u/SpencerStern

I've been building a typing assistant for a Socionics matching app, and the interesting constraint was this: the model has to work through a formal function-stack framework rather than pattern-match to stereotypes, and it has to be honest when it's genuinely uncertain instead of confidently mistyping someone.

A few design decisions that might be useful to others doing structured-reasoning chat:

• Adaptive over fixed. It replaced a static questionnaire. The whole point is that follow-ups branch on what the user actually says, so when answers point somewhere unexpected the conversation can chase that rather than ploughing through a script.
• Confidence as a first-class output. Rather than returning a single label, it produces a lean across likely candidates. Below a confidence threshold it explicitly offers a choice rather than asserting — which matters when the ground truth is genuinely hard and self-report is unreliable.
• Reasoning against a source of truth. Type and relation data come from canonical data files, not the model's own recall, to stop it drifting into confident nonsense.

The honest-uncertainty piece was the hardest part — getting a model to say "I'm leaning X but genuinely not sure between X and Y, here's why" instead of picking one and committing. Happy to talk through how that was prompted.

Curious how others handle the "don't hallucinate confidence" problem in domains where the correct answer is fuzzy.

I've been running a static onboarding questionnaire on Socion for a while, and the honest truth is a fixed set of questions can't adapt when someone's answers point somewhere unexpected. so i've replaced it with an AI typing chat that actually follows the thread.

how it works: it reasons through the function stack rather than pattern-matching to stereotypes. it asks follow-ups based on what you say, and where it's genuinely uncertain it'll show you a lean rather than forcing a confident answer it can't back up. the output is a probability lean across likely types, not a hard binary assignment.

it's open to existing users too, not just new signups: so if you onboarded ages ago, never finished the questionnaire, or are still sitting there unverified, you can run it and get a fresh read. it won't overwrite a human-specialist verification if you already have one.

the usual caveat applies: self-report is unreliable and no automated tool gets typing right every time. this isn't a replacement for working out your type properly in a community or with a specialist: it's a faster, more adaptive starting point that's honest about its own confidence.

I would genuinely value people here running difficult or ambiguous cases through it and telling me where it goes wrong. that feedback loop is the whole point.

a few updates to socion since the last post...

the biggest one: there's now a socionics ai chatbot at socion.app/ask. you can ask it about any of the 16 types, intertype relations, model a, function descriptions, quadra dynamics — it's sourced from structured socionics data rather than general llm knowledge, so it actually knows what it's talking about. useful if you're still figuring out your type or want to go deeper on a relation dynamic.

also added swipe mode to the feed — browse profiles one at a time, swipe right to like, left to pass. mutual right swipe and you're connected. same relation type filters apply, so you know the dynamic before you connect.

premium launched yesterday with a founding member window that closed at midnight. 193 people got in free. from here it's $14.99/year.

happy to answer questions on any of it.

Three phrases to start:

• Still Looking for My Dual
• You're Giving Conflict Energy
• Typed and Dangerous

Kiss-cut vinyl, 3×3" and 4×4", ships worldwide.

(I run Socionics Insight - this is my shop)

musk. ILE or LIE? been chewing on this for months

keep going back and forth. arguments i keep landing on...

for ILE: the pattern of jumping enthusiasms (cars, rockets, tunnels, AI, X, neural lace) reads like Ne base ideation, not Te roadmap execution. famously bad at hitting his own dates. Te leading picks reasonable targets. Ne base picks impossible ones because the idea is the point. communication style is memey, riffing, association-led, not bottom-line.

for LIE: the companies actually ship physical product at scale. that's Te in the world, not Ne sketches. ruthless on supply chain and manufacturing depth. strategic horizons (mars) read more Ni than Ne. and the gamma pattern around visible status and achievement fits LIE better than anything alpha.

i lean ILE on weight of behavioural evidence but the production output is genuinely harder to explain with Ne base. would also take strong arguments for SLE or EIE.

where does the sub actually land on this one.

A small update on Socion this week...

The biggest change is philosophical. When you finish the type assessment, the result is now framed as a working hypothesis rather than a final answer... the confirm button no longer asks you to commit ("I am LII")... it just lets you continue with the hypothesis ("continue as LII")... with a note that many people refine their type over months or years.

The reasoning is simply empirical honesty. Most active socionics participants have retyped at least once... myself included. I was self-typed as LII for years before Reg verified me as SEI back in April. Claiming certainty in a ui when the user (and frankly the theory itself) is genuinely uncertain felt dishonest. The ui now reflects what's actually happening.

I'm curious how others see this... most typology apps state your type with high confidence even when the underlying signal is shaky. Socion is taking the other side. I'm interested if that resonates.