u/GoodMovie9378

Maybe this is common knowledge, but I figured it out while lying in my bed thinking so I thought it might be interesting to share and maybe ppl can clarify some things.

---

The thesis:

In duality, the partner with a given creative function values the expression of their partner's mobilizing function because though it's weaker, the emphasis placed upon it by the partner cuts down on their dual's use of the unvalued but easily used demonstrative function (also their partner's PolR), shifting them towards their valued creative function.

This process is valuable for the dual because there is a trade-off between the demonstrative and creative due to having opposite extraversion/introversion, similar to the trade-off between the leading and role, but which ends up being highly suppressive of the creative function due to higher dimensionality in the demonstrative function.

This process is also necessary for the health of the duality due to overuse of the demonstrative function corresponding to the highly painful vulnerable function of the other.

---

Anecdote:

I was looking back at conversations I had a while ago with someone who turned out to be my dual, way before I really got into socionics.

I have creative (3D) Ti. They have mobilizing (2D) Ti. A socionics novice (aka, my perception of duality when I first got into socionics a month ago) might look at this and think that this mainly manifests as the Ti creative supplying theories for the Ti mobilizing, which they would value. Maybe, partially correct. But that ignores the two-way nature of duality:

Despite higher dimensionality in my Ti, I had told them one of the things I appreciated the most about them was their skepticism regarding things I said. I described the way I thought as randomly saying things, throwing explanations at the wall and hoping they stuck: and I thought people accepted my explanations too easily because I would just spew some bullshit and kind of just argue them into agreement (half the time, by citing made up or real but pigeonholed authorities, facts, and experience, which I have always been really good at pulling from the internet really fast during an argument). And I said I appreciated their skepticism because it forced me to think through the basic logic of what I was saying.

I was quite surprised from my perspective that they thought my methods were "elegant" and analogous to the scientific method and something about how they would end up repeating my conceptualizations of things weeks later to others. I was also surprised by their conceptualization of themselves as agreeing to things too easily. Because that wasn't how I imagined the emphasis on logic in our dyad worked, and I thought that compared to literally everyone they were one of the least easily convincible people I knew.

When I had first gotten into socionics, I thought our duality was me as an EIE and them as an LSI, because I simply didn't believe my Ti was that good but that it was valued, and this idea I needed them for it. Then I thought I was SEE with Ti PolR and that they were an ILI with Ti demonstrative. It's kind of funny how blind you can be to your own creative function just because the demonstrative trades off with it and is so easy to use.

But nope, I had always used and valued Ti, the classification of information was something I did weirdly often for fun as a kid, used often in my life, made me a nationally ranked competitive debater which I somehow overlooked, and high dimensionality Ti+Te allowed me to learn a lot about socionics and how it works despite only finding out it existed a month ago.

---

Generalizations:

Now that I've verbalized it, it seems pretty obvious to me. But some other examples with non-Ti functions, given the generalization of the thesis:

SEE/ILI and IEE/SLI dualization, where the XEE's overly expressive emotions are quieted down by their partner and they are able to proceed more calmly with valued Fi; and the XLI's tendency towards crafting logical theses is made less frequent and replaced by more practical logic Te;

LSI/EIE and ESI/LIE dualization, where the XSI's proclivity to create comfortable situations is made less frequent by their partner and they are able to freely use force with valued Se; and the XIE's constant creation of alternate possibilities is made more infrequent and are able to focus more on one vision with valued Ni;

ESE/LII and LSE/EII dualization, where the XSE's proclivity to the violent use of self-defensive force is pacified by their dual's lack of pushback and they are able to create pleasant emotions around them with valued Si; and the XII's proclivity to forecasting and existential meaning-reading is quieted down in favor of the exploration of varied possibilities with valued Ne.

et cetera.

Obviously, the demonstrative function would still be expressed from time to time, otherwise it wouldn't be able to cover for the dual's PolR. But the general trend should be one of quieting it down in favor of the creative.

(All of the above examples of all the other dualities should be taken with a hell of a mountain of salt because I made them up while sitting on my bed and are purely based on my half-baked understanding of the functions from like three to four weeks of reading wikisocion.io and reddit posts.

Except for IEE dualization, because I've seen it multiple times. Superego relations might suck based on socionic's highly soviet understanding of Intertype relations as the creation of an economic unit, and I can't really work with IEEs, but they make for pretty close friendships and easy understanding of thoughts and perspectives even if not actions--when every one of your function blocks are the same. I've always thought I tend to keep two close people in my time at a time: an IEE to see how I "really" am normally and for all my depraved and hateful thoughts, and then an IEI to bring out the self I aspire to be. But that could be a whole other post so I'll leave it here.)

---

Other thoughts are always appreciated! Especially since I'm not an expert in this stuff.

Not me-specific. General question regarding the 6th function: descriptions I've read of the mobilizing function describe it as something we really really enjoy using and also think we're much better at than we actually are.

Great to know in theory, but overestimation of the strength of your mobilizing function seems to then make it very easy to mistype as your activator, especially with identical quadra values, even when you consciously take this overestimation into account. Because you can apply the same logic to your (real) base function that you think you're good at to claim it's your overestimated mobilizing and claim your mobilizing is your base.

How can you differentiate the base and mobilizing functions aside from your own subjective interpretation of your proficiency at it?

**my bad for the formatting

I saw two typings of Bill Clinton as an LSI:

1. https://socioniks.net/en/famouspeople/?id=beta
2. another post on this subreddit;

And I was immediately and thoroughly confused. Sure, I get the idea that he's a member of the Beta Quadra, but from that point on it all seems to fall apart. He's an EIE, not an LSI. Here's why.

1. Program Ti

The implications of LSI applied to Clinton of all people boggles me. For example, even the idea that he has 4D Program Ti, described by Stratiyevskaya as

"a world that does not change, relationships that do not change - logically beautiful and coherent, calculated, and well reasoned through...ISTj’s logical program is meant to be an alternative to any sort of destabilization of his environment and surrounding structures...rationality is linked, first of all, to the organization of structural order (the “order of things” within the framework of some real, concretely existing system. Outside of the system the ISTj never examines anything...")

Contrasted with descriptions of him:

"Clinton is a man of vast political skill, but also of deep personal complexity. He has the ability to see both sides of an argument and craft a solution that works for everyone***. That’s a rare gift in politics, but it also sometimes means he struggles to stick to a firm principle."

^("Clinton was) ***^(always looking for a deal)***^(**)^(. He) ***^(thrived on compromise and negotiation)***^(, which is why he was able to achieve some of his greatest political victories—like welfare reform, balancing the budget, and NAFTA. But this need for constant negotiation sometimes led him to) ***^(stand for everything and nothing at the same time)***^(.")

^(* + **: these descriptions also seems antithetical to 1D I4 or "Vulnerable/PolR Ne")

^("Bill Clinton is a smart guy, no doubt about that. But he’s also a slick politician.) ***^(He knows how to tell people what they want to hear)***^(, and that’s why he was able to win so many people over. You’ve got to watch out for that kind of) ***^(smooth talking)***^(.")

^("Clinton had a unique ability to) ***^(transcend traditional political boundaries)***^(. He was able to work with Republicans as easily as he worked with Democrats, and that made him one of the most effective leaders in modern history. His) ^(pragmatism) ^(was both his greatest strength and his) ***^(most controversial trait)***^(.")

Consistency was never Clinton's strong suit, which was why Hillary Clinton (an actual LSI, and his dual) was known to be the aggressive, policy-oriented technocrat that he never was.

2. Ethics

The idea Bill Clinton is 1D Fe and 2D Fi is again boggling to me, especially for a politician whose enormous charm was the subject of much media discussion during the first half of his presidency, and whose charm was noted as the one thing that he was able to fall back on during his political career.

^("Clinton is the) ***^(greatest liar of all time)***^(. His lies are effortless. They roll off his tongue. They are almost innocent, they are so deeply ingrained in his personality. And in his case, this is a man who’s a highly intelligent, highly educated, highly articulate person.) ***^(But his gift, his most defining characteristic, is that he can dissemble)***^(, and you almost forgive him because) ***^(he’s so charming)***^(.")

^("Bill Clinton has the ability to look into the) ^(deepest, most despairing parts of someone’s life) ^(and) ^(make them feel) ^(like) ^(everything’s going to be OK.) ^(He connects) ^(with people on a) ***^(visceral level)***^(.) ^(He made voters believe that he cared) ^(about their problems, and for many of them, he really did.")

^("Bill Clinton is the ultimate political survivor. He could have been brought down by) ***^(scandal after scandal)***^(, but he always managed to) ***^(charm his way out of trouble)***^(. There’s something both awe-inspiring and slightly unnerving about his ability to emerge unscathed from so many political crises.")

^("Clinton was not only a brilliant leader but a great friend. He had a) ^(natural empathy and understanding of people) ^(that made him) ***^(one of the most effective communicators in the world)***^(. What struck me most about him was his) ^(humanity—)***^(he cared deeply about people)***^(, and that made him an extraordinary politician.")

^("Clinton’s) ***^(charm is undeniable)***^(, but it’s) ***^(that same charm that often obscures his darker impulses)***^(. He has an) ***^(incredible ability to connect with people on a personal level)***^(, but he also has a knack for bending the truth to suit his needs. He’s both captivating and frustrating.")

I'm not saying you should trust all of these sources, given they're about a now-notorious public figure, and perhaps you might think a lot of the stuff about his deep caring may be fake, but the ability to come across like this indicates to me obvious 4D Fe, especially under deep scrutiny and personal scandal for years and years and years.

Contrast these descriptions to that of other LSIs, like Vladimir Putin or Joseph Stalin, and what they seem like; it's a world different, because even if they may be somewhat sociable, no one can say that their personal charm was the one asset they retained that was always able to lift them out of political crisis. No; their Se ego often results in the use of force (Stalin's terror, Putin's war of Ukraine) to solve political problems instead. Clinton's style seems more reserved for Fe egoes or maybe E8.

Clinton's incredible ability to affect people, together with deal-making and compromise rather than one decisive objective as his main political strategy, again combined with his ability to inspire people with hope and come back from crisis after crisis (nicknamed "the comeback kid*")

* "Clinton’s most remarkable trait was his resilience. No matter how many times he was knocked down*, whether by political opponents or his own doing,* he found a way to recover*. That made him not just a survivor but also* a master of comebacks*—someone whose ability to rebound defined his presidency."*

when people thought his career was over, to me indicates 4D Fe and Ne.

Notice the above quote doesn't describe brute forcing his way through like Se but rather "finding a way" which is more consistent with descriptions of Ne.

4D Fe+Ne That narrows down to two types: EIE and IEE. From here, you can go either way, but I think EIE is a clean shot.

3. Valued Fe, Valued Ti, PolR Si

One extra comment: Fe seems to be something Clinton is not just good at, but consciously values. He needs to be loved by everyone.

^("Clinton is a paradox. He’s a man of deep intellect but also deep contradictions. He) ***^(wants to be loved by everyone)***^(, but that) ^(desire for approval) ^(has often) ^(led) ***^(him to make decisions that were politically expedient rather than morally sound)***^(. He’s a complex figure, both brilliant and flawed.")

Now. Valued Ti. Clinton may not be L1, but L is not something he disvalues either, which is why Hillary (an LSI) is his dual. Suggestive L is described as enjoying concepts being explained to you (for example, liking Science podcasts as a child), which is exactly what quotes describing him reflect:

^("What impressed me most about Bill Clinton was his) ***^(curiosity)***^(. He) ***^(wasn’t satisfied with surface-level answers)***^(. Whether it was about technology, education, or global health, he) ***^(always wanted to understand the issue thoroughly)***^(. He’s a big thinker, and that’s why he’s been so successful in public life.")

^("Bill Clinton is endlessly curious about people and places. He has) ***^(an insatiable appetite for learning and understanding)***^(, which makes him) ***^(a deeply engaging and insightful leader)***^(. He’s someone who, when he enters a room, people just naturally gravitate towards. It’s not just because he’s a politician—it’s because) ^(he’s genuinely interested) ^(in everyone’s story.")

^("Bill Clinton was) ***^(a policy wonk at heart)***^(. He could dig deep into the weeds on issues and come up with solutions that made sense. He) ***^(never shied away from the details)***^(, which is something that set him apart from many other politicians. He actually) ***^(liked solving problems, even the tough ones.)***^(")

Interestingly, these comments seem to indicate his immense value for problem-solving rather than his actual proficiency for it. They laud his appetite for learning, his desire to understand thoroughly, and his enjoyment of problem-solving, but the only mention for the product of these efforts was "solutions that made sense." Which sounds like valued suggestive L. Clinton was, however, definitely not defined by consistent ideology or the creation of a masterful policy plan. That was always more Hillary's role.

Finally, Si PolR.

....Clinton's sleep schedule is actually fucking terrifying. You can look at his Presidential Daily Diaries and see his schedule.

^("Clinton was renowned for) ^(sleeping only five or six hours a night) ^(throughout his presidency. It's apparently a habit he developed quite early...a professor at Georgetown told him great men require less sleep.")

^(Let’s take Bill Clinton for instance. Throughout his two terms in Office, Bill Clinton was well-known for his restless intelligence,) ^(late-night conversational manias,) ^(and) ***^(blatant disregard for other people’s normal patterns of waking and sleeping)***^(. He was, by his own admission, a) ***^(functional insomniac)***^(.)

This was not, however, due to overvalued Te. He often just didn't sleep because he felt like it and wanted to play cards (campaign staff describe him playing cards from three til six in the morning).

He literally couldn't rest.

^("Judy Gaddy, who worked with him in the governor’s office, recalled: “One time he was having terrible allergies, and) ***^(we were trying to get him to rest, and he wouldn’t rest)***^(.)^(” Gaddy put her foot down: “I want you to stay at the mansion. You can’t come here. We don’t want you here,” she insisted. “Well, he came here fifteen times, and I said, ‘Governor, get back in your house.’” Meekly, Clinton obeyed. The problem was that) ***^(even when his body was at rest, his mind was still in motion)***^(. Although he was banished from the office,) ^(Clinton generated scores of new ideas, which he then wanted to implement immediately. Gaddy learned that “the bad part about giving him free time is that he just sits there and dreams up other things.”) ^(The recovering Clinton called her dozens of times) ^(with new ideas.) ^(Gaddy finally gave up and brought him back to work)^(, realizing that “we need to keep this boy busy, because if we don’t, he’s going to drive us all crazy.")

This isn't something he voluntarily chooses to do and modulates well, like ignoring Si. This is an ACTIVE WEAKNESS he ACKNOWLEDGES but can't push past.

^("Clinton) ^(himself has) ***^(long recognized the problem posed by his exhaustion)***^(. The root problem is that) ***^(he cannot tolerate the solution: rest)***^(. One day during the 1992 campaign,) ^(Clinton told Begala, “‘Every important mistake I’ve made in my life I made when I was tired. You guys got to give me a break.’”) ^(Begala agreed, and built some free time into his schedule:) ^(“So then we’d give him a down day, and you know what he would say? ‘Why aren’t we out there? That Ross Perot is in three different states today. George Bush is out shaking a thousand hands! I can’t tolerate it!’”)

^(Even though) ^(intellectually) ^(Clinton understood that his relentless pace was deleterious and wanted to modulate it, he couldn’t.)

^(Indeed,) ^(Clinton requires someone to force him to get rest.) ^(Leon) ^(Panetta, who took over as chief of staff in the summer of 1994, feels that one of the most important interventions that he made was) ***^(scheduling a two-hour blackout period in the afternoon when Clinton could have no meetings)***^(. Panetta didn’t ask Clinton’s permission to do this; he) ^(imposed the ban on him—which was exactly what Clinton required, because he cannot impose such limits on himself.")

In summary:

With Si in the mental ring as a known personal weakness, characterized by an inability to rest that hinders ability to take Se actions consistent with S4, with an interest in policymaking but lack of ideological consistency consistent with L5, valued and extremely proficient Emotions consistent with E1, an uncanny ability to find a way out of any crisis and inspire people consistent with I8, LSI makes no sense and Clinton is probably an EIE.

I feel like ESE/EIE/SEE/IEE or the 4D Fe types are much better fit for that.

I think SLEs would likely be more socially awkward due to 2D Fe and bad selectivity of own relationships (Vulnerable Fi)---they can want to be well liked and climb up the "hierarchy" but end up around "outcasts" because they smiled at them and were friendly.

There's "cool jock that plays by their own rules" but they have highly valued Fe mobilizing so they probably are still dependent on others. EIE would be better at acting like the trope and SEE probably is the reason why the trope is associated with high school popularity. I still think doing what you want without coming across as antisocial requires a lot of Fe slickness that takes a while for the SLE to develop.

They wouldn't be totally socially inept and maybe good at a distance or bossing people around but I feel like they wouldn't be very smooth either, not as much as they want to be. Something about Napoleon being an outcast in military school and being bullied a lot for being stiff and egotistical.

The Vulnerable Fi compensating with Creative Ti combo tends to look like autism as well I think when it gets talked about. It isn't just ILEs. Relationship rationalizing. And Ti creative+Te demonstrative---they can have lots of nerd hobbies.