[Wisteria]

I noticed there isn't actually a introduction thread sticked on this forum, so I'm making this thread to introduce people to the Socionics theory. I will go from the most simple facts about the socionics theory - what the types are, what the functions are, and so on. If you're familiar with all the types, scroll further to understand the theory in more detail and how it works. Feel free to ask questions, or add anything if you're already familiar with the socionics theory if you think it's helpful.

Summary of Socionics:

• Socionics is a theory about the ability to process different kinds of information
• There are 16 types known as the socionics TIMs (type of information metabolism)
• Each socionics TIM has eight functions numbered from 1-8. The function refers to the positions of each Information element. Socionics presents these functions through a system known as model A

• In socionics, the information elements are divided into four different categories: Intuition, Sensing, Logic, and Ethics.
• The information elements have similar terminology to the cognitive functions when presented as symbols - Te/Ti, Fe/Fi, Si/Se and Ni/Ne. This is because both typologies have the same origin theory which is of course C.Jung. However, in socionics there are many different names for the socionics IEs.

First you need to know what the types are in socionics, if you don't already. The types are also sorted into Quadras (The quadra's a simply the types that are more likely to share the same values and worldviews, and are known to be most compatible with each other in relationships. Each type has a specific type of relationship with all the other types. The most compatible is their dual)

Alpha Quadra (values Si blocked with Fe, Ne blocked with Ti)
ILE /ENTp - Intuitive logical extrovert
LII /INTj - Logical intuitive introvert
SEI /ISFp - Sensory ethical introvert
ESE / ESFj - Ethical sensory extrovert

Beta Quadra (values Ni blocked with Fe, Se blocked with Ti)
SLE /ESTp - Sensory Logical extrovert
LSI /ISTj - Logical sensory introvert
IEI /INFp - Intuitive ethical introvert
EIE /ENFj - Ethical intuitive extrovert

Gamma Quadra (values Ni blocked with Te, Se blocked with Fi)
LIE / ENTj - Logical intuitive extrovert
ILI / INTp - Intuitive logical introvert
ESI /ISFj - Ethical sensory introvert
SEE /ESFp - Sensory ethical extrovert

Delta Quadra (values Si blocked with Te, Ne blocked with Fi)
LSE / ESTj - Logical sensory extrovert
SLI / ISTp - Sensory logical introvert
EII / INFj - Ethical intuitive introvert
IEE / ENFp - Intuitive ethical extrovert



Socionics and other typology theories
As a personality type theory socionics is much more dynamic than MBTI and the harold grant stack, as a socionics type can use all the information elements (IEs) and can operate in each of these blocks, which are basically the function pairs (e.g Si-Te, Ni-Te). Each type will use these blocks very differently, not only because of how they are paired but because the position of the function. For example, an ENTp has Ne leading, but an ISTp also uses Ne, but in a very different fashion and cannot process information related to Ne to the ability that the ENTp can. They require more practice and assistance to use their Ne to the same ability as the ENTp.

MBTI tests are often used to identify cognitive types. If you score INTP, then you're dominant function must be Ti, and your auxiliary must be Ne. This gives you the idea that if you score on certain letters based on the answers you choose, then you must have strong Ti and Ne. This is not quite how it works in socionics. In socionics just because you are using a function, that doesn't automatically place it as your leading and creative function in socionics. If you type as an Intuitive in MBTI, it's still highly possible that it's only a weaker function and not the leading function. So if we use all the functions, how do determine which function you are using and how exactly to do each of them work? This is where the blocks come in, which consist of two information elements paired with one another.

The Information Elements

Te : (Also known as black logic, extroverted logic, algorithmic logic, business logic and practical logic): mechanism, work, practice,"logic of actions", utilitarianism, expediency, physical properties of objects.

Ti :L: (white logic, structural logic, introverted logic): structure, system, consistency, accordance, sequencing, commensurability, order, or the lack of thereof.
Fe :e: (black ethics, extroverted ethics, emotions, emotive ethics): emotional atmosphere, emotional expression and communication, cooperation, treatment, qualitative judgement of behaviour, ethical estimations of observable actions, "ethics of actions"
Fi :r: (white ethics, introverted ethics, relationships, relational ethics): resonance or dissonance of personal sentiments, positive and negative emotional space
Se :f: (black sensing, extroverted sensing, will, volitional sensing): sensing of immediate static qualities of objects, sensing of immediate reality, external appearance, texture, form, static objects, impact, direct physical effect, span, extent, force, volition.
Si :s: (white sensing, introverted sensing, comfort) homeostasis, bodily sensations, aesthetics.
Ni :t: (white intuition, introverted intuition, events, temporal intuition): Sense of when things might happen, patterns of events, abstract representations of processes, sense of time.
Ne :i: (black intuition, extroverted intuition, possibilities). Potential, essence, opening up new "windows" and bringing up new possibilities in conversation, seeing opportunities.

Blocks of Socionics

Ego	1. Ne (4D)	Leading – The main program. Our actions and motivations are dictated by this function with it being responsible for our temperament.	2. Ti (3D)	Creative – The helping function that works flexibly in order to serve the demands of the Leading function, helping them to be accomplished well.
Super-Ego	4. Fi (1D)	Vulnerable – The source of pain and frustration. We are unable to satisfy the demands of others on this function and loathe criticism in this area.	3. Se (2D)	Role – The act we have to put on to satisfy worldly demands. We do not enjoy this and can only keep it up so long before tiring.
Super-Id	6. Fe (2D)	Mobilising – The area we wish to improve ourselves in. We are drawn to acting on these areas but without some help can sometimes slip up.	5. Si (1D)	Suggestive – The source of enjoyment and growth. We crave stimulation and help in this function from others but are incapable of satisfaction in it alone.
Id	7. Ni (3D)	Ignoring – The opposite approach to our leading function. It is rejected by us and seen as unimportant. We can easily use this when needed however.	8. Te (4D)	Demonstrative – As strong as our Leading function, this is demonstrated in our behaviour almost as a mockery, abused for purposes outside itself.

This table is a model for ILE (ENTp), originally made in this thread.

The blocks are known as Ego, Super Ego, Super id, and Id.. (If you learned the enneagram theory, please keep in mind these terms have very different meaning from the enneagram definitions of "Ego" and "Super-Ego") I will describe the blocks in order of their development in the psyche. It will helpful hopefully to use the table above for reference

Id Block "I can" "Others are not needed": The Id block is part of the vital superblock, which is the block of individual life activity. When using the information elements in these blocks, it is usually when you are by yourself rather than when interacting with other individuals in your society. The functions of the id block are developed and filled during childhood, and the individual can use the IEs of this block very well and become so familiar with using these functions that using them is almost automatic. However, when you use the IEs with other individuals who aren't familiar to you, people who have unique thinking styles to yourself, you are less capable of using the IE, because you've grown used to using it for yourself personally. Because it's developed during childhood, an age when you have little interest and awareness of society and how they use those elements. You have little regard for people in society, therefore don't have that understand and processing of the element. For the ILE (ENTp) they will use Te and Ni very well for their own purposes and activity, but will be less capable of using Te and Ni in the people in their society.

Super Id Block "I want" "I need others": Super id is also part of the vital superblock. The difference is these functions are weak and the individual wants and values the input of this type of information from others. Any type of input regarding these functions will give you a feeling of enjoyment, and we admire others who have a strength with using these functions. Generally there is a desire to receive this type of information from others. For the ILE this will be Si and Ne. This is why socionics types have duals. The dual of ILE is SEI, an Si leading type.

Super Ego Block, "I must": This block is part of the mental superblock, which is the block of social life activity. This means that your activity must correlate with that of other people, and is also known as the block of "social conformism". This block is different from the id blocks as you use and think about these functions on behalf of others in your society, not just yourself. However, the super ego functions aren't valued by the individual, and the ability to use these functions is poor. It is not a strength that comes naturally to you. The Super id functions are also weak but the difference is you don't value input regarding your Super Ego functions. They are functions you have to use to live and work in your community. The Super Ego functions a weak and unvalued. Using these functions can be draining, as you can only use them for a certain amount of time before feeling tired. The functions of this block are filled as a young person, when you realise that you have to provide and work in society in order to develop as a person. The individual is aware that they are weak in this area and it can cause discomfort when trying to conform to the standards in society. For the ILE these elements are Fi and Se.

Ego Block, "Others need me": The Ego block is also part of the mental superblock and the final block to develop. The activity of these functions are socially directed. These functions are strong and valued. The individual has a strong ability to use these functions when interacting with others. We do not feel tired after prolonged use of these functions. This block brings a person a sense of importance and can offer others something of value, as the Ego functions are strong and type is skilled at using them. However, for them to develop the type must first use their super ego functions. The block is usually fully developed in the mid to late twenties, according to socionics theory. It also aligns with Jung's commentary; “The first half of [a person's] life is devoted to forming a healthy ego, the second half is going inward and letting go of it.”

 

[Felipe]

Feel free to ask questions, or add anything if you're already familiar with the socionics theory if you think it's helpful.

I have some questions about the dimensionality, like, make sense to me that the leading function is 4D, but the demonstrative is 4D also. In the example the ILE (ENTp) has Ne as leading function, it would make sense to me that the ignoring function would be 4D also because like the leading function is intuition. But it's the opposite: instead the Ti which is a valued creative function is 3D for the type and Te which is not valued is 4D and "stronger" than Ti in this case. Why is that? What determines the dimensionality of the functions?

Also the description says that the demonstrative function is used as mockery. But what that means exactly, that the type mocks things related to that function or that he/she uses that function to mock things in general?

Last question: I read somewhere that a type can be easily "suggested" by its suggestive function, meaning they readily accept anything related to that function. Is that a myth? If not, is it safe to assume that Se base types would readily buy into conspiracy theories?

 

[DavidH]

I have some questions about the dimensionality, like, make sense to me that the leading function is 4D, but the demonstrative is 4D also. In the example the ILE (ENTp) has Ne as leading function, it would make sense to me that the ignoring function would be 4D also because like the leading function is intuition. But it's the opposite: instead the Ti which is a valued creative function is 3D for the type and Te which is not valued is 4D and "stronger" than Ti in this case. Why is that? What determines the dimensionality of the functions?

Also the description says that the demonstrative function is used as mockery. But what that means exactly, that the type mocks things related to that function or that he/she uses that function to mock things in general?

Last question: I read somewhere that a type can be easily "suggested" by its suggestive function, meaning they readily accept anything related to that function. Is that a myth? If not, is it safe to assume that Se base types would readily buy into conspiracy theories?

The dimensionalities are deterministic. You start with one as a “given” and then utilize logical rules to determine what the remaining ones must necessarily be. The 4D functions have both time parameters and globality (@wisteria , I haven’t gone over this with you before). In simple terms, the 4D functions surpass the situations of time and reference group. The user instantaneously metabolizes the information. It is akin to if you switch topics, say nation being discussed, and your speaking partner instantaneously utilizes the correct information, as though your speaking partner was a native of the time and place you are referencing. That is an ethical 4D example. It is similar for the remainder.

The “mocking” is used mistakenly. It is not used primarily to mock. It is simply that the individual has developed such a profound accumulation of information of the specific element that when utilizing it, it comes across as a genius toying with a child. In example, mine is Si. When discussing classifications of things, it comes across as being mocking or whatever, when really it is simply the wide gap in information which makes it appear as such.

Suggestive is going to be dependent upon Extroversion or introversion. An introvert will be compelled to some form of action. An extrovert will be compelled to some form of consideration. Conspiracy theories are typically about a subject matter. The subject matter would be evident of the element and the existence of the theory would be evident of the dimensionality. Firing from the hip with the following statement, but Extroverted types will have 1D strange beliefs or understandings, and introverts will have 1D strange responses. However, these are strange things with a functioning adult in society. The people who make the news or hide in their basement are typically individuals that don’t exist in their base function, and are thus behaving in an element which is quite different than their base. In the example, the introverts that wind up taking out large urban areas are actually extroverts existing in their opposing elements.

 

[Wisteria]

It's also important to know what is meant by "time" when looking at dimensionality (which basically terms for the "strength" of the information processing, which shows in the example table. The ILE's leading function Ne is 4-dimensional). The fourth dimension of information processing is Time, which means having the ability to recognise development over time, regarding an information element.

Also make sure you don't confuse this with Intuition of Time (Ni), which I think it's more about the sense of time rather than considering the period of time that the information that the person or "object" is referring to (this information can come from another person if your using ethics, objects if you're using logic, events if intuition).

I have some questions about the dimensionality, like, make sense to me that the leading function is 4D, but the demonstrative is 4D also. In the example the ILE (ENTp) has Ne as leading function, it would make sense to me that the ignoring function would be 4D also because like the leading function is intuition.

That's a good question. Perhaps it's related to the principles of introversion and extroversion and how it works. If you're an introvert, it probably means you can't have an extroverted elements as your 4D functions. I think davidh answered your other questions in more detail than I could. I could probably questions about the basics of socionics, but for more complicated questions like these, probably not!

In the example, the introverts that wind up taking out large urban areas are actually extroverts existing in their opposing elements.

What do mean by "taking out" large urban areas?

 

[DavidH]

It's also important to know what is meant by "time" when looking at dimensionality (which basically terms for the "strength" of the information processing, which shows in the example table. The ILE's leading function Ne is 4-dimensional). The fourth dimension of information processing is Time, which means having the ability to recognise development over time, regarding an information element.

Also make sure you don't confuse this with Intuition of Time (Ni), which I think it's more about the sense of time rather than considering the period of time that the information that the person or "object" is referring to (this information can come from another person if your using ethics, objects if you're using logic, events if intuition).



That's a good question. Perhaps it's related to the principles of introversion and extroversion and how it works. If you're an introvert, it probably means you can't have an extroverted elements as your 4D functions. I think davidh answered your other questions in more detail than I could. I could probably questions about the basics of socionics, but for more complicated questions like these, probably not!



What do mean by "taking out" large urban areas?

The people that go on killing sprees, hacking sprees, destroying financial markets, etc.

 

[SpaceMan]

Liked and subscribed !

It would also be nice if this post could be pinned.

 

[Wisteria]

The people that go on killing sprees, hacking sprees, destroying financial markets, etc.

Oh wow ok, that didn't even cross my mind. They're probably targeting that area because it offers them some kind of advantage to them. Anyway it feels wrong to use criminals as an example in socionics, even if it illustrates something.

 

[Bastard]

@Wisteria Good idea. Socionics alienates most of PerC. An introduction thread could alleviate that.

Anyway it feels wrong to use criminals as an example in socionics, even if it illustrates something.

Criminals are a part of society. Don't see why they shouldn't be a cog in the socionics machine.

 

[DavidH]

@Wisteria @Bastard

It was for illustrative purposes to show how different types will behave in different environments. Placing young Te+ males in environments where their backs are against the wall being unable to Te+ or Se-, is like poking a caged beast. More often than not, society will mistake them for introverts, because they are viewing the individuals and their own selves through a lens of Fe+ being equivalent to being Extroverted. There is also a version for introverts being placed with their backs against the wall and appearing Extroverted.

 

[Bastard]

@DavidH Yes. It was implicit in what you originally said.

How would you describe the introvert example?

 

[DavidH]

@DavidH Yes. It was implicit in what you originally said.

How would you describe the introvert example?

I know IEI behaving in SLE never shuts up.

 

[Bastard]

I know IEI behaving in SLE never shuts up.

Going by your prior example (i.e. acting out in a way that's strange for adults to do), I figured it'd be different. I thought along the lines of those guys who walk around with AR's. When the cops show up they raise their voices and nag and prattle on about constitutional rights and seem to have no understanding of why the cops are concerned about what they are doing.

 

[Wisteria]

@Wisteria Good idea. Socionics alienates most of PerC. An introduction thread could alleviate that.
Criminals are a part of society. Don't see why they shouldn't be a cog in the socionics machine.

Honestly have no idea why there wasn't an introduction thread in the first place. There have been complaints that this sub forum isn't beginner friendly.

Yeah true, but criminals are anti social and different from most people. Those who read it might not relate much to that personally, therefore not understand it.
Also I meant it feels wrong as in unethical, not incorrect to use as an example.

 

[Wisteria]

@Wisteria @Bastard

It was for illustrative purposes to show how different types will behave in different environments. Placing young Te+ males in environments where their backs are against the wall being unable to Te+ or Se-, is like poking a caged beast. More often than not, society will mistake them for introverts, because they are viewing the individuals and their own selves through a lens of Fe+ being equivalent to being Extroverted. There is also a version for introverts being placed with their backs against the wall and appearing Extroverted.

Any idea why the majority are more extroverted or what you refer to as Fe+? Most people are very extroverted and emotivist types, and there's typically fewer people who are more reserved and quiet spoken.

Also curious how would this manifest for the Fe PoLR types?

 

[DavidH]

Honestly have no idea why there wasn't an introduction thread in the first place. There have been complaints that this sub forum isn't beginner friendly.

Yeah true, but criminals are anti social and different from most people. Those who read it might not relate much to that personally, therefore not understand it.
Also I meant it feels wrong as in unethical, not incorrect to use as an example.

I’m sure there are those that would write an introduction and likely have, but if their personal goal is to speak rather than listen, then they won’t be speaking correctly.

 

[DavidH]

Any idea why the majority are more extroverted or what you refer to as Fe+? Most people are very extroverted and emotivist types, and there's typically fewer people who are more reserved and quiet spoken.

Also curious how would this manifest for the Fe PoLR types?

The majority are not Fe+ types, nor do they have any discernible type, as average is simply normal. However, environments may have norms for the environment in question that are not normal for society at large. In example, the metropolitan area near me is primarily liberal, but there are still large amounts of conservatives. However, that is incorrect. The logical error of False Consensus Bias creates such. If the area is 30 to 40 percent conservative by what the individuals identify as, the reality is that there are very few conservatives. Since the people spend their time virtually entirely in the closed system of the metropolitan area, they do not have the information necessary to realize that they are liberals, in a liberal closed system, who have then divided into liberals and conservatives only within this closed system. The same holds true for Fe+. It is not that the majority is Fe+, but rather that you are considering an environment which is mostly Fe+.

Either being vocal in public about their strange beliefs or listening heavily to those with strange beliefs.

 

[Wisteria]

I’m sure there are those that would write an introduction and likely have, but if their personal goal is to speak rather than listen, then they won’t be speaking correctly.

This sub-forum has existed since 2009, and since then there have been plenty of members who know the theory probably better than I do. They used the same sources as I did as well. One source I used was wikisocion, which I think was actually written by some people who also went on this forum.

My guess is that the previous forum members were too content with the way the forum was, so didn't think there was anything wrong. Someone actually made a thread (https://www.personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/859882-why-socionics-sucks.html) and basically the response was something along the lines of "socionics is a complex theory, don't expect us to make it more simple for you".

The majority are not Fe+ types, nor do they have any discernible type, as average is simply normal. However, environments may have norms for the environment in question that are not normal for society at large. In example, the metropolitan area near me is primarily liberal, but there are still large amounts of conservatives. However, that is incorrect. The logical error of False Consensus Bias creates such. If the area is 30 to 40 percent conservative by what the individuals identify as, the reality is that there are very few conservatives. Since the people spend their time virtually entirely in the closed system of the metropolitan area, they do not have the information necessary to realize that they are liberals, in a liberal closed system, who have then divided into liberals and conservatives only within this closed system. The same holds true for Fe+. It is not that the majority is Fe+, but rather that you are considering an environment which is mostly Fe+.

Hmm ok maybe I am biased somehow. The most gregarious people do stand out the most. Are the socionics types or use of the elements said to be evenly distributed amongst people then?

Either being vocal in public about their strange beliefs or listening heavily to those with strange beliefs.

What do you mean by strange beliefs? Usually it's assumed that a person who has strange beliefs/behaviours is a not a normal person.

 

[DavidH]

This sub-forum has existed since 2009, and since then there have been plenty of members who know the theory probably better than I do. They used the same sources as I did as well. One source I used was wikisocion, which I think was actually written by some people who also went on this forum.

I haven’t seen any. I’ve seen several ILE whom are of similar mindsets to the creators who naturally understand the material easily, but the vast majority of individuals alter the materials, without correction, based upon their own desires. Read what they want to read, hear what they want to hear.

My guess is that the previous forum members were too content with the way the forum was, so didn't think there was anything wrong. Someone actually made a thread (
https://www.personalitycafe.com/soci...ics-sucks.html
) and basically the response was something along the lines of "socionics is a complex theory, don't expect us to make it more simple for you".

It’s not complex. It is simple. They don’t know the system, so they rely on mental gymnastics.

Hmm ok maybe I am biased somehow. The most gregarious people do stand out the most. Are the socionics types or use of the elements said to be evenly distributed amongst people then?

Yes. Even distribution, with a normalized distribution.

What do you mean by strange beliefs? Usually it's assumed that a person who has strange beliefs/behaviours is a not a normal person.

The sociotypes themselves are not normal. Those individuals in question don’t have norms of the closed system in question, nor the norms necessary to realize that the closed system in question lacks norms.

 

[Wisteria]

I haven’t seen any. I’ve seen several ILE whom are of similar mindsets to the creators who naturally understand the material easily, but the vast majority of individuals alter the materials, without correction, based upon their own desires. Read what they want to read, hear what they want to hear.

I wonder who these ILEs are. Makes sense that they would have the upper hand when understanding the socionics theory. That's how it is on the cognitive functions forum too, some members like to create their own theories and systems of typology even though they're nothing like the original theory, sometimes almost looks like they're making things up. But it's not as bad on the socionics forum.

It’s not complex. It is simple. They don’t know the system, so they rely on mental gymnastics.

Thought you'd say that.

Yes. Even distribution, with a normalized distribution.

Both Jung and Augusta said there were was a gender difference between ethical and logical types I believe. Could have a been a bias there but still, I'm not the one who studied typology extensively then created a theory.

The sociotypes themselves are not normal. Those individuals in question don’t have norms of the closed system in question, nor the norms necessary to realize that the closed system in question lacks norms.

Are you referring to the low dimensional functions in particular here, or generally an inability to realise norms outside the closed system? Assuming a closed system is like the example you used earlier. Would that actually mean that not everyone has a socionics TIM? I don't know about that, people are clearly different from each other, and ITR makes a lot of sense too.

 

[DavidH]

I wonder who these ILEs are. Makes sense that they would have the upper hand when understanding the socionics theory. That's how it is on the cognitive functions forum too, some members like to create their own theories and systems of typology even though they're nothing like the original theory, sometimes almost looks like they're making things up. But it's not as bad on the socionics forum.



Thought you'd say that.



Both Jung and Augusta said there were was a gender difference between ethical and logical types I believe. Could have a been a bias there but still, I'm not the one who studied typology extensively then created a theory.



Are you referring to the low dimensional functions in particular here, or generally an inability to realise norms outside the closed system? Assuming a closed system is like the example you used earlier. Would that actually mean that not everyone has a socionics TIM? I don't know about that, people are clearly different from each other, and ITR makes a lot of sense too.

There’s a male and a female, but I don’t recall the names.

There are, but they are still normalized with gender, either by normalizing the types overall, or normalizing them into a normalized set for males and a normalized set for females. That is a difficult decision to make for which way to classify, being that relationships, which typically connotates a male and a female, and classifications are both weak points of ILE.

Both. Although classifications is Si, one with Norms at something should at least be able to recognize the lack of norms. In example, I can recognize the norms of a closed group while also recognizing if the norm of the closed group is also a norm of society at its other various levels. If the closed group exists contrary to the norms of society, the likelihood of critical failures increases. In the previous examples, if a closed group applies pressure to the PoLR of the minority sociotype in the closed group, the minority sociotype will be effectively placing the strength of their PoLR vs the PoLR of many others. Following such, the failure of the PoLR of the minority, and simultaneously their removal from the closed group, causes the critical failure of the closed group by some means, as the group cannot exist without the various sociotypes. When they attempt to, the external pressure of society at large presses on the PoLR of the closed group when treated as a whole aggregate singular sociotype.

Everyone has a TIM, however, the differences for most people between types is negligible, and it is really just splitting hairs. Take for example a hypothetical typology of only two types: tall or short. Virtually everyone is going to be tall or short, because there are probably very few people who are exactly average down to multiple decimal points. However, 60% of the population will be within several inches (or a dozen centimeters) from each other. So you can have a tall person who is only 1 inch or several centimeters from someone who is short. Then you have another 30% of the population who are double this gap, with the individuals being a half a foot (or a couple dozen centimeters) from the average height. Then another 10% of the population are either near giants or near midgets. So, you can say that one individual is tall and another is short, even though they are only an inch or few centimeters from each other, while simultaneously saying two individuals are short because they are less than the average, even though they are an entire foot or dozens of centimeters different in height. It is in this way that although two individuals who both seem to be very average can actually be just barely over the line of say SLE and EII, however, these two would be far more similar and get along far better than a very average individual who is just barely over the line of EII and another individual who is very very far over the line of EII. Type is how a person varies from the average, but not how much a person varies from the average, and two average people will always get along better than an individual who is average and an individual who is not average of any type.