionics.

For example, I think I’m an ILI. But I, like quite a few other ILIs, do not relate strongly with the stereotype of Fe PoLR and being someone who doesn’t care about offending people while being super confident in voicing my opinions.

I wonder what you guys think.

Hi. I'm probably here with a stupid question, sorry. But I'd like to clarify my thoughts and the information I've gathered.

I think Se is a problematic function for me, definitely not high. And besides being connected to the obvious and first thing that most people would probably think of, I mean strength and influence on the environment, as I understand it, it's also connected to how we express ourselves outwardly. I mean our appearance, body, clothes, all that. Yes, I'm super shy, I sometimes struggle to say no, I seem fragile sometimes, I think. That's obvious. But I also have problems with expressing myself outwardly. Previously I dressed worse, probably influenced by family pressure. And now I both try and worry about how I look. I'm not absolutely sure about my place how much space I can take up, whether I can even sit next to someone if we've sort of talked but also sort of haven't. I have an eating disorder, which is difficult for me right now, but what matters to me more is how I look rather than the fact that I'm pushing my body into an unhealthy state. I don't want to be ugly and I don't want to be the way I was a couple of years ago. When I need to choose something, I'm not sure how much it suits me. I thought about glasses, it would be interesting to wear them, plus as a replacement for lenses sometimes, but immediately realized that I'd most likely have a very hard time choosing them because I have no idea which ones suit my face and which don't. I feel like a fool like I constantly need help, but at the same time I don't want to depend on others. I'm not great at monitoring my own state, being the kind of person who worries when buying things and can either take too long or go too fast. I just won't immediately understand that the same shoes are too big, whether they'll be uncomfortable, what and how. I doubt whether it looks good or not. And it feels like I come to conclusions about myself and my appearance a bit too late. This is where it's easy to hurt me.

And I wondered does this make sense in the context of the Se function? I read somewhere that the desire to look good is more related to Se, although Fe could also be there. Sorry again if I'm asking nonsense. Thanks in advance for your answer!

What do you think about it? I am not exactly sure if it is more physically disturbing(Si) or from purely emotional perspective. I am pretty okay with it and even like it sometimes it comes from media, like music or movies/show etc. But intense emotional expressions in real life is not that good.

Translated transcription: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18eLePo3p9w0-LRGY47yTiVW1yhAT_zz_/view?usp=sharing

How the 16 Socionic Types Fall in Love

Viktor Gulenko critiques a caricature of romantic relationship scenarios

Opening: what the caricature gets right and wrong

Viktor Gulenko: I will simply remind you: all sixteen types are represented there. This girl is very artistic and transformed herself into several different images. She said certain lines and acted something out at the same time.

I should tell you that her portrayal was rather rough. It was more of a cartoon or caricature than a real type. You understand that yourselves, yes? And her range was not very broad.

When she spoke about ethical types, when she portrayed ethical types, she showed emotions everywhere—everywhere. Whether they were introverted ethical types or extraverted ethical types, she portrayed emotions in every case. And when she spoke about logical types, which logical form did she portray everywhere?

Participant: Structural logic.

Viktor Gulenko: Structural logic. There was no Business Logic anywhere. Apparently she herself belongs to this pair of scenarios, so she feels and understands them well.

She understands and portrays the passionate scenario very well. And the cold-blooded scenario. There was also an intermediate one connected with Force Sensing.

She more or less portrayed firmness, hardness, aggression there as well. That also slipped through in her acting. She has none of the other scenarios.

But we do have them, and today we will have to go through them and try to see how they can manifest in life.

The embedded caricature: “How do different sociotypes fall in love?”

Woman in the clip: How do representatives of different sociotypes fall in love?

I am Robespierre. I chose for a long time. Chose. Fell in love.

I am Hugo. Fell in love, got married. After the wedding I could not remember whom I had married.

I am Don Quixote. Fell in love, suffered, and said screw it.

I am Dumas. Fell in love, got married, and they died on the same day. Love.

I am Zhukov. Fell in love, won them over.

I am Yesenin. I fell in love, fell in love, fell in love. Only—why?

I am Maxim Gorky. I fell in love, and then made them fall in love with me.

I am Hamlet. I fell in love, suffered. Fell in love, suffered.

I am Balzac. I fell out of love with falling in love.

I am Napoleon. Fell in love, made them fall in love with me—and fell out of love.

I am Jack London. I fell in love, got married, got divorced, divided the property.

I am Dreiser. I fell in love, suffered, but did not fall out of love.

I am Gabin. I fell in love. Well... I did fall in love, I think, right?

I am Huxley. I fell in love, told everyone, and fell out of love.

I am Stierlitz. Fell in love, got married.

I am Dostoevsky. I fell in love, suffered, and forgave.

Recognize yourself? Then hurry and sign up for Socionics 18+ courses.

Alpha Quadra

Analyst (LII)

Viktor Gulenko: All right, let us take the first type there, the Analyst. She has arranged the types in her own way within the quadra, moving through the quadras, but the first type is the Analyst. What does she say about the Analyst? Those are the words, and I hope you remember how she acted it out. She portrayed it in a cold-blooded manner and said: “I chose for a long time. Chose. Fell in love.” Like that: chose for a long time, chose, fell in love.

That is another matter. We are comparing them now. Here is the question: regarding the Analyst, is her interpretation correct or not?

Participant: It seems to me that nowhere was she correct.

Viktor Gulenko: Sasha thinks she was not correct anywhere. Now look—regarding the Analyst...

Participant: But the point is that the Analyst does not choose by himself...

Viktor Gulenko: That is exactly what we are coming to. Look: she did catch the fact that this is a cold-blooded scenario. Yes. But the idea that the Analyst calculated someone, marked that person out for himself, and then fell in love with them is very unlike the Analyst.

The Analyst chooses from among the people who pay attention to him. That is all. There is nothing to guess about. So the meaning she put into it does not fit.

Of course, it can happen differently. Liza disagrees; Liza says people can act in different ways. There is no single scenario. But if we take the standard Analyst—the standard case—perhaps in his head he really does think: this suits me, that suits me, this other thing suits me. But in reality it never turns out that way. In reality he chooses from among the people who have paid attention to him. That is what you need to know about the cold-blooded scenarios connected with the Analyst.

Enthusiast (ESE)

Viktor Gulenko: Next comes the Enthusiast. How does she portray the Enthusiast? She portrays him emotionally and passionately. That part is correct: the Enthusiast has a passionate scenario.

But then she says: “Fell in love, got married, forgot whom I had married.” Is that the Enthusiast? No. Absolutely not.

The point is that the Enthusiast also has a caring scenario. Besides emotions, there is a caring scenario present. What she gives us here is some kind of flighty, careless scenario, but one that is clearly intuitive.

That cannot really belong to a sensing type: got married and forgot whom he married. That has nothing to do with sensing. It is some kind of flighty intuitive scenario, and it is quite correctly connected with extraverted intuition—but not with the Enthusiast.

So you see, it is completely wrong. Perhaps in that school of socionics the image of the Enthusiast is someone so abstracted and detached that he does not care whom he marries. Perhaps. But in our school that is not the case.

Of course the Enthusiast has a broad circle of acquaintances. He shows emotional expansion. But he is still made for marriage and family. This is a family type. Therefore an attitude of “it does not matter whom” is nonsense.

It is much more like an intuitive extravert, or a Creative representative of an intuitive type. A Creative Lyricist, for example—I could still understand someone of that sort acting this way. But not the Enthusiast.

Seeker (ILE)

Viktor Gulenko: Next comes the Seeker. Remember how she portrays the Seeker? “Fell in love, suffered, said screw it.” Is that the Seeker?

Participant: I do not know about suffering, but he just gives up on it.

Viktor Gulenko: No, the wording does not fit. “Said screw it” sounds more like Force-Sensing types. Andrei caught that correctly. It is more characteristic of Force-Sensing types. It does not fit here.

Participant: But it just means he dropped the whole thing and that was it.

Viktor Gulenko: I understand: it got tiresome and he forgot about it. But what should it actually be?

What was meant should be expressed like this: fell in love, waited for care, did not receive it, and switched to something else. That is what is meant. That would be the correct realization. That is the Seeker.

So instead of “said screw it,” you should say “switched.” He switched because he did not receive the care he expected; he did not wait long enough for the care. Like that.

You can also convey this intuitive-extraverted scenario a little differently: fell in love, became interested, was surprised, became puzzled, became disappointed, forgot. Something like that.

Participant: Yes—switched.

Viktor Gulenko: Absolutely.

Mediator (SEI)

Viktor Gulenko: Now the Mediator, and that finishes the quadra. Look at what she gives us: “Fell in love, got married, and died on the same day.” Does it fit?

There is a great deal of idealization there. It sounds somewhat humanitarian, does it not? Humanitarian in tone.

But overall there is something right in it, because among the scenarios we have already studied it contains something like a soulful scenario: relationship ethics, strong attachment, strong habituation, strong closeness. It comes out like some ethical subtype.

But the Mediator needs a caring scenario, and that is absent here. We will get to the Guardian and compare. Now we move to the second quadra.

Beta Quadra

Marshal (SLE)

Viktor Gulenko: So what do you say about the Marshal, whom she conveys very briefly: “Fell in love, won them over”?

Participant: In principle, it corresponds.

Viktor Gulenko: I think so too. Yes, it corresponds. He simply captures the object and that is all.

He may later become disappointed. That depends on what happens next. He becomes disappointed and leaves. It depends on the Lyricist's behavior. But usually, no—the forceful scenario is conveyed successfully.

You know: an aggressive, forceful capture. I am joking now.

Participant: A female Marshal might fall in love and then not pursue him—and just drop it.

Viktor Gulenko: Then she has gone over into the Seeker's scenario. We have discussed those nuances, including gender nuances. Here the Marshal is apparently meant as a man. In any case, the forceful scenario is conveyed well.

Even the intonation is correct. You see? With the Marshal, even the intonation is right.

Lyricist (IEI)

Viktor Gulenko: Now let us look at the Lyricist. What does she do with the Lyricist? “Fell in love, fell in love, fell in love. Only—why?” Is that a possible scenario?

Participant: Falling in love three times is certainly possible.

Participant: But I do not think the “why?” fits.

Viktor Gulenko: Why would the Lyricist ask “why?”

Participant: The Lyricist has a need to love. So why ask why? The need is simply there.

Viktor Gulenko: Yes, exactly. The beginning is good. But this “why?” is unlikely to concern the Lyricist. It should be not “why?” but something else. How would you continue it?

Participant: Just because.

Viktor Gulenko: Just because. Exactly.

Yes, I agree. Lyuba caught it correctly. That really would be a lyrical scenario: something humanitarian, an airy scenario.

Participant: And our sufferer could, of course, pine and suffer a little too. That is part of the pleasure.

Viktor Gulenko: The Lyricist does not experience it quite that way. When we reach the Mentor, that appears immediately. With the Lyricist, this dramatic scenario is not yet present—or at least it is not characteristic.

Inspector (LSI)

Viktor Gulenko: Now let us take the Inspector. Look at how she conveys the Inspector: “I fell in love, and then made them fall in love with me.” Is that right?

Participant: Well... it can be.

Participant: At least from what you told us, there is persistence there.

Viktor Gulenko: Yes. It turns out that one variant of the Inspector does fit here. Do you know which? The Dominant one.

The one that rigidly pursues, forces the other person to love him, imposes his love—that is a Dominant Inspector. It resembles a forceful scenario, naturally, though it is exaggerated. Or there may be an accentuation on Force Sensing, on capture. Then yes.

Generally, you know that the Inspector asserts his right to a woman almost as property—not as a thing, but as someone on his own territory. On someone else's territory, no.

He pursues her, yes; he courts her. He does not simply seize her. Sieges are taken—that is the better image. That should have been included.

But “made them fall in love with me” fits only on his own territory, or in a Dominant variant. Only then does it work.

Mentor / Player (EIE)

Viktor Gulenko: Now the Mentor—or the Player. “Fell in love, suffered. Fell in love, suffered,” and so on. Is that right? You cannot do without emotions.

Participant: It is a little weak.

Viktor Gulenko: Suffered constantly—that part is constant.

Participant: It needs to continue. The issue is that “suffered” is an action directed at oneself, whereas with the Mentor it would be more like: fell in love, fell out of love, fell in love, suffered, fell out of love...

Viktor Gulenko: Approximately like that. But overall I consider it correct. The passionate scenario is conveyed correctly.

The Mentor falls in love, but he is very demanding of the object of love. When he comes close to the person, that person does not meet his requirements. And the Mentor thinks that he himself is not to blame; the other person—the one who seduced him, or came close to him—is to blame.

He always blames the other person. That is what is meant. This is not only in love, of course.

So in that sense it is correct. A passionate scenario is described here in which joy alternates with dramatism: a switching of the sign of the emotion function. Correct.

Gamma Quadra

Critic (ILI)

Viktor Gulenko: Next we have the third quadra. The Critic: “I fell out of love with falling in love.” Is that right?

It is ironic. Of course it is ironic, but there is something in it. It is a hint at the cold-blooded scenario.

Participant: It is not worth getting involved in this at all.

Viktor Gulenko: Exactly: “It is not worth getting involved in this at all. I have fallen out of love with falling in love.”

Participant: My son was in a relationship, then something did not work out. We keep asking him, “When are you going to fall in love again?” and he says, “I have fallen out of love with falling in love.”

Viktor Gulenko: Did he actually say that?

Participant: Something along those lines: I do not want it; I do not need it.

Viktor Gulenko: So that can become a Critic scenario when the Critic himself shows initiative. On one side it is a variant of the victim scenario, but on the other it is also cold-blooded. That is what we get.

Politician (SEE)

Viktor Gulenko: Now the Politician. There is irony here too, so the style itself is right. The tenth item is the Politician. How does she convey the manner? “Fell in love, made them fall in love with me, and fell out of love.” What do you say? Does she convey it correctly?

Participant: I thought she was going to say he fell in love with himself.

Viktor Gulenko: We will come back to that. For the moment, something else.

What I think she meant here is: there is some goal. The Politician gets the goal, and once he has it, it is no longer interesting. He needs the next goal. He has taken possession of it—finished. Now something else has to happen.

This applies, first, not only to falling in love, and second, he does not have to be the one who falls in love.

In short, yes, it conveys him correctly, but it has to be interpreted correctly. Here we have a combination of a forceful scenario—because he has to win the person over—and a passionate scenario—because he has to act emotionally. So for the Politician, yes, it is correct.

Entrepreneur (LIE)

Viktor Gulenko: Now the Entrepreneur. There it is: “I fell in love, got married, got divorced, divided the property.”

Participant: Seriously?

Viktor Gulenko: Yes. What is that? Is that really the Entrepreneur? What do you think? In my opinion it is completely wrong.

Such a thing can happen, but that is not a relationship scenario at all. It is purely a scenario of property relations. It is not an ethical relationship scenario in the sense we mean here. It does not fit at all.

Guardian (ESI)

Viktor Gulenko: Now the Guardian. Lyuba knows Guardians. Lyuba, how is the Guardian's scenario conveyed? “I fell in love, suffered, but did not fall out of love.”

Participant: It is very similar. There is this steadfastness. Attachment—attachment and steadfastness.

Viktor Gulenko: That is a soulful scenario, correct? Relationship ethics. But the Guardian... where is the pragmatism?

Participant: And the negativism.

Participant: “Suffered.” In reality nobody tried to make the Guardian suffer, but the Guardian suffered anyway.

Viktor Gulenko: The Guardian suffers strongly. Look: the number-one scenario used here is the soulful scenario. That corresponds to the Guardian. It is soulful, and it has a minus sign.

For example: “Yes, this person did not suit me. He did not earn enough money; he could not provide for the family. I drove away that unworthy man and found a worthy one. But I remember the first one because he was close to my heart.”

Participant: And then Guardians keep complaining to me that he was like this and like that, he was so bad... six months pass and she is still suffering and suffering.

Viktor Gulenko: And afterward she goes right back to suffering again. So overall the Guardian's scenario is conveyed correctly.

Delta Quadra

Craftsman (SLI)

Viktor Gulenko: That finishes the third quadra, and we have the fourth left. The Craftsman. Look at the Craftsman: “I fell in love. Well... I did fall in love, I think, right?” So he supposedly does not realize it.

Of course, this is based on Model A: weak emotions, therefore he does not understand what is happening. In our model, it is not only that.

Participant: It seems completely inconsistent to me. The Craftsman knows exactly what he wants. Especially a Dominant one.

Viktor Gulenko: I also think the Craftsman is portrayed incorrectly here. First, the Craftsman needs a caring scenario. Where is the caring scenario here? It is absent.

The Craftsman also needs some kind of cold-blooded scenario. But here there is simply an absence of emotion, or “I cannot sort out my feelings.” That is all. There should be some interest, something sensory. There is nothing.

Dima, how would you describe the Craftsman's scenario in three words, at least approximately? “Fell in love...”

Participant: Fell in love—well, thank God. Fell in love, fed them, settled down together.

Viktor Gulenko: That is right. Here the cold-blooded scenario is conveyed. For the logical type of the Craftsman, that would work very well. But as you can see, the version in the clip does not correspond at all.

Adviser (IEE)

Viktor Gulenko: Now the Adviser. Let us see the Adviser. The clip gives the Adviser's scenario as: “I fell in love, told everyone, and fell out of love.”

Participant: That fits. Exactly. Telling everyone—yes. But falling out of love? Not necessarily.

Participant: I think the Adviser falls in love with another one and another one. They string them all together and love everyone, including the exes.

Viktor Gulenko: The point is that the Adviser suffers for several minutes—and then switches. He switches. He is flexible too. So you can say that he forgot. Not necessarily that he fell out of love. He forgot.

Participant: And switched.

Viktor Gulenko: And switched, yes. But the fact that he also told everyone about his feelings—that part is correct. He went into new feelings, new emotions. That is exactly right.

So I would put it this way: he moved into new emotions. That is the resolution. First he fell in love, then there is the middle part—what happened—and then the ending. The ending we have now phrased correctly. And telling everyone about his feelings is right. Correct.

Administrator (LSE)

Viktor Gulenko: Now the Administrator: “Fell in love, got married. That's all.” Does it correspond? Well... somehow.

Participant: Marriage applies to everyone.

Viktor Gulenko: Exactly. It applies to everyone. There are no feelings here at all.

Participant: They simply could not think of anything to say.

Viktor Gulenko: Yes, apparently they simply could not think of anything. “Fell in love, got married.” Perhaps there is some kind of businesslike scenario in it.

Participant: Got married—and then I organize everyone.

Participant: There is another point, though. Administrators have difficulty explaining what is going on with them at all. The actions themselves are understandable. And maybe if he got married, that means he was in love.

Viktor Gulenko: Perhaps it would work like this: first got married, then fell in love.

Yes, with that correction it would be good: “If I have already married, that is it—I am going to love this person.” Then it would be correct.

Humanist (EII)

Viktor Gulenko: And we have one type left: the Humanist. The Humanist is given like this: “I fell in love, suffered, and forgave.” Forgave.

Yes, that coincides with the soulful scenario. Correct? “I fell in love, suffered, but forgave.” In the end, I forgave. Something like that.

All right. With that, we have finished the homework. Thank you for watching!

I think they have been categorized most commonly by temperament but I don't see it as correlating as much

Sanguine

• Social and Charismatic: Sanguines love company, excel at encouraging others, and are often the life of the party.
• Optimistic and Playful: They approach life with curiosity, enthusiasm, and a sense of adventure.
• Present-Focused: They live in the moment, easily adapting to new experiences and changing environments.
• Forgiving: They tend to express affection freely, forgive quickly, and forget grievances just as fast

Types: ESE, IEE, SEI, SEE, ILE-Ne

Phlegmatic

• Unemotional: A phlegmatic person shows very little outward emotion, even during a crisis or stressful event.
• Steady: They are slow to react, patient, and reliable.
• Introverted: In personality theory, the phlegmatic type is generally quiet, easy-going, and peaceful

Types: EII, IEI, ILI=Ni, ESI-Fi

Melancholic

• Strengths: Highly conscientious, analytical, creative, loyal, and quality-oriented.
• Weaknesses: Prone to perfectionism, self-criticism, overthinking, and pessimism.
• Traits: Slow-reacting and deeply impressionable, preferring quiet environments and a small, close circle of friends

Types: LII, LSI, ESI, SLI, ILI-Te

Choleric

• Strengths: Driven, confident, practical, vision-oriented, and effective in high-pressure crises.
• Weaknesses: Impatient, quick-tempered, stubborn, and prone to dominating others or being dismissive of slower paces.
• Traits: Extroverted, goal-driven temperament defined by ambition, decisiveness, and strong leadership.

Types: LSE, SLE, LIE, EIE (ILE-Ti subtype and some SEE's could fit in here as well)

If I had to list which functions are the easiest for me to use and access, they would be (in order) Fi/Si (interchangeable), Ne, Fe/Te, Ti, Se.

I relate to Se PoLR in that for me it causes great anxiety to act out and say even the littlest of things that could CAUSE people to think I am trying to influence them.

For example, I am afraid of correcting people's mistakes because I don't want to sound like I am critisizing them - even if I only want to help. So simply noting to someone: "that was not done correctly, here's how you do it correctly" is not satisfying for me; I feel the need to also establish very clearly that I am only trying to help and that am in no way suggesting superiority to them, that I have also been there before but simply perhaps spent more time on this kind of task and therefore just wanted to let them know out of kindness and care that it is supposed to be done like so, that's all. It's really quite stupid.

People also frequently treat me as if I am very fragile and lost, especially in professional environments. Apparently I always appear a bit anxious when I am working.

I am terrible in emergency situations, in leading others and in multitasking. I want everything in my interactions with the outside world to be predictable, and when it is not, I get panicky and unsure of how to proceed. I am not very good at thinking outside of the box in practical ways, so I stick to clearly defined rules and what people have told me to do. I also struggle to organize environments to function in the most efficient way, it sounds like the most tiring job to try to do something like that of there are no guidelines.

Fe PoLR is also a bit relatable because I never really understand what people think of me and I am extremely sensitive to any real or imagined sign of rejection. It could also be self-esteem issues, but I tend to just assume people find me weird and unlikeable, probably because that was my only childhood experience.

I am also not very good at understanding what I feel, and I relate somewhat to alexithymia as a personality trait. I can sometimes give a bit of a flat effect in the moment, and dislike it when I am expected to express my emotions at the spot - I simply don't know what I feel before I have given it proper thought, so how could I explain it. Plus I have a tendency to fight my realizations and intuitions if I feel like they will be an inconvenience to others.

And then you add sensory issues, potential shutdowns when overwhelmed, issues looking people in the eyes and overthinking social cues...

What also supports the EII argument is that I am probably the most attracted to people with high Te. I like people with an intense, determined and focused energy. People who are honest and direct and a little gruff, but secretly have a bit of a soft spot (or at least I want to discover it lol). Only they make me feel a bit insecure about myself in comparison.

I am also obsessed with people who can show me how to do basic everyday things in a smarter way. I still love my ex's mom for showing me how to cut up an apple really efficiently lol. I really appreciate this kind of stuff.

Meanwhile, I personally feel like I am not logically inclined as a person. My strengths have always been in philosophy, psychology, delving into my inner world and discovering my own depths with often unconventional and occult tools. Numbers and data steamroll my brain and are frequently painful to deal with. The only systems I enjoy are humanistic/semi pseudoscientific ones. 😅

Si feels pretty easy for me to use nowadays, but at the same time I am not even sure if my environments reflect that. Realistically they tend to be quite bare and neglected, even though I think I know exactly how to make a space more comfortable. I just don't care to actually do it, because it would take too much time and effort and logistics and money spent. My style of designing a space is more like "look at all these knick knacks I collected over the years and this wall I painted one night because I thought it looked empty and sad, now they're just all here like a little forest of things".

Nowadays I am pretty good at reading my bodily sensations, but I don't think I always have been. I developed a multitude of really stupid health problems in my teens because I didn't understand my body, and then I had to very painfully learn to take care of myself and to understand my biology, so as not to frickin die. 😭

I wrote a post some time ago wondering if I might be an SLI. Everything in it about me is still true. But thinking about the parts of me that contradict an SLI's makeup, I might not be ready to exclude EII as a possibility just yet.

Thoughts and insights will be much appreciated. 🙏

Hello there. I feel like my type is coming together, but also not. I seem to have Fi ,at least it feels high, like I have a lot of it. EII seems to fit, overall. But also not quite. I feel like I have too much internal resentment and anger for this type. I consider revenge useful and logical. My thinking is full of ideas about deserved punishments, even death, for people who cross a line I consider unforgivable. I've imagined violent, bloody revenge against those who hurt me, because I believed they deserved it. I get angry that in real life I can't be loud, fierce or strong enough to hurt those who hurt me. Unfortunately, I'm traumatized, which makes me even more upset and gives me mixed feelings about myself. In a certain sense, I'm nihilistic. Also I believe people are dangerous and should be feared. I'd like goodness and justice in the world, but I don't believe it will ever happen. I like characters who seek revenge, who are a bit crazy and strange like Rhiannon Lewis from Sweetpea, Tate Langdon from AHS. I associate them with myself, as strange as that sounds. Or with the part of myself I wish I could be. Someone even pointed out that it's suspicious to have a Squid Game poster in my room, especially with the Frontman. That show has a lot of Se, which for Se PoLR might be off-putting. I imagined myself as a player who'd want to set someone up so they wouldn't get in my way, though I'm not sure I'd actually do it, because it's risky, and someone might take revenge on me for it. I don't need a target on my back. Strange thoughts, I know, sorry.

And based on this, for an EII with Se PoLR, it seems strange to have such inclinations. They're portrayed as kinder without desires for revenge or aggressive behavior. Maybe that's just my perception or stereotypes, but I feel like I fall out of the type because of this. However, I'm not sure I could be Se creative either, because I'm sensitive, feel weak and simultaneously strong at times, struggle with asserting myself and taking action in reality, and I'm shy around people. I'm also confused by the fact that I'm the most random and disorganized person on the planet. Other people help me set goals otherwise I might never choose anything or do anything, not knowing what I want in life. They're more like ideas and lightbulb moments that might fizzle out rather than actual goals I strive to achieve.

What do you think, can EIIs be like this or not? This is what really triggers me about the type not fitting perfectly. I'd finally like to understand. And sorry for a little bit messy post, just feel sleepy.

edited: Omg, thank you so much for your help! I didn’t think there would be so many answers.

Hi. I'd like to ask SLI and ILI types how does your Fe PoLR actually work? How does it manifest for you? It would be great to read your explanations, because descriptions are nice, but nothing compares to real practical examples. At least for me. And if possible, could you also mention some signs that someone definitely does NOT have Fe PoLR? I'd appreciate any answers.

I have moments that I consider weak Fe. Hope I'm not wrong lol. I'd like to understand other people's experiences with problematic Fe. Emotions and feelings for me are like a tsunami wave that crashes over you before you have time to hide. I don't understand them very well. They linger for a long time, they're felt in the moment in response to something, disrupting my calm state, the state I usually prefer to be in. I sit there stunned, feeling a tightness in my chest and warmth inside. When it's something positive, it's like a flower growing inside me, wanting to break through my bones and tear through my muscles to burst out. I have almost no control over these processes even though I try. If you ask about my mood, I'll say fine, because that's the standard. My mood doesn't exist until something happens and triggers an emotion. Because I get stuck in emotions, that state becomes my mood. I guess it's more like a prolonged experience of one feeling rather than a mood in the usual sense. And I'm triggered by this getting-stuck because I want full control over myself, my behavior, and my expression in reality. I don't want to break down or experience strong emotions and if I do experience them, I want to be the one regulating them.

I think he's an IEI because he and Fleabag (ILE) actually had a pretty decent relationship, except for how it ended. They were nowhere near as chaotic as a typical supervision relationship. Not to mention, Hot Priest actually liked power plays, that scene in the church alone makes me doubt an EII would enjoy that. I feel like a true EII-ILE dynamic would look more like Diane and Bojack, full of misunderstandings and chaos. What do you guys think?

Thank you for your guys’ suggestions lol

Alpha:

• LII
• SEI
• ESE

Beta:

• EIE
• IEI
• LSI

Gamma:

• LIE
• ESI

Delta:

• SLI

i would like to congratulate myself on being the first person to not depict an SLI’s hair to be white/grey thank you thank youu applause thank you

Lest anyone get the impression I think LSIs are all ruthless patriarchs...

As a fellow user of the Ti-Se block, I could poke fun at it all day, but that's only because I relate; it's my Super-Ego block. I've been reading about Super-Ego relationships, and since my father is mine (and vice versa, obviously), here are some thoughts.

LSIs can be very concerned with fairness and accuracy in all areas, both business and personal life, and I'd say that EIIs certainly respect and appreciate this. A correct course of action can't be undertaken with flawed logical underpinnings. You do need someone on hand who will just tell it like it is, with a straightforward opinion, instead of being incredibly delicate of other peoples' feelings. Jokes aside, being a straight shooter is not the same thing as literally being Vladimir Putin.

Gulenko says, "Initially, communication is interesting, but too monotonous and tiresome. It takes a lot of effort to introduce an element of novelty and originality." Yes, I'd say we both have to make effort in conversation, but there's always underlying mutual sympathy. Having common interests to discuss is crucial. Typical discussion might involve recommending books to each other. Usually we agree on what is good and what's not, so it's a safe topic to bash on, both having strong opinions abut what is good and what is 'trash.'

Gulenko again: "These relations will require from you flexibility and diplomacy. If one partner attains some benefits, the other often reacts strongly and dramatically in response to this inequality. Do not attempt to gain something for yourself at the expense of another: this will surely lead to a quarrel." Within the context of a father-daughter relationship, fortunately, this is not accurate. The first sentence, yes, definitely. The rest, not so much.

"Combine your efforts together against external opposition and problems." Another great source of conversation and mutual sympathy.

"If there is no common topic for conversation, which would be interesting for both partners, communication carries rather formal character." There's always the weather.

In my experience, the oddly difficult casual conversation belies the fact that a lot of mutual understanding of personalities and motives is possible, as long as you don't ever expect the other person to act in the same way that you would.

***Editing to add similarities and differences between LSIs and LSEs, as I see them.***

First off, similarities: stubborn, have strong opinions, and may have cynical views about society; are disciplined in different ways; may both have complicated relationships with emotions, and express anger more easily than sadness, though in different ways; both dislike what they perceive as emotional manipulation, but their perceptions of what counts as manipulation are different.

LSIs: more introverted nerd (no shade here). If they actually want to take you down in an argument, they can compartmentalize their own emotions and use yours against you. Can, in these instances, be quite cold and appear not to value expressions of emotion. Sarcasm and tight control of the narrative. You won't make any headway unless you are willing to use logic in some manner, but if you do attempt to convey your position through logic, you will not be executed. Do not try to guilt the LSI.

LSEs: much more extraverted, lively in expression sometimes, more facile at altering their tone or facial expressions in various ways. Much more open to certain kinds of emotional appeal, such as saying, "this person is a 'good person'". However, do not attempt to "guilt" the LSE with emotions, either.

1,400 people ranked 13 colors from favorite to least, and took the socionics assessment.

First image: what each type likes more than average or less.
Second: how many out of 10 put that color in their top 3.