Using the Communicative Space for Holistic Diagnostics in Humanitarian Socionics

I'm responding to this reddit post by Radigand: Transposing your Accentuation, Subtype, and Type Code over the PIPS planes

Introduction

Happy Holidays, and thanks for your post about SHS Radigand! It has some especially good teachings about the levels of the communicative space and gives several useful real-life examples of how complicated SHS type codes manifest. Please check out Radigand's post if you haven't. This response contains additional details from SHS, to add some guidance on how Radigand's descriptions could be applied to real diagnostic cases from a fresh perspective. However SHS could seem like a set of separated parts in the abstract, in segregated terms it’s not yet a workable model for diagnostics of the complex psyche; we must pull it all together. Even SHS as a whole is probably far from perfect in this regard, but we have a decent start!

PIPS planes are meant to add balance and holism to the SHS paradigm. Every aspect of SHS (type, subtype, accentuation, functional states, dichotomies, small groups, relationships, etc.) take place on ALL levels of the communicative space (and it is necessary, in the grand scheme of things, to describe them on all levels, but of course, not in every post, comment, or opinion). It’s just important to emphasize this holistic approach, where each aspect connects to all levels, rather than a segregated approach. I think I understand why Radigand uses segregation in his post; it is practically necessary, since our minds can only process so much at once, but perhaps together we can paint an even fuller picture.

It's also the case that any real communication occurs at the intersection of several levels in the communicative space, not just in one level. Thus, it is eventually necessary to represent these different dichotomies and type levels you mention at the intersection of several levels.

It could be said that different levels of type and different aspects of SHS are most prominent at one level of the communicative space (though there is no reason that this must be the case for everything, it seems to be the case for some things). In this sense, I can see where Radigand is coming from in his post, because I’ve done similar work in the past. However, looking at the levels that Radigand assigns to various aspects of SHS, sometimes I agree, and sometimes I do not see why it should be placed specifically on this level. That could be because this aspect operates at an intersection, and I’d like to emphasize a different level than him. Alternatively, it may simply be a situational aspect of SHS, and not more inclined to one level of the communicative space than any other. We'll discuss it in detail below and how it relates to the full SHS diagnostics process:

There were 3 aspects of SHS addressed in Radigand's post:

-Type Dichotomies (the 4 Jungian dichotomies, Static/Dynamic, Democratic/Aristocratic)

-Small Groups (Temperament, Activity Orientation)

-Levels of the Psyche (Subtype, Subtype Dichotomies, Complex Subtypes, Accentuations)

...

Type Dichotomies:

Democratic/Aristocratic (I completely agree with Radigand!)

Radigand assigns the Democratic/Aristocratic dichotomy to the social level, relating it to the preference for horizontal communication vs vertical/hierarchical communication. I think he is exactly correct. Most famously it relates to the Quadras in Socionics, and this is a deeply social (rather than individual) phenomenon, describing the psychological ecosystems that the types are attracted to collectively. Obviously, it affects us all on other levels, but it's by far more prominent socially, describing how the Socionics types relate to the social communicative landscape of humanity.

Static/Dynamic (I agree with Radigand's characterization of static vs dynamic but his application to the psychological level seems arbitrary and unjustified)

Radigand assigns Static/Dynamic to the psychological level, connecting it to our need for variability and switching (which he associates with dynamics), and our need to specialize (which he associates with statics). He is exactly correct that statics and dynamics relates to the need for variability over time (more for dynamics in this case), but I disagree with him that this relates mainly to the psychological level. As you can see from the post I linked in this paragraph, statics and dynamics have prominent manifestations at every level of communication, so it seems arbitrary to place it at the psychological level:

-It affects the form of thinking at the intellectual level, which can also be affected by accentuations (LSI with T accentuation may use lots of dynamic Dialectical thinking in imagining scenarios, EIE with L accentuation may use lots of static Determinist thinking for rigorous analysis)
-Specialization, an example he uses a lot for static types, connects more to the social level than the psychological level, and also relates to accentuations and subtypes (which often affect our job and career choices more than type in SHS Socionics)

It is problematic to place Static/Dynamic mainly at the psychological level because Radigand acknowledges that functional accentuation is most prominent at the psychological level (which is correct according to SHS). Accentuation could be any function for any type, thus it hardly relates to statics or dynamics at the type level; an LSI or IEE with a P-accentuation will be psychologically very dynamic and variable, and an EIE or ILI with an L-accentuation will likely be rather psychologically calm and static. To be logically consistent, it most likely does not make sense to say that Static/Dynamic is most prominent at the psychological level; diversifying it might help.

The Jungian Dichotomies (it's not useful to diagnose with these dichotomies applied to only one communicative level)

Radigand places Extroversion/Introversion and Irrational/Rational mainly at the physical level. His justification is that they are aspects of our temperament. I agree with him that Temperament is primarily physical, which we will address in the next section. However, I think his reasoning that these dichotomies are primarily physical is flawed for two reasons:

1) These dichotomies are not just aspects of temperament, but connect to many more things than temperament which are not so physically oriented, and which are important for real diagnostics (taken directly from my links):
-Extroverts experience a significant vacuum of information about themselves without feedback whereas introverts have difficulty understanding others without familiarity, and extroverts process new information notably faster whereas introverts process new information more slowly and qualitatively (in a way that is no less energy intensive)
-Rational types provide stable adherence to or rejection of traditions, more stable, explainable moods, and a stronger external verbal channel with more visual and kinesthetic processing, whereas irrational types need switching and variability (something Radigand attributes too exclusively to Static/Dynamic), have relatively unstable moods which require waiting for the right moment to approach, and they have stronger external visual and kinesthetic channels backed up by internal processing

2) Subtype better describes the stable functional state of a person than Sociotype, and functional state is more prominent at the physical level in SHS than any other level. Thus, subtype dichotomies are likely to be more prominent at the physical level than Sociotype (e.g. Jungian) dichotomies. For example, Contactive LSI are often more physically active and mobile than Distant Mentors due to the greater stability in the use of active, extroverted functions in Contact LSI (of course, other factors might affect this).

There are also the dichotomies of Intuitive/Sensing and Logical/Ethical, which Radigand places at the Intellectual Level. While I agree that these dichotomies can be highly prominent at the intellectual level, they are not always prominent at this level (e.g. there are many LSI's that work in complex human oriented professions like acting, performance and psychotherapy, there are many EIE's that work in rigorous intellectual fields like physical science and computer programming where it is necessary to be strictly logical), and there are many other levels where these dichotomies can be prominent, which you can see in my links.

Functional accentuations can prominently make sensing types appear intuitive, intuitive types appear sensing, logical types appear ethical and ethical types appear logical. This can even be psychological, not just intellectual. And this will only be in some ways, never in general since accentuations are specialized and do not contradict the type, so we need to look at all levels to read these dichotomies.

The overall point is that I wouldn't rely on finding Jungian dichotomies at any one level of the communicative space; you will need to think more widely and holistically, seeing how all the levels connect together, to use SHS for effective and accurate diagnostics.

...

Small Groups:

Temperament (Extroversion/Introversion, Irrational/Rational, Static/Dynamic)

As we already saw, Radigand assigns most of the temperament dichotomies to the physical (and his assigning of Static/Dynamic to psychological is the sole inconsistent one so not as important). While I don't think this is justified for the dichotomies (which connect to many other things besides temperament), it's exactly correct that temperament as a holistic unit is primarily physical. Not only does it affect our energy levels (as Radigand mentioned), it also affects our main physical channels of communicating with the world:
-Linear Assertive: verbal, speaking, quick linear acceleration
-Balanced Stable: auditory, listening, in-place stability
-Flexible-Maneuvering: kinesthetics, touch, multi-directional mobility
-Receptive-Adaptive: visual, holistic awareness, mirroring the environment

Thus, I think Radigand was quite justified in emphasizing physicality for temperament. It is just important to understand that our subtype, and the stable functional states it produces, will have more of an effect on our energy levels, and possibly our physical activity, than type typically will. This is because sociotype primarily operates at the intellectual level, and affects us over the long term, whereas functional states are physical and immediate.

Activity Orientation (Intuitive/Sensing, Logical/Ethical, Democratic/Aristocratic)

Radigand assigned most of these dichotomies to the Intellectual level, but this is even more inconsistent, because he very justifiably assigns Democratic/Aristocratic to the social level, and then he assigns each of the individual activity orientations to a unique communicative level:

- Technical-Managerial: Physical Level

- Humanitarian-Artisanal: Psychological Level

- Social-Communicative: Social Level

- Scientific-Researching: Intellectual Level

In a sense, I agree with this. It describes the targets of each activity orientation; the managerial orientation wants to manage the real world and requires concrete tasks and results, the humanitarian orientation wants to educate the deep psyche and bring out the unique abilities in each soul, the social orientation aims for the flourishing of real people in real communities of other people, and the researching orientation wants to explore and produce fundamentally new intellectual ideas and content.

What this doesn't even come close to describing are the activities people with these orientations perform in real life! For example, LSI and EIE are the most common types in real life, and are by far more common as academics and scientists than any Scientific-Researching type (and accordingly, academia is a rather strict, bureaucratic, and very conservative and slowly changing place, not at all like the actual scientific-researching orientation). LSI and EIE are also very common in entertainment, service and other classically social professions. Subjects like psychotherapy have been turned into a profession that seems to contain mostly Technical-Managerial types. Not many people can make it as an artist or some classically humanitarian career like a priest or a teacher, especially as there is more demand for people to take up technical careers, online education becomes cheaper, and religion declines in many places.

"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them"

"The Sith control everything; you just don't know it!" - Count Dooku trying to warn the Jedi about LSI's in SHS

Because of this complete lack of balance in the population of real Sociotypes, and because of how rapidly the modern world changes due to capitalism, trade, technology, etc., it is equally if not more common for people of any type to work outside of activities that we could idealistically understand as being part of their literal activity orientation. This is so much the case that it doesn't even make sense to conceive of the activity orientation as relating so closely to one level of the communicative space like Radigand lists it; in practice, these activity orientations do not necessarily (maybe not even typically) have the mastery over each communicative level that he claims. In practice, the Managerial orientation has the most influence at ALL communicative levels due to having the highest population and prominence of all activity orientations, and because of the power and aristocracy of dominant Beta quadra:

-Academia is dominated by strict, bureaucratic, conservative, methodical and often profit-oriented managerial types

-The social level of humanity is dominated by managerial oriented careers, laws, gangs, governments, serious cultural expectations of people, etc.

The only area where it probably doesn't make sense to say that managerial types dominate is the psychological level, since it's simply too deep and intimate; ethical types are likely more influential there since they can influence more directly.

In short, don't expect that mastery (or lack of mastery) over any level of the communicative space tells you anything about someone's sociotype in SHS; it tells you nothing at all. To start thinking like a real Socionist, you need to abandon those rigid expectations as a silly fantasy and look at all communicative levels!

...

4 Levels of the Psyche (Sociotype, Subtype, Accentuation, Functional State)

Type in SHS has multiple levels; you need to understand this in order to understand anything about this approach to Socionics, and possibly to start understanding humans as complex systems. In SHS, all 4 levels of the psyche relate to all 4 levels of the communicative space; functions (as in a functional state or an accentuation) can be described at all 4 communicative levels, and subtypes and types as a whole span an even greater range with more complex internal structure. Even with all this range, there is one level of the communicative space at which each level of the psyche is most prominent (and it's less prominent at other levels). In spite of the holistic approach to SHS overall, what is more prominent at each level can also be important, and I think that is what Radigand was going for in his post (some of which I agree with, some of which I find more questionable or speculative).

This article, which I co-authored years ago with Victor Gulenko, shows what levels of the psyche are most prominent at each level of the communicative space:

-Intellectual level: the sociotype is most manifested, understood as a reflexive structure of the 5th order (in terms the mathematical psychology of Vladimir Lefebvre) that is inaccessible to change, including a fundamental style of cognition, as well as a social mission that people of this sociotype are called upon to fulfill in the Socion.

-Social Level: the subtype is most manifested, through a specific role in a group, which arises through adaptation to the real communicative conditions, as well as interaction with other people within the team

-Psychological Level: the accentuated functions are most manifested, as what you are aware of in yourself as the basis of your character, your complexes, direct psychological needs, as well as the attraction and repulsion it creates with other people who are within the communicative field that inevitably arises around you

-Physical Level: the functional states are most manifested, including hormonal responses, currently expressed emotional states and bodily signs relating to each function, as well as immediate responses to environmental stimuli within the short term

This is only what is most prominent; the reality is more complex! Sociotype also manifests at the physical level, partly based on some of the dichotomies that Radigand pointed out (Extroversion vs Introversion, which affects our energy levels in complicated ways over time, Irrationality vs Rationality which can affect even our physical flexibility and ability to relax, Statics vs Dynamics which can affect the changeability of our mood and our psyche, etc.). However, Sociotype is mostly intellectual and it's the most obscure of all 4 layers of the psyche, hidden behind the other layers and defining important subtle structure in our psyche.

Subtype, likewise, can affect us at a physical level, sometimes even more than subtype (like I pointed out, and as I know Radigand agrees from other conversations I've had with him, subtype has even more effect on our stable energy levels than Sociotype, which is directly because subtype gives us stable functional states, which are most prominent at the physical level). Our subtype also has a complex structure, ordering all 4 subtypes within our psyche, as I explained in this popular post. Only the main subtype operates stably at far distance, as is necessary for the social level of communication (social and intellectual levels are far distance). The other subtypes operate at a closer psychological distance and go deeper into the structure of our psyche, so this is about the psychological level (alongside our accentuated functions).

Radigand seems to agree that accentuation is most prominent at the psychological level, so I think his comments there are useful in a realistic diagnostic setting. However, he spreads the subtype dichotomies to every different communicative level, for reasons that are mostly unclear. Subtype certainly affects us at a physical and psychological level, but its dichotomies do not act separately; they act as an integrated whole, defining the entire subtype simultaneously. When diagnosing, you do not need to look for these different dichotomies separately at different communicative levels; the subtype in general is most prominent as the social role that a person plays in a group (comprising all of its dichotomies), and the complex subtype of a person is a deeper phenomenon that gets into the psychological level of communication with a person.

He also seems to apply type dichotomies most prominently to many separate communicative levels. I agree with some, like Democratic vs Aristocratic being mostly about the social level, but in general, the Sociotype is clearest at the most obscure intellectual level. Within the Sociotype alone (ignoring all other levels of the psyche), perhaps Radigand is correct that temperament dichotomies tend towards more prominence on the physical side (because they are more about the energy side of Sociotype) and the activity orientation dichotomies tend towards more prominence on the intellectual side (because they are more about the information side of Sociotype). This falls apart if we look at the structure of the psyche as a whole though, since even subtype can be more prominent than sociotype at the physical level, and functional states are even more physically prominent than subtype!

Likewise, I would say the same for the subtype dichotomies Radigand mentions: within the subtype, Contact/Distance seems like it makes the most sense as physical (because it relates most to energy and health), Initial/Terminal makes most sense as psychological (because of the psychological wholeness and completion of the psyche of dual subtypes), and Ignorative/Connective makes most sense as social (because it's the hardest to take an individual approach to and relates to how to connects to the wider environment). Considering type structure as a whole, it is more complicated since all these dichotomies can become very social (as it relates to the role in the main subtype) and very psychological (as it relates to the dynamics of our own psyche and entire subtype stack).

And likewise, the Order Ring, being more energy oriented than the Revision Ring (forming the bases of Model G and Model A respectively), may relate more to the physical side of the Socion, whereas the Revision Ring (Cognitive Style) relates more to its intellectual side. But even this is not so simple; the Order Rings also have complex Social and Psychological phenomena, as Victor describes here. So there are layers within layers here; we need to be cautious about expecting one dichotomy and small group at one specific level of the communicative space, and not at others. We must build dynamic models, not just static models. We can't take the type apart into pieces and think this is enough to come to a realistic understanding of it; we can play around with the parts to see different angles and come up with new ideas, but we must remember to put them back together.