Select a result to preview

A Typing Example - The Intuitive-Process-Dynamics, or Why an Extravert Started Talking Like an Introvert

Part I. The Intuitive-Process-Dynamics

Imagine we have two ways of speaking about the world:

The Language of Action: "I broke a branch," "She cooked soup," "He built a house." At the center is someone who takes something and does something to it. There is an actor, an object, and a result.

The Language of Processes (Evolutionary): "The branch broke," "The soup is cooking," "The house is being built." At the center is the event itself as it occurs. Who exactly is doing it is less important than the process itself.

Now, let’s look at our subject’s response from this perspective.

Question: Tell me, please, how do you determine how people feel about you? How do you know you’ve identified it correctly? If someone says they feel well toward you, how do you react? Why?

Answer: Well… I don’t know. Basically, I don’t "determine" it at all. Generally, I don’t care.

There are people who interact with me in some way, but overall, I really don’t mind who feels what about me. I’ve grown used to the fact that people usually aren't particularly well-disposed toward me initially. So, I developed a strategy—simply not to get hung up on it.

I am who I am. Digging into who feels what, making things up, analyzing—I don’t see the point.

Question: And if someone clearly feels well toward you—how do you react?

Answer: Well, of course, it’s pleasant when people treat me well, when they want to talk to me or are interested in me. If I’m also interested in the person, mutuality emerges—communication, some shared activities, getting to know each other.

In the process of communicating, natural agreements begin: "Let’s go there," "let's do this," "I’d like it this way." And when everything falls into place easily, when people are inclined toward making everyone feel comfortable and pleasant—that, in my opinion, is a good level of relationship. When everyone respects and values each other and everything is harmonious—that’s what I consider a true "feeling well toward each other."

Everything else… well, it just doesn’t matter. There are billions of people on the planet—I don’t even think about them. Honestly, I often don’t even remember their names.

For example, if I join a new group—after a day, two, or ten—I might remember at most two people with whom I truly felt a contact. The others… they might have tried to talk, or might not have—I just won’t remember.

I went to an acting class, for example—and I didn’t remember anyone there. No one interested me; I didn't feel a connection. People were there, but for me, they were almost faceless.

I don’t care. I guess that’s just how I’m wired. I don’t even think about it.

The question was simple: "How do you understand how someone feels about you?"

She says:

Simply put, she refuses to use the "language of action" for the world of relationships. She is essentially saying: "A relationship is not something you can 'make' or 'analyze' as if it were a mechanism. It is something living."

What does she use instead?

She switches to the "language of processes." She describes how good relationships begin and develop on their own, as if it were a river starting to flow:

She describes an ideal relationship as a flow. People in it don't "do" things to each other so much as they float together along the current of this flow.

What about the rest of the people?

If there is no flow, if the river doesn't start moving? Then, for her, nothing is happening at all.

She doesn't waste energy trying to "build" a bridge or "dig" a canal. If the process doesn't start naturally, she simply stops paying attention. The person essentially "fades out" of her movie.

Summary of her position:

  1. She intuitively feels that relationships are a living process.

  2. A good relationship for her is when a mutual, pleasant flow is launched: communication, deeds, agreements. Everything happens easily and naturally.

  3. If this flow doesn't launch, she doesn't try to force it. She simply redirects her attention, and the people who didn't enter that flow become invisible background noise.

Metaphorically speaking, she is a gardener who creates the conditions and watches to see if something sprouts on its own. This is the essence of her process-dynamic worldview.

Alright, let's continue.

We have clues now. She feels things intuitively. She lives in the process. She is a Dynamic type.

In Socionics, there are four Process-Intuitives. Only two of them are Dynamics: EIE and ILI.

Part II. Why did an Extravert start talking like an Introvert? Breaking down thinking traps.

The previous article was a warm-up, an invitation to independent research. Now—the main question that started it all. It was asked by Sveta after analyzing Katya's answer:

"The part about the 'process' is informative. But I have a question. Every phrase there sounds introverted—'how people feel about me,' 'they interact with me,' 'it's nice when people want to talk to me,' etc., in every sentence. And there’s internal reference—'I am who I am, and I don't care what they think of me.' Plus, irrationality—no judgments or frameworks, just adaptation to the situation. And generally, such program Ni—a calm, melancholic flow through time—wherever the current takes us, we’ll land, and when it carries us off again, we'll set sail. Basically, I’m a bit confused now..."

The answer to your question lies in the biggest trap of typing—the trap of templates.

On one hand, templates help us navigate. On the other, they confuse us and close the mind. A template gives knowledge but not understanding. For example, there is a primitive template that a "Negativist" is someone who constantly uses the word "not." But one can deny reality or its imperfections in a thousand ways, and a blunt "not" is only one of them.

The map is not the territory. What is written in manuals is only a guide.

Yes, sometimes a person fits a stereotype perfectly. An extravert tells you how many acquaintances they have and how open they are. But as soon as we encounter something that doesn't fit the frame, our mind falters.

So, let's break down how exactly the templates misled you using Katya’s answer as an example.

Trap #1: "Extravert means they always talk about the external world."

You see, all of Katya’s phrases are directed toward herself: "how they feel about me," "they want to talk to me." You make a logical but incorrect conclusion: that this is introversion.

What is the mistake?

Imagine that an extravert is a fisherman and an introvert is a cook.

Back to Katya. She is an Ethical Extravert. Her "river" is the external world of human relationships and emotions. The phrase "how people feel about me" is not a dive into herself. It’s casting a fishing rod into the external world! It’s scanning the environment for an emotional response. Like a fisherman, she watches the bobber (people's reactions) and waits for a bite (interest, sympathy).

An Ethical Introvert (e.g., EII) would reason differently: "I feel that this person is good, I want to help him." The focus would be on their own internal attitude toward the other. But Katya looks at the external attitude toward herself. This is exactly how Extraverted Ethics (Fe) works.

Trap #2: "If she says 'I don't care,' she must be an introvert living inside herself."

The phrase "I am who I am, and I don't care what they think of me" looks like the position of an independent, self-sufficient introvert.

What is the mistake?

This is not the calm detachment of an introvert. It is the defensive reaction of an extravert.

Let's go back to our fisherman. If the fish aren't biting (people aren't showing interest), what does he do? He doesn't start studying himself or his gear. He says: "Fine! There are no fish in this river. I'm going to another one." Or: "I'm the one who decides where to fish, not the fish!"

The phrase "I am who I am" is not introversion. It is the self-assertion of a stubborn, eccentric extravert: "If you aren't playing my game, if you aren't giving me the reaction I need, then I’m crossing you out and asserting my own rightness." This isn't a quiet inner life; it’s an active defense of one’s position in the external world.

Trap #3: "If she describes a flow, it must be passive Introverted Intuition."

You correctly identified the flow, but misinterpreted it. You saw a "calm, melancholic current" and decided it was program Introverted Intuition (Ni).

What is the mistake?

Dynamics is the ability to see the world as a movie rather than a slideshow. But movies do differ.

What Katya describes is not passive observation. It is a description of her script starting to play out:

She isn't just floating with the current. She is looking for the flow that matches her internal script and actively steps into it. Everything that isn't part of the script is just the "extras" in the background who don't interest her.

Conclusions for you:

  1. What you took for introversion is actually Extraverted Ethics (Fe). It is her strong, program function that craves an emotional response from the world and confirmation of her significance.

  2. What you took for internal self-sufficiency is the defensive reaction of a obstinate extravert who isn't getting the desired response and demonstratively quits the game to save face.

  3. What you took for a passive flow of time is creative Introverted Intuition (Ni). This isn't passive drifting; it’s a flexible tool. Katya uses her sense of time and event progression to build her own performance, finding the right actors and the right stage.

Your question is wonderful because it shows how easily the mind clings to familiar templates. But as soon as you change the angle of vision, the tangled picture becomes clear and logical.

Source: S. Ionkin