Socionics and Psychological Types

Why Socionics and Psychological Types are equivalent
Introduction
If there is one thing that the typology community struggles at, it’s about understanding how Socionics comes
directly from Carl G. Jung’s types and how they were made to be equal. Carl G. Jung described eight cognitive types
in his book “Psychological Types”, and these types got more in depth developed later, with Ausra Augustinavičiūtė,
which is what we know as “Socionics”.
First of all, we shall understand that types are not only made by cognitive functions, or “elements”, which is how
Socionics calls them, but also by dichotomies, and dichotomies are an important part of the types. If you are an LII,
you are a logical, intuitive and introverted (Logical Intuitive Introthyme), and it’s important to understand that, and
why you are an introverted individual, if you understand that, you’re not going to type as an ET(N) (which stands for
LIE), for example, because this type is extraverted.
Note: Carl Jung defined it as extraverted, saying that “extroverted” is bad Latin and should not be used (Carl Jung, C.G
Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, Pages 205-218).
Extraversion and Introversion
Extraversion and introversion are an important, if not the most important dichotomy, because it defines the
individual’s orientation. Everyone is oriented by data, and he says it:
● “Everyone is, admittedly, orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him; yet we see that this may be the case in a way
that is only relatively decisive. Because it is cold out of doors, one man is persuaded to wear his overcoat, another from a desire to become
hardened finds this unnecessary; one man admires the new tenor because all the world admires him, another withholds his approbation not
because he dislikes him but because in his view the subject of general admiration is not thereby proved to be admirable; one submits to a given
state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible, another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times
in the same way, the thousand and first will be different. The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it
were, interposed between himself and the objective fact.”
– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)
The difference is that one is predominantly oriented by objective data, while the other is predominantly oriented by
the subject’s influence on that data. Everyone sees the object, just as everyone knows about the subject, for the
subject is the individual, but when the object is predominant on the individual’s consciousness, the individual
adapts the subject to external and objective conditions:
● “The subject is man—we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and,
therefore, for us, no world where ‘I know’ has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all
knowledge.”
Carl Jung defined extraversion as an orientation towards the object, you may understand “object” as the external
world and everything that countains it:
● “Means an outward-turning of the libido (q.v.). With this concept I denote a manifest relatedness of subject to object in the sense of a positive
movement of subjective interest towards the object. Everyone in the state of extraversion thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object,
and moreover in a direct and clearly observable fashion, so that no doubt can exist about his positive dependence upon the object. In a sense,
therefore, extraversion is an outgoing transference of interest from the subject to the object. If it is an intellectual extraversion, the subject
thinks himself into the object; if a feeling extraversion, then the subject feels himself into the object. The state of extraversion means a
strong, if not exclusive, determination by the object. One should speak of an active extraversion when deliberately willed, and of a passive
extraversion when the object compels it, i.e. attracts the interest of the subject of its own accord, even against the tatter’s intention. Should the
state of extraversion become habitual, the extroverted type (v. Type) appears.”
● “Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and
actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is
habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective
conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the objective rather
than the subjective value which plays the greater role as the determining factor of his consciousness. He naturally has subjective values, but their
determining power has less importance than the external objective conditions.”
While he defined introversion as orientation to the subject’s inner world, and a neglect of the object, considering
the object something “evil”:
● “Means a turning inwards of the libido (q.v.), whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed. Interest does not move
towards the object, but recedes towards the subject. Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly
demonstrates that the subject is the chief factor of motivation while the object at most receives only a secondary value. Introversion may possess
either a more intellectual or more emotional character, just as it can be characterized by either intuition or sensation. Introversion is active, when
the subject wills a certain seclusion in face of the object; it is passive when the subject is unable to restore again to the object the libido which is
streaming back from it. When introversion is habitual, one speaks of an introverted type (v. Type).”
● “Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is
guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus. Two
persons, for example, see the same object, but they never see it in such a way as to receive two identically similar images of it. Quite apart from the
differences in the personal equation and mere organic acuteness, there often exists a radical difference, both in kind and degree, in the psychic
assimilation of the perceived image. Whereas the extraverted type refers preeminently to that which reaches him from the object, the introvert
principally relies upon that which the outer impression constellates [sic] in the subject.”
● “As I have already explained in section 1 of the present chapter, the introverted is distinguished from the extraverted type by the fact that, unlike
the latter, who is prevailingly orientated by the object and objective data, he is governed by subjective factors.”
Extraverted: Thinking, Feeling, Sensation and Intuition
Thinking:
● “Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for
the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly
represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally
external and objective in origin.”

Feeling:
● “Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees
with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood,
since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object.”
Sensation:
● “Sensation, in the extraverted attitude, is most definitely conditioned by the object. As sense-perception, sensation is naturally dependent upon
the object. But, just as naturally, it is also dependent upon the subject; hence, there is also a subjective sensation, which after its kind is entirely
different from the objective. In the extraverted attitude this subjective share of sensation, in so far as its conscious application is concerned, is
either inhibited or repressed.”
Intuition:
● “Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main,
intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is
represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case,
how much was ‘perceived-into’, and how much actually lay in the object.”
Introverted: Thinking, Feeling, Sensation and Intuition
Thinking:
● “Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of
direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a
standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by
subjective data.”

Feeling:
● “Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from
extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the
introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as
soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the
object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood.”
Sensation:
● “Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable
modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes
his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of
perception.”
Intuition:
● “Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the
relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality.
Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really
determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort.”
Conclusion
With that, we can conclude that extraversion and introversion are indeed about being oriented towards objective
or subjective data, if you read the descriptions of the functions in both attitudes, you see that they are always
oriented outwardly (E) or inwardly (I).
Socionics: How E/I dichotomy equals Psychological Types
What about Socionics? Well:
● “For an extravert, the object of orientation in the external world is the surrounding objects and subjects. For this reason extraverts extend a
certain right of integrity: “the other object has the right to be the way it wants to be. If it bothers me, I will change my relationship with
it, but not the object itself.” This is because, for an extravert, objects and subjects are the fulcrum of consciousness. Changing these objects with
one’s own hands means losing this fulcrum. This leads to the world crumbling, which threatens the collapse of consciousness.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)
As we can read, she defined extraversion in the same way Carl Jung did, the individual is oriented to the external
world, and he will first “change his relationship with the object, but not the object itself”, because the subject is
subjugated to the object, the extravert adapts himself to external conditions rather than adapting the object itself.
With this, we can already state that if an individual is an extravert in any of these systems (Psychological Types and
Socionics), he will also be extraverted in the other two systems, because extraversion is the same thing in all of
them. That would be already enough to state that introverts are the same way (since every extravert is extravert in
all of these systems, introverts are not going to be extraverts), but here is how Ausra defined introversion:
● “For an introvert, relationships are the foundation of the material world. One’s quality as an object is a result and sign of social quality – the value
of the relationships one has, and the feelings one evokes in other people. An introvert’s thought process is the following: everyone can increase
their value in the eyes of society by improving their relationships with others. If the subject is not noticed and valued, it means that they
have not established sufficiently correct relationships.”
She defined introversion as a focus on the interrelations between objects, instead of defining directly as an
orientation to the subject, Ausra decided to define it with different words, but her descriptions still emphasizing
the subject: “If the subject is not noticed and valued, it means that they have not established sufficiently correct
relationships”.
And Jung also said this about introversion, it was already seen in the previous section: “Means a turning inwards of
the libido (q.v.), whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed.”
The subject naturally has a relation with the object, and that’s what he focuses on.
And Ausra herself explained how she views introversion:

● “In the case of the extrathyme, Jung is very close to the truth, except that the subject is also an object, and therefore it is not the introthyme, but
the same extrathyme that is oriented to it in conscious life, while in the case of the introthyme, we had to introduce a completely new concept –
the concept of inter-object and inter-subject relations. These are the relationships in which the introthyme is oriented in their conscious life.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/commentary-on-jungs-typology-and-an-introduction-to-information-metabolism/)
Ausra says that the subject is also an object, and not the introvert itself, and she is not wrong, for Jung said that the
subjects are the men, “we are the subject”. What Ausra means is that we are “objects” as well, and she is right, the
“object” includes everything that includes the external world, including us, human beings, so the subject is also an
object. But Jung sees the subject as something more abstract than this, he sees the subject as the individual’s
internal world, his libido is inwardly directed. Jung never said that the individual itself is not an object, but that he is
driven by subjective factors, while the extravert is oriented to the world of objects and subjects, as Ausra says, as
she also says that subjects are objects, she didn’t interpret “the subject” as a subjective factor, but as an individual,
and there’s nothing wrong with it.
In Socionics, what defines introversion is a focus on interrelations between subjects and objects, which is not
different than being driven by subjective factors, for interrelations are nothing more than a relationship between
the subject and the object, or between two objects, the individual focus on it, while extraverts are driven by the
objects themselves, and adapt their relationships with the objects rather than adapting the objects themselves
(which is equivalent to extraversion in Psychological Types). Ausra’s introversion is still driven and oriented by
subjective and abstract factors: interrelations.
First, to understand what this focus on interrelations is, you need to think about what it means, let’s use Ti
(Introverted Logic, White Logic) as an example, Ti is introverted, therefore it measures fields of interactions
between objects, and not the properties of these objects themselves (the latter falls under extraversion), yet Ti is
defined as an external element (just as Te), being external only means that it deals with explicit facets of reality,
rather than the ones that are hidden from view, with does not mean extraversion by any means, as Jung said
“Everyone is, admittedly, orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him”, the difference is that Ti
and Te deal with these objects in different ways and opposite orientations. However, both Ti and Te are external
and both deal with it, but both work differently when they deal with it. For example, information, concrete data, it’s
all under “explicit facets of reality”, think about an object, such as a law, a law that is determined by a country’s
criminal code, such as the 18 U.S.C., this code’s laws are concrete data, everyone can witness it, everyone can know
it exists, because it’s objective, observable, factual. The 18 U.S.C. would fall under Te, because it’s an objective law
(purely focused on the property of the object itself: extraverted), but it’s Ti who looks at these laws and makes
interrelations between the laws and the subject, be it himself or someone else. For example:
- “There is a law against murder, if I, or someone else, breaks that law, we would be sentenced to death, or life in prison.”
This would fall under Ti, it’s a relationship between the individual and the law, or a relationship between another
individual and the law, again, introversion focuses on interrelations between subjects and objects. It’s a subjective
understanding about the information, the individual sets apart a subjective conclusion about the law (external
information), this individual could either follow the law, or break it, depending on his understanding of it, and how
the subject’s wishes would influence it. Again, the subject (individual) adapts the object (external world) according
to himself, different from the extravert, which adapts himself to external conditions.
When we talk about interrelations, we are already talking about a subjective world of understanding, Ti measures
the weight between two objects, and make conclusions based on it, we can say that Ti looks at two different
informations, such as “EIE E4”, if the individual looks at that information and thinks “EIE can’t be E4” (which is true),
this individual is using Ti (doesn’t matter the type), because he’s measuring interrelations between these two
informations: “EIE” and “E4”. And he draws a conclusion that these types don’t go together based on his
pre-established understanding of both types and how they don’t interrelate based on contradictions between both.
It’s subjective because it can’t be witnessed objectively by everyone, just as this document you’re reading right now,
I am translating my own understanding, based on the interrelations I saw between these systems, and judged them
subjectively, but dealing with external information (the systems themselves), my own understanding about this is
not objective, because it can’t be witnessed by everyone, unless if I decide to structure everything in a document
for everyone to read it, then it will become external information to be witnessed.
Just as Fi works, Fi understands bounds and relationships between people, and this understanding is subjective, a
feeling of love or hatred between two individuals is not objective information, it’s something understood through
subjective lenses, it’s something an individual subjective feels about someone else:
● “Subjective relation between two objects or subjects – attraction and repulsion. Through this element the individual receives information
about the attractive or repulsive force of the objects and subjects, about whether they need each other, about likes and dislikes, love and hatred.”
Both Fi and Fe are internal, because they look at what is hidden from view, feelings and emotions, but both deal
with it differently.
Subjective feelings of love and hatred fall under Fi, for they can not be witnessed or proven objective, it all depends
on the subject’s own understanding of these feelings and how these feelings relate to the objects.
The fact that introversion focus on interrelations only means that it’s subjective, because a relationship between
two objects can’t be objective, it’s not something you can witness or see, it’s not objective data, it’s something
between the subject (the individual) and the object, where the individual is the only one who can testify it
completely, because it’s subjective.
● “An extravert adapts to real subjects, objects, their various manifestations, or to what is happening within them or to them. While doing this,
an extravert produces relations that are acceptable to these subjects and objects.”
● “For an extravert, subjects and objects are the constant of the outside world. For an introvert this constant is found in the relations between
subjects and objects, and the feelings caused by these relations.”
What Ausra says here is that extraverts adapt their relations according to the objects, rather than the objects
themselves, the latter falls under introversion. As she said, the introvert’s constant is found in the relations
themselves, and what these relations cause. As was already explained, relations are something subjective to
individuals, different from objects.
Here, she says this:
● “Objects are observed; relations are the only thing extrathymes feel allowed to manipulate, and in their hands relations become a tool to influence
the external world with. What the extrathyme knows about relations is never 100% true to reality. There is always some inaccuracy in their
understanding of relations between objects, be these relations logical (Ti) or ethical (Fi), spatial (Se) or temporal (Ni). No subject can know every
single object, which means that they also cannot know every single way in which any object is conditioned by all others. Their knowledge about
these relations is always subjective to some extent.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-iee/)

“Extrathyme” means extravert, however, what Ausra says here is that extraverts use relations as a tool to influence
the external world, which makes sense, since they are extraverts and driven to the external world of objects, while
for introverts, she said that if the subject is not valued, it means that they didn’t establish correct relationships,
which only means that the introvert’s predominant orientation belongs to the subject, rather than to the object,
which is, again, what Carl Jung defined as introversion.
This part was longer and it needed to be longer, because Ausra defined introversion in a way that if you look at it
superficially, you will think it’s oriented to the object, merely because it’s focused on relationships, but relationships
don’t fall under the object, relationships are subjective informations about the objects, an object inner information.
If introversion was oriented towards the object merely because of it, it would mean that every sociotype would be
extraverted in Psychological Types, which wouldn’t make sense either, since it would also mean that cognitive
introverts do not exist. Saying that I/E dichotomy is different in both systems is a false claim, for relationships are
not objects, they belong to the subject’s inner world, or to the object’s inner information, information that will only
turn into an object if it’s proven to be a fact.
Note: An example of an object inner information here, think about an smartphone, such as the iPhone 11, the
iPhone itself is an object, but its weight isn’t, the iPhone 11 weighs 194 g (6.84 oz), its weight is subjective
information, because it can not be witnessed, unless if someone proves its weight objectively, and so you can
search it on Google (just as I did) and find out how much it weighs, so now we can see that its weight is a fact,
objective, because it was already measured and proven (by someone who used Ti to measure it), but if it wasn’t, it
would never be objective information.
Conclusion
So we can all agree that being focused on interrelations means that you are, primarily, focused on the subject’s
impressions about the objects. Every introvert in Socionics is cognitively introverted, and every extravert in
Socionics is cognitively extraverted, in both systems.
Rationality and Irrationality
Irrationality means that an individual leads with a perception function (sensation or intuition), while rationality
means the individual leads with a judging function (feeling or thinking). If an individual is irrational, it means that he
perceives information (objective or subjective) first than attributing value to it, first than judging it, judging for an
irrational type is secondary, and the opposite happens with the rational type.
● “As I make use of this term it does not denote something contrary to reason, but something outside the province of reason, whose essence,
therefore, is not established by reason.
● Elementary facts belong to this category, e.g. that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element, that the greatest density of water is found to
be 4.0 centigrade. An accident is also irrational in spite of the fact that it may sustain a subsequent rational explanation.
● The irrational is a factor of existence which may certainly be pushed back indefinitely by an increasingly elaborate and complicated rational
explanation, but in so doing the explanation finally becomes so extravagant and overdone that it passes comprehension, thus reaching the limits of
rational thought long before it can ever span the whole world with the laws of reason.”
As he says, irrationality is not established by reason, it goes beyond that, an intuitive type, for example, an EN
(Extraverted Intuitive) is irrational, because their primary focus is on potentials, what the object tells them that
could give them or other people something, what the object could turn to in the future, and the EN has a good nose
for these opportunities, these potentials the EN sees are not something rational, because it can not be judged by
thinking or feeling, it’s something that can only be purely understood by perception. Same happens with ES, this
type is driven by concrete sensations, his five senses, objective events of reality, without judging them, but making
use of them and observing them, they are not judging if these informations are right or wrong according to a
pre-established code of values, be it logical or not. Of course, I am talking about a pure type, real ESs are what we
know as SEE and SLE in Socionics, which everyone is calling ES(F) and ES(T), because these types have their
auxiliaries which makes them able to judge what they perceive, but they are always predominantly irrational.
● “The rational is the reasonable, that which accords with reason. I conceive reason as an attitude whose principle is to shape thought, feeling,
and action in accordance with objective values. Objective values are established by the average experience of external facts on the one hand, and of
inner psychological facts on the other. Such experiences, however, could represent no objective ‘value’, if ‘valued’ as such by the subject; for this
would already amount to an act of reason. But the reasoning attitude, which permits us to declare as valid objective values in general, is not the
work of the individual subject, but the product of human history.”
● “Thinking and feeling are rational functions in so far as they are decisively influenced by the motive of reflection. They attain their fullest
significance when in fullest possible accord with the laws of reason. The irrational functions, on the contrary, are such as aim at pure
perception, e.g. intuition and sensation; because, as far as possible, they are forced to dispense with the rational (which presupposes the
exclusion of everything that is outside reason) in order to be able to reach the most complete perception of the whole course of events.”
Rational types are concerned with judging and evaluating objects and subjects according to established rational
reasons, such as thinking or feeling, a rational type judges before perceiving, their attitude to the world is judgeful
and focused on making the subject or the object make sense in terms of “rational order” and functioning. For
example, an IT (Introverted Thinking type) is focused on judging the world around him according to the subject’s
inner criteria, if an IT depares himself with an object that contradicts his own code of criteria, the IT will judge the
object as wrong, deficient, something that needs to be “fixed” according to the individual’s inner standards, that are
subjective to him, or merely ignored or destroyed, because it may threat the individual’s inner world, he judges the
object as a way to defend his own criteria it, and not be influenced. Of course, the IT also perceives, but
secondarily, which is what we know as LII and LSI. LIIs and LSIs also perceive, but secondarily, as I said, their first
attitude is to judge the object according to their own criteria of what is right and wrong according to their
(subjective) logic.
Socionics: How J/P dichotomy equals Psychological Types

Ausra Augustinavičiūtė defined that dichotomy the same way Jung did, and she even pointed that out on her
descriptions, she called irrationals as “cyclothymes” and rationals as “schizothymes”.
● “Why do cyclothymes seem impulsive, and were even called “irrational” by C. G. Jung? Because their movements, actions and
emotions are always a consequence of some feelings and a particular mental state; they are a response to a cyclothyme beginning to feel
comfortable, uncomfortable, calm or uncertain. First, cyclothymes need some time to “get going” internally, and only after that do they
react to the situation with an emotion or an action. They do not immediately react to others’ emotions and actions – they react to their own
feelings evoked by others’ emotions and actions, which is why their reactions are somewhat slow, smooth, very well suited to the situation, but not
thought out in advance (“creative”). Cyclothymes do a lot of things simply “out of habit”, in accordance with their established sets.”
● “Schizothymes react to an emotion with an emotion, and to an action with an action – right away, without having to “get going” first. They react
in a very reasonable, thought out manner, basing it on all of their experience. For this reason schizothymes seem more strict, decisive,
“rational”, their movements are more quick and rigid, their emotions are colder and sharper. Feeling for a schizothyme is a
consequence of an action rather than its cause: after a correct action or emotion they feel* better, and after an incorrect action –
worse. Because of this fact schizothymes carefully examine and contemplate actions and manifestations of emotions. If schizothymes feel bad,
they ponder what they have done wrong, and dig through their past to acquire experience for the future. On the other hand, when cyclothymes
feel bad, they think about the future rather than the past: what they need to do to change the way they feel.”
Basically, cyclothymes perceive before judging, they need to “get going” before reacting with an emotion, for
example, their emotions and actions are consequences and not what they are primarily concerned about, they are
more adaptable and can see more impulsive as well, while schizothymes always act with a decision in mind, seeking
for rationality and “reason”, as Jung said.
● “A cyclothyme’s actions are impulsive, they are nothing more than an individual’s adaptation to the real situation and to their own feelings. It
could be said that a cyclothyme acts when they need to exit some kind of situation or some kind of state, while a schizothyme acts when they need
to create a particular state, to make themselves feel a certain way.”
Conclusion
We can conclude with all of this, that Jung and Ausra were talking about the same principle. If you are an LSE, you
are a rational type, concerned about judging before perceiving, making the object make sense, you are strict,
orderly, driven by objective facts (Te, ET) and demandingly critical. Which is why an LSE will always be an ET.
The Eight Types | The Sixteen Sociotypes

There are eight cognitive types, described by Carl G. Jung, and then Ausra Augustinavičiūtė translated them into
sixteen, for example, Jung described the type EN, and then Ausra described two different types of EN: IEE and ILE.
For their auxiliary (which she called creative element, and also the demonstrative) differs, one is ethical, while the
other is logical. Ausra herself said that her types are a development of the Jungian types, what changes in Socionics
is that we have more elements (functions) and more dynamics, but their base element remains the same, the way
they primarily deal with the world, which is what they value the most.
Ausra:
● “Apparently, this is an instance where the author’s lack of a psychology or physics degree didn’t stop us from seeing new horizons beyond C.G.
Jung’s typology... Hence we feel obligated to inform the reader that we didn’t invent anything ourselves and merely deepened and
clarified C.G. Jung’s provisions, although some of them changed beyond recognition."
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (The Socion)

● “The eight-element model proposed by Jung, which we called the J model, to a certain extent turned out to be a temporary and a working
hypothesis that’s already done its job. Although we confirmed that the type of IM is determined by eight elements, Model J had to be replaced
by the two-ring Model A, which we will get acquainted with in other sections of our work.”
It’s also important to state that Ausra herself recognized that Jung’s functions and her elements are equivalent, and
she also defined his psychological types according to her sociotypes:
● “Jung’s terms extraverted-introverted are tiring to write out [in Russian]. Even more tiring are the names of the element-functions. Jung refers to
these functions in an extraverted or introverted setting. Thus, those functions which are in the extraverted attitude are this way because they
are extravertized by functions with the introverted attitude. And those with the introverted attitude are introvertized by those with the
extraverted attitude. Therefore, for practical use, we think it is possible to create new, simpler terms. The functions in the extroverted
attitude will be called extrathymic elements. Functions in the introverted attitude will be called introthymic elements.”
● “That’s why he (Jung) named his types:
The Ego Models in Symbols:
1. Extraverted Thinker: LSE, LIE

2. Extraverted Feeler: ESE, EIE
3. Extraverted Sensor: SLE, SEE
4. Extraverted Intuitive: ILE, IEE
5. Introverted Thinker: LSI, LII
6. Introverted Feeler: ESI, EII
7. Introverted Sensor: SLI, SEI
8. Introverted Intuitive: ILI, IEI”
Extraverted Thinking type: LSE, LIE

This is how Carl Jung defined the Extraverted Thinking type:
● “In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim—in so far, of course, as he is a pure type—is to bring
his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data,
whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice—not merely for himself alone but also on
behalf of his entourage—either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula.”
As he says, the ET is always oriented by objective data, objective facts and generally valid ideas. A man that has ET
as his type, thinks through objective data, which is why he is extraverted and leads with Thinking. It’s a man who
deals with concrete information to judge and decide his actions, he subordinates himself to these facts and also
wants others to do the same. He builds an intellectual formula based on facts and objective data, and this formula is
constantly being adapted to these facts:
● “By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is
wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental.”
They measure good and evil, beauty and ugliness through that formula, which is always built by objective data and
adapted to it, the ET will judge a food based on objective standards of what makes a food a good food, objective and
factual, proven methods of which is the most practical and right way to cook, which is why we have ETs like
Gordon Ramsay (LSE), and they impose these methods to other people. Such as how Ausra defined Te base:
● “The use of kinetic energy. Through this element the individual receives information about the activity of the object and subject, and their ability
to work.”
● “It determines one’s knowledge of possible methods of action, and an ability or inability to personally come up with such methods. It also
determines one’s ability or inability to direct others’ work and to distinguish rational actions from irrational ones.”
● “When this aspect of perception is in the leading position, the individual has an aptitude for planning their own work and the work of others.
They have an ability to understand how logical a process is, to adjust others’ workflow in accordance with this understanding, to use the most
rational methods of action and to communicate these methods to other people.”
More on Te:
● “As a Dynamic element, Extraverted Logic tracks the object as it is in motion – what is happening to the object. As an Extraverted element, it
encompasses what is happening to the object itself, without regard to the other objects surrounding it. And as an External element, it tracks what
is happening to the object in the external world, rather than its internal landscape.”
Source: https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/extraverted-logic/
She defined Te as something who evaluates and judges things according to concrete and objective data, and they
communicate these methods to others, they distinguish rational and irrational actions based on that. They judge
everything according to external evidence.
This is a bit of how she defined LSE:
● “The LSE shows initiative, is decisive, and likes to be at the center of attention. They assert their ideas boldly and with great passion. They
wouldn’t be shy in front of their superiors, and aren’t even afraid to be aggressive. They know that things will go well, if their time frames are
established immediately. They do not tolerate procrastination. A passionate fighter for quality and thoroughness in their work. A good military
officer.”
● “Tends to knock people out of complacency. The LSE does not speak of good things, which they take for granted. Their grumpy emotions tend
to suppress the emotions of others around them.”
● “They believe that obedience to the rules is a positive trait, a manifestation of good character. They have no tolerance for cunning tricks, and hate
crooks and cheats. "Political maneuvers can lead to quick results, but the real long-term and reliable effect is achieved only by hard day-to-day
work". They like order: when buying something new, they will first study the instructions and only afterwards turn it on.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (LSE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)
As you can see, LSE is described as an orderly, efficient and duty oriented, rule-bound type, imposing and
demanding, externally oriented, just like the ET. As was mentioned before, Gordon Ramsay is an example of this
type, but we can also include Ben Shapiro and Paul the Apostle.
Fictional examples include Hermione Granger (Harry Potter), Thanos (MCU) and Byakuya Togami (Danganronpa).
And this is a bit of how she defined LIE:
● “The LIE is a tireless worker in their endeavors. They enjoy doing science or any other objective work that they find promise in. LIEs work
quickly; any work that they touch fizzles away. So much so that they walk in a peculiar way: slightly bouncy, and if possible, preferring to run.”
● “A representative of this type, Jack London, took up many careers in his life: a courier, a worker, a prospector, a sailor, and even a writer. In his
mind, this was his self-sacrifice: work in the name of art and in the name of success.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (LIE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)
More:
● “The LIE is inclined to a different style of working. They are like an experimenter, purifying science from unnecessary impurities. It is they who
are constantly trying to separate the scientific from the unscientific.”
● “The LIE, on the other hand, checks both scientific and non-scientific theories with great patience in order to criticize the non-scientific one and
implement the scientific one. Therefore, research institutes led by this personality type tend to fulfill a different role in science.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/leader-in-science-government-and-arts/)
See, the LIE is also oriented by data and facts, just as the LSE, but it is oriented towards concepts, science,
everything that falls under intuition, for LIE has both Ni and Ne in strong dimensions, while the LSE has strong Si
and Se. A good example of LIE would be Steve Jobs, and also Niccolò Machiavelli.
Fictional examples are Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) and Sōsuke Aizen
(Bleach).
Another quote from the jungian ET type that shows how this type has a dynamic and productive thinking:
● “The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate
experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis
to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material.”
Conclusion
- LSE: ET(S)
- LIE: ET(N)
Extraverted Feeling type: ESE, EIE
This is how Carl Jung defined the Extraverted Feeling type:
● “In so far as feeling is, incontestably, a more obvious peculiarity of feminine psychology than thinking, the most pronounced feeling-types are also
to be found among women. When extraverted feeling possesses the priority we speak of an extraverted feeling-type. Examples of this type that I
can call to mind are, almost without exception, women. She is a woman who follows the guiding-line of her feeling.”
● “The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values.
Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called ‘love-choice’; the ‘suitable’ man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much
because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman—as a rule she is quite uninformed about this—but because he
meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement.”
● “What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. ‘But I can’t think what I don’t feel’, such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as
feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the
outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the
rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.”
Basically, the EF feels, and she feels a lot, based on objective conditions, she subjugates herself to these conditions
and adhere to these objective values of what should be good or bad collectively, and they also defend and may
impose these values, for they see it as a kind of “greater good”, but these values are dictated by Feeling, not
Thinking.
Ausra defined Fe base:
● “Transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy. Through this element the individual receives information about the object’s excitation
and excitability, and people’s moods and emotions.”
● “Information about processes occurring in objects – primarily emotional processes occurring in people, people’s state of excitation or
suppression, and their moods. This aspect of perception provides an ability to e.g. understand what inspires people and what suppresses them. It
determines one’s ability or inability to control one’s own emotional state and the emotional states of others.”
● “Such an individual has an ability to infect others with their moods, and a tendency to impose specific emotional states on them (those emotional
states being what the individual considers beneficial for others’ activities).”
As she described it, Fe is focused on other people’s moods and emotions, and how to change them according to
what the Fe base considers good for other people, what they consider good is what the objective conditions tell
them to. For example, an Fe base might see someone who is way too closed and aloof, maybe even sad, and try to
make this person feel a certain way, to bring them to what is objectively seen as the right way to feel and to act.
The Fe base is also very expressive and they are able to infect people with their moods and emotions, which also
fits how Carl Jung defined EF:
● “This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one,
however, somewhat incredulous.”
● “Hysteria, with the characteristic infantile sexuality of its unconscious world of ideas, is the principal form of neurosis with this type.”
This is how Ausra defined ESE:
● “Their emotions are strong, colorful, and often overbearing. They can catch fire with an idea and chase it all their lives – Heinrich Schliemann,
German archaeologist, excavated the ancient Greek city of Troy as a child; but to achieve this dream he had to get an education in spite of his
poverty and get rich. The ESE admires art – for them, it is a source of conscious joy. Their moods create themselves and the ESE knows how to
infect others with it. Their emotions are kind, nuanced, and compassionate.”
● “The ESE is a pleasant conversationalist and an exceptionally attentive listener. They know how to find an approach to anyone. They take pride in
making others happy. Loves a good meal and having a good conversation at the dinner table. Guests are given special attention. They are able to
understand, approve, and sympathize with others – they are a believer in people. They are not the kind to envy; instead rejoicing with the
successes of others.”
● “They like to be believed, and don’t like to prove their point. They aren’t aggressive, but will defend themselves very actively. They refuse to be
offended even by their superiors.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (ESE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)
The ESE is a pleasant and caring individual about other people’s emotions and how to make others feel better, they
adapt themselves to these feelings and emotions, just as the EF.
Fictional examples of this type are Aerith (Final Fantasy VII) and Barbie herself. Some real life examples include
Ariana Grande and Selena Gomez.
Ausra on EIE:
● “A serious person focused on global issues. They see the world in dramatic, and even tragic colors. They expect all kinds of troubles. Their
leitmotif in life, like Beethoven’s four famous notes, is fate. They tend to set and solve their personal problems on a global scale. They often seek to
benefit all of humanity.”
● “They place feelings above reason.”
● “They never do what they consider evil and are utterly intolerant of it in others. However, they work under their own theory of ethics, without
regard to customs and authority. They sometimes have very particular views on the problems of good and evil. In any case, they consistently
adhere to this view and persistently defend it.”
● “The EIE is attentive to people, and sometimes even compulsive and demanding, sympathizing with them, trying to help in difficult moments. It
is not easy for the people around him: they do not view life as easy. More often than not, the EIE is a good family figure.”
● “The emotions of ethical extroverts are strong, colorful, imposing, highly expressive, and often commanding. They are not shy and do not hide
their emotions. The depth and variety of their emotions is the most valuable thing they see in themselves, and they appreciate others based on it.
They try to improve the mediums of expressing emotion. Hence their particularly strong inclination towards music and poetry.”
● “These emotions are controlled, guided, and monitored by the mind. They themselves create moods, and moods are not what happens to them
without their conscious desire. Emotions are quite often the fundamental fabric of life, its essence, yet at the same time an embellishment, and
not a compliment, as is the case for logical types. As a rule, they are very pleasant interlocutors and attentive listeners – they can understand,
admire, approve, sympathize, and enter into the position of another.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (EIE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, On The Dual Nature of Humanity)
The EIE is also described in the same way, but with intuition, they are often more visionary and believe they are
some kind of the “chosen one” who is fated to save others. These are idealistic, altruistic individuals, and these
ideals often include the benefit of all humanity. The EIE and the ESE are altruistic individuals driven by objective
conditions of feeling, just as the EF. EIEs and ESEs ignore what they personally may feel, subjectively, in favor of
other people’s feelings. A real life example of EIE is Anna Akhmátova.
Fictional examples of this type include Daenerys Targaryen (Game of Thrones), Galadriel (The Lord of the Rings),
Lelouch vi Britannia (Code Geass) and Margaery Tyrell (Game of Thrones).
Conclusion
- ESE: EF(S)
- EIE: EF(N)
Extraverted Sensation type: SEE, SLE
This is how Carl Jung defined the Extraverted Sensation type:
● “No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an
accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain
cases the events of his life hardly deserve the name ‘experience’. He knows no better use for this sensed ‘experience’ than to make it serve as a guide
to fresh sensations; anything in the least ‘new’ that comes within his circle of interest is forthwith turned to a sensational account and is made to
serve this end. In so far as one is disposed to regard a highly developed sense for sheer actuality as very reasonable, will such men be esteemed
rational. In reality, however, this is by no means the case, since they are equally subject to the sensation of irrational, chance happenings, as they
are to rational behaviour.”
● “When he ‘senses’, everything essential has been said and done. Nothing can be more than concrete and actual; conjectures that transcend or go
beyond the concrete are only permitted on condition that they enhance sensation. This need not be in any way a pleasurable reinforcement, since
this type is not a common voluptuary; he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without.”
● “But the more sensation predominates, so that the sensing subject disappears behind the sensation, the more unsatisfactory does this type
become. Either he develops into a crude pleasure-seeker or he becomes an unscrupulous, designing sybarite. Although the object is entirely
indispensable to him, yet, as something existing in and through itself, it is none the less depreciated. It is ruthlessly violated and essentially
ignored, since now its sole use is to stimulate sensation. The hold upon the object is pushed to the utmost limit.”
Carl Jung defined the ES as a very grounded and realistic type, irrational, driving by sensation and stimulus, the ES
is oriented towards the object, as a good extravert, and with Sensation it turns into a type focused on extracting
sensations from these objects, as much as they can, the more intense it becomes, the more the ES becomes
unpleasant and unsatisfactory, only caring about his own sensory satisfactions. They are often materialistic and
very active.
Ausra defined Se as:
● “Kinetic energy. Through this element the individual receives information about the mobilization, willpower, strength and beauty of the
observed objects and subjects.”
● “The object’s kinetic energy, its readiness to expend its energy. Its external qualities – color, outline, smoothness or roughness of its surface.
External mobilization. A person’s will, their ability and readiness to use their will on themself and others. A sense of whether the object is ready to
exercise its will, to show its strength, whether the object is aesthetic.”
● “ This perception provides an ability to see how much “kinetic energy” a particular person has and how useful they can be in action.”
● “Such an individual knows how to handle physical things, how to recreate almost any object based on existing samples. This demonstrates their
aptitude for organizing physical matter. They seek to exercise their volition, energy, strength, to subordinate others’ will to their own.”
If you pay attention, she defined Se as a perceptive element focused on physical and aesthetical conditions of the
objects, be it their strength, beauty (just how the ES is defined), their capability to get into action. This is all
perception, irrationality, because Se does not judge these informations by itself, it just perceives, such as seeing an
object as strong or weak, movable or not, it’s just you perceiving the object and not judging it as good or bad, you
are not making a value judgment about these things, they just perceive it through their senses. Jung said this about
Extraverted Sensation:
● “The function of sense is, of course, absolute in the stricter sense; for example, everything is seen or heard to the farthest physiological possibility,
but not everything attains that threshold value which a perception must possess in order to be also apperceived. It is a different matter when
sensation itself possesses priority, instead of merely seconding another function. In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and
nothing repressed (with the exception of the subjective share already mentioned). Sensation has a preferential objective determination, and those
objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual’s psychology. The result of this is a pronounced sensuous hold to the
object. Sensation, therefore, is a vital function, equipped with the potentest [sic] vital instinct. In so far as objects release sensations, they matter;
and, in so far as it lies within the power of sensation, they are also fully accepted into consciousness, whether compatible with reasoned judgment
or not. As a function its sole criterion of value is the strength of the sensation as conditioned by its objective qualities.”
The SEE and SLE’s impulsiveness and forceful nature is a consequence of their objective and concrete sensing.
It’s also important to emphasize that Ausra herself said this:
● “Apparently, this is an instance where the author’s lack of a psychology or physics degree didn’t stop us from seeing new horizons beyond C.G.
Jung’s typology... Hence we feel obligated to inform the reader that we didn’t invent anything ourselves and merely deepened and clarified
C.G. Jung’s provisions, although some of them changed beyond recognition."
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (The Socion)
However, Ausra defined SEE as:
● “The SEE takes pride in their influence over people, as well as their love, respect, and popularity. They are happy to take leadership positions and
are confident and demanding in the realm of their sexuality.”
● “More often than not, the SEE has an innate aesthetic taste, knows how to dress well, and demands that others around them do the same. They
are attentive to their partner’s physical appearance.”
● “The SEE takes the initiative in their activities, but they lack a sense of proportionality for measuring how much they have done. They are
constantly unsure if they did as much as they could.”
Defined as an concrete and irrational individual, in some quotes they are defined as emotional and it’s very
emphasized, but it’s more about how the ES works with auxiliary Feeling, the SEE is, above all, an individual who
leads with Se, focused on the aesthetic of the object and its strength, they take initiative, very much focused on the
sensory side of life. Jung defined ES that way:
● “He dresses well, according to his circumstances ; he keeps a good table for his friends, who are either made comfortable or at least given to
understand that his fastidious taste is obliged to impose certain claims upon his entourage. He even convinces one that certain sacrifices are
decidedly worth while for the sake of style.”
An example of this type in the real world is Conor McGregor (UFC), and also Diego Maradona (Football).
Fictional examples include Tony Montana (Scarface) and Johnny Silverhand (Cyberpunk 2077).
She defined SLE as:
● “The SLE considers everything that is necessary to achieve the "end result" be their life’s work. A strong-willed, goal-oriented person. "Listen! If
stars are lit, it means there is someone who needs it, it means someone wants them to be, that someone deems those specks of spit magnificent!"”
● “Not every manager could afford to say “I don’t get it.” Everything they do, they do enthusiastically, passionately, and intend to see it through.
They have the character of a restless fighter, who must at all costs prevail over the opposition. “One should not avoid difficulties! One must know
how to overcome them!” is their motto.”
● “Quickly grasps the situation and the balance of power. Then makes a decision and acts. They are capable of political maneuvering, but will never
cross the line. They possess a strong sense of logic, but this logic is purposeful, partisan logic. It does not serve for philosophical reasoning, but for
the creative search of the shortest path to the goal. It is easier for them to compromise on their logic than their goals.”
● “They are hardly subjected to fear, hatred, and other negative emotions. They are neither surprised nor envious. The more dangerous the
situation, the more focused and determined they become.”
The SLE is equally described, they are even said to be easier to compromise on their logic (Ti, Te) than their goals,
because this type is irrational, the realm of logic and rationality is not something they will care more than they do
for their Se, this is not something you would see in an LSI, or an LSE, for example, these types are very rigid and
uncompromising in their beliefs, while the SLE uses logic as a way to achieve their Se goals, just like the SEE uses
ethics. The SLE is also described as someone who “the more dangerous the situation, the more focused and
determined they become”, just as the ES being defined as “the more sensation predominates, the more
unsatisfactory they become”. The SLE is described as an irrational extraverted type just as it is. Like Carl Jung
defined the extraverted irrational:
● “I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon
reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has
been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective
occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not.”
SLEs are irrational individuals in their cognition, concerned with perceiving more than judging, even when they are
more rationalized it just comes from their creative and demonstrative elements (Ti, Te), it’s not their first approach
to deal with the world.
Examples of this type in the real world include Donald Trump and Che Guevara.
Fictional examples may contain Billy Butcher (The Boys), Daemon Targaryen (House of the Dragon), Ragnar
Lothbrok (Vikings) and Shao Kahn (Mortal Kombat).
Conclusion
- SEE: ES(F)
- SLE: ES(T)
Extraverted Intuition type: IEE, ILE

Carl Jung on the Extraverted Intuitive type:
● “Whenever intuition predominates, a particular and unmistakable psychology presents itself. Because intuition is orientated by the object, a
decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational
type. The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist. He has a
keen nose for things in the bud pregnant with future promise. He can never exist in stable, long-established conditions of generally acknowledged
though limited value: because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation.”
● “He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them
cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any
considerable future development no longer clings to them. As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate. It is as
though his whole life went out into the new situation.”
The EN is a type that has, as he says, a keen nose for things “in the bud pregnant with future promise”, it means that
this type is focused on the potential of the objects, of what an object could become in the future, and they are good
to see it, just as the ES, he is focused on perceiving the object objectively, but through intuition instead of sensing.
They are very seeking for these opportunities and possibilities. Ausra defined Ne as:
● “Potential energy. Through this element the individual receives information about the potential energy of the observed object and subject, their
physical and mental abilities.”
● “The object’s potential energy, internal content and structure, internal capabilities. The program embedded in the object. Any concrete abilities
of a person.”
● “A sense of whether hidden internal abilities and capabilities are present. This sense makes it possible to tell whether an object or phenomenon is
permanent or short-lived.”
● “Information about potential energy of objects – for example, someone’s physical and psychological abilities and capabilities. This perception
provides an ability to understand the structure of objects and phenomena, to figure out their internal content. It determines one’s ability or
inability to see real potential forces of the environment.”
● “Such an individual likes to explain to others what they themselves understood. In favorable conditions becomes a scientist or a writer. Able to
find optimal ways of increasing the object’s potential energy. "Charges" others with their own understanding of the surrounding objects’
capabilities.”
Ne is focused on the objects’ potential, which is why they look at it with intuitive eyes, different from Se, which
would look at it and take the object as face value for being an objective sensing-oriented type. Ne is also concrete
(but just because it’s objective/extraverted), it’s concrete because it’s focused on potential that can factually
become true, which is different from Ni, which is subjective and most times differ from reality.
Despite from having vulnerable Ti, IEEs need external laws to work productively and make progress, Aushra said:
● “Activity of the IEE requires strict regulation by rules, laws, instructions, or customs. Otherwise they cannot work productively and will not be
making progress. Those who have Te in their Superid are not great at figuring out how to do something or how to act. They follow all rules,
instructions and laws very autonomously and honestly, but they cannot add anything of their own into this process. For this reason they zealously
fulfill that which is prescribed and can be trusted when initiative is not needed, when the task and the way it should be carried out are strictly
regulated. These people act in accordance with how it is generally accepted to act. Rules, laws and instructions IEEs follow in their activity
resemble riverbanks along which the river flows. The channel in which the river flows is not something it established or paved itself.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-iee/)
Ausra defined IEE as:
● “The IEE is a high-spirited and artistic person who quickly resolves personal problems. They always rely on immediate improvisation instead of
preparing their work in advance. They love situations with interesting new endeavors, where they can show the abilities of themselves and others,
where one can expect to find the most incredible of developments.”
● “Everything depends on the IEE’s mood: their plans for the future, their attitude toward themselves, and their perception of the world. Bright
plans can be replaced by painful disappointment, but interesting news, praise, and the sudden emergence of an interesting opportunity can
instantly change their mood. Boredom just makes them sick.”
● “In the eyes of the IEE, anyone who threatens the world of valuable objects becomes an enemy of society, an aggressor. This includes those who
threaten scientific theories; more broadly, the enemies of society are those who threaten anything that is perceived by the accepting element of the
IEE’s Superego and is, to the IEE, an object of orientation in the external world: art, established scientific theories and hypotheses, and other
objects. A threat causes aggression. For the IEE aggression manifests in words, in caustic humor and sarcasm, rather than in actions. The IEE kills
with words, jokes, contemptuous smiles, but is exceptionally cautious in their actions.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (IEE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-iee/)
There’s not much to say here, the type is described as very intuitive and extroverted, focused on possibilities,
potentials and seeking for interactions with others to tell them about these potentials they see, the third quote just
confirms again that extraversion is the same thing in both systems.
An example of this type in the real world could be the actress Helena Bonham Carter.
Fictional examples of this type include Harley Quinn (DC Comics), The Mad Hatter (Alice in Wonderland), and Willy
Wonka (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).
ILE:
● “They are adept at finding new prospects and opportunities. What’s already been accomplished always seems insignificant to them compared to
the novel prospects lying ahead, which they find as irresistible and never-ending. If they are a scientist, they tend to delay publishing the results of
their research, believing that greater accomplishments are still ahead. The ILE lives for the future; their lack of recognition in the present does not
bother them. They do what interests them, not what is profitable.”
● “I am who I am because of my thinking and because my thoughts are generative since they are needed and recognized by society. I know this
because I get sent to solve challenging problems due to how I manage to notice new laws in the development of potential forces of the
surrounding world and because these laws, discovered by both me and others, are taken into account in the practical activity of society. As long as
society takes advantage of my services, I can use my intellect to solve its problems and establish newer, more logical relationships to the potential
forces of the surrounding objective world.”
● “For the ILE the most interesting thing in every object, phenomenon, and situation is the structure and potential hidden in them. With particular
ease and without difficulties or mistakes, the ILE delves into everything within the field of their professional interests (provided the ILE has an
opportunity to consider the studied phenomenon and to perceive it in a way known only to them). The ILE sees the potentialities, abilities, and
hidden power of each object like an X-ray. People think that what they see so obviously to themselves should be seen by others too, i.e. as common
sense. Therefore, they correct others categorically and even with some surprise: "How can someone miss something so obvious?"”
● “However, preferably not under the ILE’s leadership themselves. Since this type of personality does not see the benefit of science when their team
is so large that the leader is no longer able to track the work of almost every employee, especially if they don’t have time to show their own
initiative in science. This person does not sign their name under other people’s works. They don’t consider it necessary. The more independence
their employees have, the more indispensable they become. There is nothing “wasted” here. They seek to work for pleasure, not until they’re tired,
so they work without noticing fatigue.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (ILE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/ile-description/,

https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/leader-in-science-government-and-arts/)
ILE is described as a type who is primarily focused on the potential of the objects as well, but structuring it in
sequence as a way to make these potentials make sense logically, and they transmit their visions to others. I would
consider Elon Musk a good representative of this type nowadays.
Fictional examples may include Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty), Tony Stark (MCU), Jack Sparrow (Pirates Of The
Caribean), Satoru Gojo (Jujutsu Kaisen), and also Gandalf (The Lord of the Rings).
Conclusion
- IEE: EN(F)
- ILE: EN(T)
Introverted Thinking type: LSI, LII
Carl Jung on the Introverted Thinking type:
● “With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes
more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and
inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand.”
● “So it happens that this type tends to in the worst cases, it is even surrounded by totally unnecessary precautionary measures.”
● “Either he is sullen or he falls among people who cannot understand him; so he proceeds to gather further evidence of the man's unfathomable
stupidity.”
● “When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, he doesn't have the air of an anxious mother concerned for the welfare of her
children; he just exposes them, and is often extremely irritated when they fail to thrive on their own.”
● “If in your eyes your product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others simply have to bow to its truth.”
● “In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced
by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the better one
knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy.”
● “Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every
criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned
by a kind of sediment of bitterness.”
● “In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence.”
● “However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of
reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone.”
● “But the better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To
people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social
prejudices.“
● “His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel
nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a
certain subjective superiority. “
Ok, this type is one of the easiest to correlate, and very much because of how cartoonish it is, the IT is a rigid and
unbending type with their own logical criteria, they set a personal code of criteria which they follow, eliminating
external influences and remaining true to their own inner logic, evaluating the object according to it, if the object
doesn’t fit what the IT subjectively thinks, he will either try to change the object according to himself (introversion,
adapting the object to the subject), ignore the object or try to “destroy” it somehow, because the IT may consider
the object a threat to his own criteria, of course, I am talking about a pure type, and maybe it even sounds more LSI
than LII because of the level of rigidity, since LII is intuitive and they can be more open-minded, they can see the
potential behind other ideas and objects, but it’s still secondary to them, they can be as rigid in their Ti, but
intuitively, while LSI is a sensing type. But that’s what Ti does, it creates or adheres to a system of criteria which
they see the world through, which is different from what ET (Te base) does, the ET adheres and adapts to every
fact, generally valid idea and concrete data that exists, and builds an intellectual formula based on it, the IT adheres
to a single system, or create his own, and everything that does not fit into its inner system is wrong, while the ET
considers everything that does not fit the facts that their formula is based upon as wrong. As Jung says:
● “The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his extraverted parallel, he is decisively
influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will
follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity.”
The IT (LSI, LII) follows his ideas inwardly and his aim is intensity, their system is always getting more intense and
rigid, immune to the object’s influence, while the ET’s aim is extensity, adapting his formula to facts and data,
following his ideas outwardly (LSE, LIE). Both LSI and LII ignore everything that does not fit the way they see the
world.
This is how Ausra described Ti:
● “When this aspect of perception is in the leading position, the individual is notably logical in their assessment of the interrelations in the objective
static world, or world of objects. They have an ability to alter the relations between the properties of different objects, changing these relations in a
desired direction. By doing this they are also able to impact the objects possessing said properties. Their accurate assessment of their own relations
with other objects lets them know which objects should be avoided and which can be “hunted”.
● “An individual with this type of IM has an ability to set their logic (i.e. their cognition of the objective world and of its regularities and
proportions) in opposition to the knowledge of others. They can shape and improve their own and other people’s cognition of the objective
world. This gives them a sense of power when faced with the logic or illogicality of others.”
As I already explained here, Ti focus on interrelations, which I also explained how this is a subjective orientation,
and introverted. Ti sets interrelations in the “objective static world of objects”, which means they look at the world
(because it’s external, and I also explained how being external doesn’t equal objective in the extraverted sense), and
then they set their own logic based on it, as Ausra said, they change the objects’ relations in their own desired
direction, which is why Ti is introverted and, therefore, subjective. They oppose their own logic about the objective
world against the knowledge of others, which is, again, why it’s subjective, they are not driven by objective data or
facts, but by their own capability to evaluate the objects subjectively and logically. They also know which objects
should be avoided or “hunted”, which means they select the objects that will fit their own understanding of
something, different than Te, which will always follow every kind of fact that exists, because they subordinate
themselves to the facts. Ti also shape and improve their own and other people’s cognition of the objective world,
which just means they are constantly improving and intensifying their own logic, and they transmit their subjective
logic to others, that gives them a sense of power against the object, just perfectly like the IT does.
Ausra described LSI:
● “They know how to sensibly and accurately choose the best available system or dogma, and fight for its implementation with uncompromising
stubbornness. They categorically reject everything that cannot fit in it, and bring the system to an ideal state. They are very reliable in the
implementation of their system, even if this system is temporary.”
● “The LSI does not read much, and thinks a lot instead – this is their favorite state. They always convert their knowledge to a state of practical
application. The LSI’s actions seem paradoxical and unpredictable to those who do not possess the LSI’s thorough understanding of the
situation. They see a way out where others do not.”
● “They do not like to be the center of attention. In communication, they are sensitive and unobtrusive. At the same time, they need listeners.”
● “They will involve people by their dedication to the implementation of their own system. If they see precisely see something that others do not,
they may become aggressive. Stubborn and uncompromising.”
● “They are robust and enduring, and do not waste time on everyday conveniences. They prefer to hide their feelings, such as hunger, fatigue, pain,
and fear. A sick child of this type won’t groan as to not distress their mother.”
● “"I will think about nothing" means to live as if there is no tomorrow because the question of "tomorrow" for the LSI is a source of anxiety. They
call their boarding schools hell, despite the fact that they chose it themselves and would not trade it for the world. And it is called hell, as far as I
understand it, simply because it is a crowded space — there are two or more people in each room — as well as the lack of freedom: people are not
always free to leave their rooms and venture about in the city.”
● “Among other things, the LSI has an unconscious urge to annoy people with their behavior, similar to how others might want to make chain dogs
bark. Why? In my opinion, this is due to an unconscious hope to receive emotional feedback from an EIE of a more or less equal strength. This
feedback gives the LSI’s Vital Ring the exact focused background it needs.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (LSI Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/lsi-characteristic/)
As you can see, the LSI is a subjective thinker, who chooses or creates his own dogmas and it gives him a sense of
direction, they may impose their criteria forcefully, even violently, if needed, they fight for their own criteria, they
can either adhere to an existing system or create their own, as a way to avoid influences, they may reactive
aggressively when someone does not understand what they understand, just as Jung defined the IT:
● “However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of
reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone.”
The LSI and the LII may react differently to it, since the LSI’s creative function is Se, a function that moves objects,
they are more aggressive in their nature.
The LSI fights to make the world make sense according to his criteria, I consider Bruce Wayne, the Batman (DC
Comics), a good fictional representant of this type, he says:
● “The world only makes sense if you force it to."
– Bruce Wayne “Batman”
This quote is good to understand how TiSe works in LSI, and how cognitive introversion is present in them. Some
good examples of this type in the real world could be Vladimir Putin, also Sun Tzu, Bobby Fischer, Ted Kaczyinski,
Joseph Stalin, and so on.
She also defined LSI like this:
● ““They do not impose their work upon anyone and are vigilant about not disturbing others with it. If there is a suspicion that this has happened,
they feel extremely uncomfortable.””
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/lsi-characteristic/)
It’s due to LSI’s Te ignoring, they are not concerned nor they are about organizing people’s work, they are often
loner in their work and thoughts, just like Batman prefers to work alone, and the way he leads and work with others
is always subtle, his subordinates are often teens (Robin, Barbara Gordon), which decided to work with him, and
even in Justice League he remains more “behind the curtains” in his leadership.
Other fictional examples of this type are Severus Snape (Harry Potter), Walter Kovacs “Rorschach” (Watchmen) and
Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII).
However, Ausra defined LII as:
● “A person with a developed logic and a strong capacity for analysis. They are able to logically arrive at the essence of phenomena and uncover its
inner structure.”
● “This is the type of a revolutionary or political conspirator. In conflict situations, they organize committees to crush the opposition. The LII
believes that everything in the world must be logical and therefore just.”
● “Providence created me for quiet office work, giving it all the delight of my soul,” said Thomas Jefferson, during whose presidency the size of the
United States almost doubled. They view all of life’s happenings from a logical point of view.”
● “The LII’s greatest strength is their logical thinking. Their extraverted intuition, which encourages social activity, is their second and most creative
side, but is demanding of social recognition.”
● “The LII’s selflessness in defending justice becomes particularly striking when one considers that they abhor anything and everything that disturbs
the quiet and measured course of their lives.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (LII Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)
Just as the LSI, the LII fights for his own system, a system that often includes a more democratic way to deal with
things, they may consider other people’s intentions and might fight for it, for their creative element is Ne (intuition
of potential), while the LSI may struggle with it, having Ne in the vulnerable spot, they are not good at seeing the
potential behind the objects and may often judge their potential as negative. The LII sees the potential behind the
objects and it makes them more “open-minded”. Maximilien de Robespierre was a good representative of this type,
fighting for his belief: “The world should live in harmony, people deserve to be happy”, an LII may say, “so let’s take a
guillotine and chop off heads of all bad people who hamper our creation so that only good ones remain and
everyone will be happy” (this quote was written by Grigory Reinin). What would Nikola Tesla have done, if he was an
LSI instead of an LII? I assure you, he wouldn’t have been who he was.
Fictional examples of this type include Near, from Death Note, Itachi Uchiha, from Naruto, and the Professor, from
Money Heist.
Conclusion
- LSI: IT(S)
- LII: IT(N)
Introverted Feeling type: ESI, EII
This is how Carl Jung defined the Introverted Feeling type:
● “It is principally among women that I have found the priority of introverted feeling. The proverb ‘Still waters run deep’ is very true of such
women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their
temperament is melancholic. “
● “A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type. Such a view,
however, would be quite false; the truth is, her feelings are intensive rather than extensive. “
● “Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward
demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others,
either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. “
● “One may even be made to feel the superfluousness of one’s own existence. In the presence of something that might carry one away or arouse
enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent neutrality, tempered with an occasional trace of superiority and criticism that soon takes the wind out
of the sails of a sensitive object.”
● “This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images; consciousness, however, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence
becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive
feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and petty tyranny. This produces a type of woman most regrettably
distinguished by her unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty. But this change in the picture leads also to neurosis.”
As you can see, the IF is someone of deep internal feelings, they may seem hard to access, and they are very
personally judgemental and categorical according to their feelings, they are always driven by feelings and their
intimate emotions. They may have a good understanding of their feelings about something or someone. Like Ausra
described Fi:
● “Subjective relation between two objects or subjects – attraction and repulsion. Through this element the individual receives information about
the attractive or repulsive force of the objects and subjects, about whether they need each other, about likes and dislikes, love and hatred.”
● “This can be called “subjective distance” between objects. When it comes to people, one example of this is love and hatred. The one you love is
close even at a great distance, and the one you hate is far even if they are in your proximity.”
● “A sense of whether relationships are ethical, of a person’s kindness or bad qualities, a feeling of desire or unwillingness, etc.”
● “When this aspect of perception is in the leading position, the individual has an ability to see, evaluate, shape and change their own desires and the
desires of other people. They always know who wants what from whom. They are able to set their own knowledge of the subjective world in
opposition to the knowledge of others, and their own desires – to the desires of others.”
Again, subjectivism, their own feelings about others, others’ own feelings about others, it’s internal (just as Fe, but
they deal with it differently). Just as how Ti was described as “imposing their own knowledge against the world”, Fi
is also described as “they’re able to set their own knowledge in opposition to the knowledge of others, and their
own desires”. Which shows this element is introverted and, therefore, subjective. They know what they intimately
feel about the object, and they understand how others also feel intimately, based on their feelings, relating their
own feelings to others’, which is even how Fi works when it comes to empathy.
She defined ESI as:
● “The ESI has no doubt that villains are born from the complacency of the unprincipled. If there would be no foolish, weak-willed altruism –
there would be fewer villains. Those who are weak-willed also need to be told that they are weak-willed. Tolerance of evil is already a crime, this
type says.”
● “"You can’t forgive a bad person if even he apologises. There is simply no energy for it. One can forgive, but how can one forget? When a bad
person dies, one should rejoice, a sense of relief comes. It is not correct to say that you should not speak ill of the dead: a scoundrel is a scoundrel
even after death", one ESI told us.”
● “The stronger the positive feeling a person evokes, the more valuable the person is. That is why ESIs are fickle in love until they are bound by
marriage ties, and change the object of adoration as soon as a new, brighter star appears on the horizon. And they do not feel pangs of conscience
about this. When changing the object of adoration, they immediately turn away from the previous one, and even forget that once gave preference
to another.”
● “Therefore, when it comes to the aesthetics of the ESI, they are very demanding, categorical, and often even unpleasant.”
● “They do not show emotions, which is why they may seem cold-blooded. Yet the ESI avoids eye contact with those who they converse with, to
avoid incinerating them with their gaze.”
● “The supreme words ESIs say to a loved one are: "You are my dearest person". They live in the world of strong feelings: great love for the good and
great hatred for what they consider evil. These feelings are not hidden. But feelings are not moods. They are two opposite poles: feelings are
displayed, one’s own emotions and moods are hidden. Those who show their emotions and try to subdue other people with them are a person of
low culture and are called hysterical in the language of the ESIs.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (ESI Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-esi/)
Just as the IF, ESIs are described as emotionally guarded, Ausra says that their feelings are not hidden, but their
moods are, they may seem cold and inaccessible on the outside sometimes, just as they can express their feelings
with no issues. They value their own personal feelings, which gives them a sense of morals, ethics, they judge the
world and others according to their feelings. ESIs may seem more harsh than EIIs, probably thanks to their creative
element, but both of them are still types driven by Fi.
Fictional examples of this type include Guts (Berserk), Arya Stark (Game of Thrones), Elsa (Frozen), and Eren Yeager
(Shingeki no Kyojin). Real life examples may include Eminem and Mike Tyson.
EII:
● “The EII bears a quiet, inner gaze and an imperceptible sea of feelings. The world of their feelings is so subtle and rich that the EII does not need
verbal proof of love. They see without words, who loves whom and how, who needs and doesn’t need whom.”
● “The EII is usually a quiet, friendly person who is silent and observant among their groups, but the contrary when among close friends. They
can’t be called too shy because they perfectly see how others treat them and know how to improve this attitude.”
● “The intellectual strength of this type of IM is his ability to establish relationships with other people that are desirable to him and his loved ones.
(He is sure that the feelings of sympathy – antipathy that one person evokes in another (Fi) are determined by the inner qualities of the person
(Ne), so shapes those qualities.)”
● “EIIs cry and get angry very rarely, and only with really close people, those whom they trust. Anger and tears are a demonstration of trust. Crying
and getting angry means allowing themself to be themself.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (EII Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-eii/)
We can see the same we see in EII (which is expected, both lead with the same element), but with intuition of
potential (Ne), EIIs are often more democratic, just as LIIs are compared to LSIs, and they are more passive in
general, for their vulnerable element is Se. But EII still capturing the essence of the jungian IF.
Fictional examples may include Hughie Campbell (The Boys) and Sam Winchester (Supernatural). Real life examples
include the father of fantasy, J. R. R. Tolkien, and also the actor Keanu Reeves.
Conclusion
- ESI: IF(S)
- EII: IF(N)
Introverted Sensation type: SEI, SLI

Carl Jung on the Introverted Sensation type:
● “The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as
its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is
determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent
released by the objective stimulus.”
● “Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his
consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact.
Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and
partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no
other interpretation. “
Alright, most people don’t understand this type well, and there’s a reason for it, Jung defined it way too subjectively,
in a very abstract way. But it’s not hard to understand this type, and I even think it’s one of the most common types.
The IS is driven by subjective factors, and different from the ES, which Jung said to be determined by the “intensity
of the objective influence” (for the ES is oriented towards the object), the IS is oriented by the subjective sensation
that the object releases. For example, the ES sees his experiences as something that we could call “impersonal”, as
Jung says, the ES probably wouldn’t even consider his experiences as “experiences”, he wouldn’t believe that he is
subordinated to sensation. The IS is different, if a person of this type lives an experience that they, subjectively,
consider important to them, they are more prone to fantasize that experience (experience here has a sensing
factor). Think about a woman that lost her husband, and the only thing that she has to remind of him is something
he gave her as a gift, something like a piece of cloth, a ring (or any jewel), so she fantasizes about this object,
attributing the object itself to her beloved husband, as if she felt closer to him just by wearing that cloth, or using
that ring. We can also see this in grandmothers that want their grandsons to use their wedding rings when they get
married, as a way to make it “alive”. These individuals fantasize about objects, and that does not mean that they are
oriented by objects, but that they “contaminate” objects with their own subjective impressions of it. As Jung also
said: “Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men, animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear
partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons”. This just means that this type idealizes the sensory
reality, according to their own impressions of them. They may also idealize the past, but not because they care
about the past itself, but because a past experience is important to them, like a garden, a town, and their
impressions about these things are always subjective, you and I would never understand and see it the way they see
it, because they have already changed the objects, adapting the object according to the subject’s wishes, just as
every introverted type. As an irrational type, the IS’s main attitude is not the judging one, but the perceiving one.
Ausra on Si:
● “A sense of whether something is pleasant, and of physical and aesthetic satisfaction and dissatisfaction.”
● “When this aspect of perception is in the leading position, the individual is able to change the properties of the environment and the way people
in this environment feel. “
● “An excellent example of this is Peter Paul Rubens, who did not paint from life, but rather from his own memory of once experienced aesthetic
feelings. When he was making a painting, he sought to give the viewer a specific aesthetic experience by recreating it. Such art is a revival of the
object that provides the viewer with aesthetic feelings intended by the creator.”
Si is about the subject’s and others’ own sense of comfort, what pleases them in terms of sensations, and what
doesn’t, and the Si base is very good at understanding these processes. Just as I explained IS above, the third quote
there just proves what I said.
SEI:
● “They are well attuned to the subtleties of nature and art, and have an incredible capacity to remember and reproduce their previously
experienced emotional states. Just like painter Ivan Aivazovsky painted his seascapes despite being in dark red rooms facing away from the sea.”
● “They are considerate of other people’s comfort, and are thoughtful and caring. They can consciously deliver fast, deliberate emotional reactions
to explore and change the emotions of others.”
● “The sensory introvert is a hedonist more than anyone else, and therefore feels the reality of their physical existence exceptionally well. Since
everyone tends to judge others through their own way of thinking, they think that this is how others feel as well.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (SEI Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, Dual Nature of Man)
Translator’s note: “Sensory introvert” applies both to SLIs and SEIs, and “Intuitive extrovert” applies to both ILEs
and IEEs: https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/sei-description/
Fictional examples of this type may include Bilbo Baggins (The Hobbit), and Hinata Hyuuga (Naruto). Real life
examples include Ed Sheeran, and also Mahatma Gandhi.
SLI:
● “The SLI adores comfort and convenience. When doing things with others, they arrange things to go smoothly and unobtrusively, which is
convenient for them. All spaces that are available to the SLI are organized for the ideal work and rest. “
● “The SLI is an aesthete who fully trusts their taste. They dress very neatly and tastefully, but not defiantly. “
● “SLI’s aesthetic taste, the way he perceives and understands art and the whole environment, is determined by the overall development of the
personality, not by the pressure of others.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (SLI Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-sli/)
Fictional examples of this type may include Garfield the Cat (Garfield), Geralt of Rivia (The Witcher) and Saitama
(One Punch Man). Real life examples include Epicurus and the actor Clint Eastwood.
Conclusion
- SEI: IS(F)
- SLI: IS(T)
Introverted Intuitive type: IEI, ILI

Carl Jung on the Introverted Intuitive type:
● “The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on
the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other.”
● “If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely
and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man ‘gone wrong’, a sort of
wise simpleton, a figure for ‘psychological’ novels.”
● “He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects
which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in
some way interrelated with his vision, that it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the
subject.”
● “But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often
results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle.”
● “But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is
true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. “
● “His language is not that which is commonly spoken—it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or
pronounce. His is the ‘voice of one crying in the wilderness’.”
This type is one of the most idealized, and due to a lot of reasons, the descriptions are way too dramatic, but that’s
not an issue, since it also makes it easier to understand. This type is an introverted irrational, just like the IS, but it’s
intuitive, he is not concerned about sensing, or about subjective meaning of experiences in the way the IS does, he
is, first, concerned about the meaning of his intuitive perceptions of reality, which most times are not aligned with
the present-day reality. They may confuse themselves with their visions, and base their lives on it. In Socionics, Ni
is also related to time, a subjective perception of time, based on past events as a way to find a pattern and “foresee”
the future, and it’s all interrelated.
Ni:
● “Relations between processes that happen in sequence – time. Through this element the individual receives information about the temporal
relations between processes, events and actions, about whether there is time left, and whether the future is dangerous or safe.”
● “This aspect of perception determines one’s ability or inability to predict the future and plan for it, to avoid possible problems and erroneous
actions, and to learn from past experience.”
● “ The object’s external situation among other objects, i.e. its situation in time. Time intervals between events, the duration of specific events, the
sequence of events and processes, their rhythm in time, quickness and slowness.”
Although Ni is mostly defined as subjective perception, it still sharing the IN’s traits, they are the “voice of one
crying in the wilderness”, disconnected from the present-day events, for Ni bases are most of the time seeking for
patterns in time, in the past, in the present, and trying to foresee what will happen, they get lost in their visions,
and may ignore the events in the actual present.
IEI:
● “A somewhat dreamy romantic, a person of reflection over action. Individualist. They care little about the present in general and are inspired by
the prospects of glowing cities, which will probably never be built. They are quite emotional – they understand the feelings of the other well and
do not hide their own.”
● “The IEI knows what can be done and when, and they act perfectly well if someone alleviates them of the responsibility for their action, i.e. when
they become certain of others’ expectations and know which actions others will not find surprising.”
● “They have a very vague idea of what the objects are, of their internal, structural, and potential properties. For the IEI "spiritual capacities" and
"culture" are most likely an abstraction – a means by which people bring some arrangement and order into their lives.”
● “The IEI feels neither powerful nor powerless before others’ capabilities and spiritual power. "He is the way he is" is how they feel about this.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (IEI Compilation by Augusta and Weisband, https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-iei/)
Some fictional examples of this type are Kiri (Avatar), Luna Lovegood (Harry Potter) and Melisandre (Game of
Thrones). Real life examples may include Friedrich Nietzsche and the actor Johnny Depp.
ILI:
● “The ILI has a rich, intellectual imagination.”
● “The phantasmagoric world of Gabriel García Márquez is also strikingly precise in the details. Thanks to this quality, they see the future well.”
● “They are sure that if one is not aware of the natural order of the world, then one cannot live.”
● “When the ILI is informed about a situation, they understand it thoroughly and very soon begin to tell the astonished interlocutor the details,
causes, and aspects that they have missed.”
– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (ILI Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)
Fictional examples include Elizabeth Harmon (Queen’s Gambit) and L (Death Note). Real life examples include Isaac
Newton and Albert Einstein.
Conclusion
- IEI: IN(F)
- ILI: IN(T)
Eventual Ending
As it was already explained, and not only by me, Socionics and Psychological Types are 1:1, and it was never said
that they are completely equally described, but that they share the same principles, the base elements and their
respective types in Carl G. Jung's descriptions work in the same way, just as rationality and irrationality,
extraversion and introversion, and their respective functions (elements).
By: rwvry

Socionics and Psychological Types

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socionics and Psychological Types

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Socionics and Psychological Types are equivalent

Extraversion and Introversion

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

Extraverted: Thinking, Feeling, Sensation and Intuition

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

Introverted: Thinking, Feeling, Sensation and Intuition

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

Socionics: How E/I dichotomy equals Psychological Types

What about Socionics? Well:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

And Ausra herself explained how she views introversion:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/commentary-on-jungs-typology-and-an-introduction-to-information-metabolism/)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

Here, she says this:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/augusta-iee/)

Rationality and Irrationality

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

Socionics: How J/P dichotomy equals Psychological Types

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

The Eight Types | The Sixteen Sociotypes

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (The Socion)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/commentary-on-jungs-typology-and-an-introduction-to-information-metabolism/)

● “That’s why he (Jung) named his types:

The Ego Models in Symbols:

1. Extraverted Thinker: LSE, LIE

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/commentary-on-jungs-typology-and-an-introduction-to-information-metabolism/)

Extraverted Thinking type: LSE, LIE

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

This is a bit of how she defined LSE:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (LSE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (LIE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/leader-in-science-government-and-arts/)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

Extraverted Feeling type: ESE, EIE

This is how Carl Jung defined the Extraverted Feeling type:

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

Ausra defined Fe base:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

This is how Ausra defined ESE:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (ESE Compilation by Augusta and Weisband)

● “They place feelings above reason.”

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

Ausra defined Se as:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (On The Dual Nature of Humanity)

– Carl G. Jung (Psychological Types)

It’s also important to emphasize that Ausra herself said this:

– Ausra Augustinavičiūtė (The Socion)

However, Ausra defined SEE as: