english / german
On this page I will publish a series of my own articles on socionics, in which I will explain my perspectives and attitudes towards the theory in more detail.
In addition to this website, I also have a YouTube channel where I plan to occasionally publish videos:
https://www.youtube.com/@tk-vg6mx
October 2023:
I published the first article on this site in German on October 31, 2023. It was then professionally translated into english a while later. The article explains my views on socionics and how I interpret certain aspects of the theory.
I wish I could display more visual elements on this website, but current copyright laws in Germany make this practically impossible for me. The next section contains a list of examples of a type that, in my view, has profoundly shaped our current way of life:
September 2026:
Overall, I would say that I am no longer as interested in socionics itself as I was in 2015. I have been writing two different articles for a long time, but part of me wants to separate myself from the theory because, although it is intellectually interesting, it contains too many errors in my opinion. I think over the years too many researchers have introduced too many aspects that make little empirical sense. Personally, the biggest problems I have are with the lack of evidence for many typological claims that are vague enough to apply to specific people, but often do not apply to all people of a type. 16 types are probably not enough to capture eight billion people accurately or in any detail. You can’t actually create detailed descriptions because they will inevitably contradict each other in reality. In my opinion, the types should only be understood as very broad categories, i.e. as a kind of “layer” that must operate independently of the “personality”, as this is too dependent on our social and cultural environment as well as our concrete experiences. How many “layers” of the psyche are there then, and could they influence much more how people interact with each other and how we understand each other? I would probably have to invent my own theory to eliminate contradictions, but I often ask myself, “Do I even want this?” Can a type theory cover all eventualities of the human psyche, which will ultimately always change and adapt?
Nevertheless, I remain interested in Introverted Intuition (Ni), which is described in Socionics as „intuition of time.“ Carl Gustav Jung originally viewed it as a perceiving function that generates inner images, visions, and information within the subconscious, recognizes potentials, and intuits how things will unfold in the future. He associated it with the perception characteristic of artists, visionaries, and mystics. I find myself wondering how this „function“ might have influenced our way of life. If it is indeed linked to the perception of processes extending across time, could agriculture, which emerged 10,000 years ago and effectively deferred food for humans into the future (sowing today, harvesting later), have originated from this intuition? Our current global civilization, established after World War II, consists largely of abstractions. Are the Internet, money and stock markets, and academic institutions (learning today, working tomorrow) abstract, subjective, or symbolic concepts that arose through the intuition of time to organize our society? Could even language and writing have emerged as abstract concepts through this mode of perception? If Introverted Intuition is closely linked to symbols, as Jung claimed, do concrete objects such as signs, maps, flags, or religious emblems also fall within its scope? If it perceives archetypes, might the perception of personality traits itself be connected to this function? And if it is linked to inner images, can it not lose itself entirely in imaginary worlds or create them for others? Are religions, perhaps, created through this aspect of the human psyche? Could major cities be teeming with people possessing developed introverted intuition, drawn there like moths to a flame in search of potential, because that is where the greatest scope for abstraction and possibility is found? Are loans and debts not also a form of abstract promises regarding the future? Did Jung perhaps fail to identify actual types, instead merely pinpointing subtypes of a few specific types that happened to be drawn to his esoteric ideas? Might types actually be clusters of personality characteristics that, beyond a certain point, solidify into an observable pattern?
I have personally wondered for years whether the intuition of time is linked to perfectionism and repetitive behaviors, the subjective pursuit of „truth“ and a focus on dreams, memories, and „hope“ pursued with a kind of tunnel vision, such that even individuals of the same type differ significantly depending on what they prioritize and how. One particular trait I have observed with introverted intuitive types is that they often answer with „that’s true!“ or „that’s not true!“ after a specific statement. On this site, I have come to classify almost all the cultural figures of our time as IEIs. Although this hypothesis is based largely on abstract patterns, I find myself wondering what cognitive structure actually enables extraordinary achievement. In my view, it often involves obsessive and repetitive behavior. This observation holds true regardless of typology. No matter the field, be it art, science, sports, or elsewhere, achieving true excellence often requires, alongside talent, an obsessive streak, a tolerance for repetition, and a willingness to repeatedly refine the same processes for the sake of marginal gains until they feel as natural as breathing. It also demands a great deal of self-sacrifice, interestingly reminiscent of the „victim“ style in Socionics, as one gives up an ordinary life to devote oneself entirely to one’s convictions. Wouldn’t the desire to be remembered over long periods or to go down in history also be a fitting characteristic of the intuition of time? This raises the further question of whether these traits are evenly distributed across all people and types, or if extraordinary achievements stem primarily from a select few types or subtypes, those who prioritize long-term specialization and delayed gratification in order to realize an inner dream. In practical terms, my hypothesis leads to the assumption that people with certain type structures should be overrepresented in almost every high-performance sector and in fields of extreme influence. The common denominator among individuals of the same type would not be personality, political convictions, or varying attitudes toward change, but rather a shared drive to meticulously perfect processes within a chosen area of interest and to work strategically and over the long term toward a goal, even though the specific fields of interest may differ subjectively from person to person. How, then, does this differing perception of time influence our interactions with others? For a progressive individual, for instance, the status quo is generally open to change, whereas for a conservative individual, existing institutions are best left unaltered. Can both perspectives coexist within a single type, or are they exclusive to specific types? What happens when one version of a type is a sensitive poet and another version of the same type is a conservative entrepreneur? Or are all poets and entrepreneurs simply the same type? To me, the latter makes little sense given the vast range of variations; furthermore, if that were the case, what need would there be for a „type“ at all when we already possess established terms for existing archetypes?
For me, there is another special dynamic at play: fossil fuels. Physically speaking, they are nothing more than ancient biomass such as algae, plankton, or land plants that originally stored solar energy through photosynthesis and were transformed into oil, gas, and coal over millions of years. This finite energy was then used, particularly since the end of World War II, to create our 21st-century way of life. In a sense, they represent „compressed time,“ as they took eons to form yet were unleashed explosively by machines over a span of roughly 80 years. While sometimes described as „ancient sunlight energy,“ they function remarkably well for me as an abstract, externalized form of „extroverted sensing (Se)“, capable of replacing the concrete aspect of reality for many people. To what extent has this unique energy reserve shaped and influenced our cognitive and mental priorities? Do we think the way we do because of our type, or because we currently possess enough energy to contemplate things beyond concrete reality? What will happen in the second half of the 21st century when oil and gas become too expensive and energy-intensive to sustain our civilization due to the declining Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of fossil fuels, and our lives inevitably become simpler and more localized because renewable energy sources lack comparable energy density? Will our thoughts and priorities remain the same, or is abstraction itself an energy-intensive anomaly rather than an inherent expression of „intuition“? To what degree is mental complexity a matter of conscious choice? I wonder, if IEIs create dream-like realities, whether our current way of life is not exactly that: a temporary illusion created by fossil fuels, one that led us, for a brief moment in time, to believe that energy was merely background noise and that infinite growth was compatible with physical reality.
I think a lot about these questions.