Frequently Asked Questions

Section A. Fundamentals of Socionics

1. What is socionics?

Socionics is a personality typology popular in the post-Soviet space, and related to the more widespread Western typology MBTI. The advantage of socionics compared with other typologies is the universal-symmetrical structure of traits underlying it, going back to the research of C. G. Jung (and later supplemented by the so-called Reinin traits), as well as its developed theory of intertype relations (which, for example, the same MBTI lacks). Unlike most other typologies, socionics also claims the role of a connecting link between sciences of different kinds and profiles: sociology, neurophysiology, ethology and communication theory, and general systems theory.

2. Is socionics Model A?

Model A was created by Ausra Augustinaviciute to describe the features of information processing by the human psyche.
Model A consists of 8 position-cells (in A.A.’s terminology, “functions”: program, creative, etc.) and 8 informational “aspects” (Ne, Se, etc.), which can be arranged in these cells in 16 different ways (corresponding to the 16 socionic types). Subsequently, Model A was criticized as excessively simplified and relatively capable of describing information processing only in some people. A number of other models were created, for example Talanov’s Model T, but Model A still remains the best known.
Over time, another approach also spread in socionics, based on type diagnosis through a holistic set of psychological properties, without dividing them into informational aspects. Supporters of identifying socionics with Model A often believe that this approach is a step backward and even disavows the very essence of socionics. But this is not the case. Any personality property used in type diagnosis has one or another connection to the socionic coordinate system. There are almost no properties that affect only one informational aspect; most affect all of them, but to different degrees. Therefore, using only Model A, on the contrary, impoverishes socionics in terms of the toolkit it provides for studying personality traits.

3. What is the subject of socionics?

The subject of socionics, as of any other psychological typology, is human diversity. This includes: differences in life values, motivations, behavior, communication style and information processing, neurobiological and physiognomic features, and features of personality ontogenesis. Some deliberately narrow the subject of socionics to the study of features of “information metabolism” (IM), calling socionics “the science of the socion.” In the author’s view, such an approach is not only artificially impoverishing for socionics, but also openly anti-scientific. By avoiding the search for connections between features of IM and other known ways of studying personality, its supporters essentially tear socionics away from the rest of science. This exact situation is typical of a number of pseudosciences. Their supporters, in order not to be exposed, avoid intersecting with the main part of the scientific community and for this purpose invent their own “bird language” of terms, turning their activity into a meaningless thing-in-itself.

3a) What directions exist in socionics today?

On this topic, I recommend V. Lytov’s short overview article.
The author of the site believes that the “biopsychological approach” among those considered in this article is the most scientific and generally productive, whereas the “informational” and “linguistic” approaches often suffer from openly pseudoscientific assumptions. Nevertheless, in the author’s opinion, the biopsychological approach by itself cannot answer the question of the nature of socionics as an integral coordinate system in the space of psychological diversity, since it is limited by the framework of human biological nature. Whereas the sociotype as a phenomenon is most likely a projection onto the biosocial level of more general properties of the structure of the Universe, inherent in all its universal systems regardless of their nature.

3b) How can I recognize pseudoscientific directions in socionics?

At present there are many directions and communities in socionics—clubs and “schools.” Some of these directions do not even claim to be scientific, using socionics purely for entertainment purposes while greatly simplifying and distorting the knowledge embedded in it. Some use outdated or unscientific (pseudoscientific) ideas and hypotheses. For example, the following views are still widespread in a number of schools:
as if the space of socionic types is strictly quantized, and personalities that represent a transitional form between different sociotypes do not exist (or such people do exist, but are merely distortions, “masks,” of one “correct” type—see below);
as if those manifestations of personality that are accessible through direct contact display only a person’s “masks,” which allegedly merely outwardly resemble a socionic type but are not one; while the “true” type lies deeper and is accessible only to a few initiated “gurus”;
as if all traits, including the so-called Reinin traits, are necessarily and equally present in all representatives of one type;
as if tests are in principle incapable of determining a person’s type (i.e., supposedly, the person himself is incapable of forming a correct idea of himself);
conversely, as if a socionic type can be determined literally by a couple of traits, for example by a person’s reaction to one isolated situation, often taken out of context, or by nuances of his external appearance.
The presence of even one of these features allows one to confidently classify a given socionic school as unscientific. The same applies to resorting to astrology, so-called psyche-yoga, etc. in attempts to explain the features of a particular personality that do not fit the typical picture of its sociotype.
The works of V. L. Talanov, which are the result of statistical analysis of questionnaire data from thousands of respondents, fully meet the status of scientificity—almost the only ones among all that currently exist in socionics. That is why in his own works the author also prefers to proceed precisely from the conclusions obtained by V. L. Talanov in the sense of linking specific psychological properties to socionic traits, functions, and sociotypes.

4. What is a socionic type?

A sociotype is a complex phenomenon, a set of personality properties of the broadest spectrum—from behavioral to physiological—that deviate a personality from the population average norm in one direction or another.
From an evolutionary point of view, the presence of sociotypes in a population is a reflection of the variability of all living things, and is necessary for increasing the survival capacity of the population under changing conditions of the external world. Modern human society is, in essence, a universal system in which there is room for all possible forms of specialization.

4a) — from the standpoint of neurophysiology?

According to V. L. Talanov’s hypothesis, each sociotype corresponds to one or another feature of the structure of the central nervous system in terms of its increased sensitivity to certain neurohormones. The neurohormonal background is also important, but being more mobile, it influences not the sociotype itself, but rather situational fluctuations of the type profile. Features of body structure may also be connected with sociotype, and among them there may be both those that functionally complement a certain kind of neurohormonal balance (for example, high muscle mass complements an elevated level of testosterone—a marker of the Se and Ti functions), and those that ended up together because of random local factors (for example, dark eye color and increased emotional disinhibition—a marker of the Fe function—may be connected in a particular population if both are more typical of one of its subpopulations).

4b) — from the standpoint of the systems approach?

According to the author’s theory of social energy, any universal system, in order to ensure its survival, masters control over all forms of energy existing in the surrounding environment. The theory shows that there are 16 forms of systemic energy in the Universe, manifesting themselves at all levels of self-organization—from the physical level (material bodies and particles) to the social level (the psychic reality of individuals). In projection onto the social level, we observe 16 forms of the energy of society as a system consisting of interacting personalities, and 16 socionic types as the functions of society for managing its own energy.
Although the author’s approach is not fully scientific, and represents only a metaphorical analogy between complex phenomena of different natures, the author believes that there is no other way to explain the very choice of the psychological coordinate system considered in socionics as the basic one for classifying psychological diversity.

5. Are socionic type and type of information metabolism (TIM) the same thing?

The basic hypothesis of early socionics is the concept of “information metabolism” proposed by its founder Ausra Augustinaviciute. According to it, differences between representatives of different sociotypes are determined by the way information is perceived, processed, and output. At the same time, according to A.A., the reality presented to people can be represented through the prism of 8 basic concepts—“aspects.” Every person is capable of processing information in all 8 aspects, but does this more effectively in some than in others. All 8 aspects are located in the 8 positions of “Model A,” and their order depends only on the sociotype—there are 16 possible arrangements in total.
It was discovered almost immediately that differences in the way information is processed can influence a personality’s behavior, increasing or decreasing the probability of specific reactions in particular situations; increasing or decreasing abilities for work of one kind or another; changing the probability of having certain preferences, habits, interests, convictions, and even worldview. Subsequently, various researchers hypothesized that sociotypes are also connected with the physical component of the person—his appearance, facial expressions, reaction speed, and other physiological features. The research of V. L. Talanov was a natural development of this line of thought: it made it possible to systematize and formalize all possible personality properties by linking them to the system of 16 sociotypes; it made it possible to speak of the probability that a specific person possesses one or another property in numerical terms.
Thus, it can now be confidently stated that socionic type is a phenomenon broader in character than TIM.

6. Why are there exactly 16 socionic types?

In C. G. Jung’s original typology, set out in the book “Psychological Types” (Part X. General Description of the Types), 4 basic psychological functions were considered: sensation and intuition (perception functions), as well as thinking and feeling (judgment functions), each of which could be extraverted or introverted. If the second function is taken as auxiliary according to the scheme:
{if the first function is extraverted, then the second must be introverted, and vice versa; if the first is a judgment function, then the second must be a perception function, and vice versa}, then 16 combinations—16 types—can be obtained.
Subsequently, in socionics, with the introduction of Reinin traits, each type gained 11 additional degrees of freedom. But for reasons of the practical meaninglessness of considering 2^15 = more than 32 thousand variants, the number of considered combinations was left unchanged. In the case of issuing a socionic diagnosis not in the form of one leading type, but as a profile of 16 numbers corresponding to the closeness of a personality to each of the 16 types, this additional information is not lost.

7. Is it true that there are many more people of some sociotypes than of others?

If socionic type is considered as a certain deviation of personality properties from the population average norm (and this is correct), then there are no grounds for asserting anything of the kind. Some unevenness in numbers is possible because of the presence of correlations between the axes of strong traits, if they are not compensated by other correlations. For example, the number of types from aristocratic quadras is most likely somewhat greater in the global population than the number of democratic types because of the correlation between logical and sensory personality traits, but this disproportion is not strong.
I will also note that there is a problem of the reference point—since the population average norm may differ noticeably from society to society. Obviously, if we are considering a narrow professional group within a broader population, the parameters of the norm should not be adjusted to the average of this group. But if we are considering two large countries with different cultural mentalities and genetic heritage, the question arises whether the norm should be counted separately for each of them, or for both together. Are there any criteria that make it possible to objectively establish the coordinates of the “universal human” point of the norm, or should the coordinates of this point be established separately for each relatively isolated (genetically and functionally) population? This question has no answer yet.
Nevertheless, all these questions are specific and far removed from everyday practice. Type diagnosticians who claim that some sociotypes are many times more numerous in the global (not narrowly professional!) population than others are essentially using a coordinate system with a “shifted center of gravity”. Why and for what purpose is this done? The author suspects that the answers here lie not in the realm of “subtle” scientific research, but in banal human psychology. People have a desire to stand out from the mass, and socionists are no exception here. Behind the assertion that supposedly over 90% of the population are extraverts / representatives of “serious” quadras / EIE / ILE, etc., there often stands either the desire to become a “guru”, “the only one who knows the truth”, or (and sometimes at the same time) to be a “representative of a rare type”. Moreover, the author even fully allows that a number of socionists arrive at their conclusions quite sincerely, simply falling into one well-known cognitive trap. Namely, if you personally deviate sharply from the norm in some personality property, then the population as a whole begins to seem to you to deviate in the opposite direction along the same trait. Then all that remains for you is to shift the center of gravity of your coordinate system to the desired position and revel in your exceptionality.

8. Are all sociotypes equally dissimilar to one another, or are some more or less dissimilar?

Any two sociotypes have 7 traits in common and differ on 8. Traits are unequal in their strength (the volume of personality properties filling them). The more “strong” traits fall into the group of coinciding ones, the higher the similarity, and vice versa. The similarity of average type images of personality to one another can be assessed using a table. Positive numbers in it correspond to pairs of sociotypes whose two randomly selected members will more probably be similar than two randomly selected people from society as a whole. Negative numbers correspond to pairs where they will more likely be less similar. On average, sociotypes in quasi-identical, kindred, business, mirror, complete-opposite, and request relations are more similar. Conflict types are the least similar.

9. Where can I find descriptions of socionic types?

Descriptions of sociotypes:
for beginners and not only—here
for those interested in details—on V. L. Talanov’s website. The links inside contain lists of personality properties exclusively related to one or another of the 16 sociotypes.
(Important: “exclusivity” does not mean that every possessor of type N will find all these properties in himself, and conversely, that every possessor of another leading type will not. All relationships between belonging to sociotypes and possessing one or another property are probabilistic in nature. It should also be remembered that some properties may be very rare—so even among specific people of the type where they are most widespread, they may occur in less than 50% of cases.)
for those interested in the trace socionics has left in folk creativity—on Lurkmore. Cynical, but mostly true + it reveals stereotypes common in socionics. At the same time, one can read the main article as well.

10. Where can I read about the socionic types of specific people?

The author recommends descriptions by V. L. Talanov: on his website; there is also some additional material in the VKontakte group (but one will have to scroll through the general list of posts).

Section B. Dichotomies

1. What is a socionic trait, “dichotomy”?

A socionic dichotomy (i.e., literally, a pair of traits) is a fundamental concept of socionic classification. Each dichotomy is two mutually exclusive sets of personality properties—two traits. In colloquial speech, the dichotomy itself is sometimes called a “trait,” although terminologically this is not entirely correct.
The socion as a set of 16 sociotypes can, as a first approximation, be formed by four dichotomies, provided that each of them is independent of the other three. The basic four are usually the dichotomies first considered by C. G. Jung (the so-called “Jungian basis”):
Extraversion — introversion
Logic (thinking) — ethics (feeling)
Intuition — sensing (sensation)
Irrationality (perception) — rationality (judgment)
Sometimes, instead of the dichotomy “irrationality — rationality,” one of the so-called “Reinin traits,” static — dynamic, is used, which plays a major role in constructing “Model A.” But, in principle, the socion can also be built on any other set of four mutually independent pairs of Reinin traits.
Read the author’s definitions of the main dichotomies on the page.

2. What are Reinin traits?

Reinin traits are additional dichotomies obtained from the basic ones, and also from one another, by Boolean multiplication of the conditional signs of their poles. The values of Reinin traits in theory depend nonlinearly on the values of the parent traits, but in practice they are mostly independent of the latter.
More about Reinin traits.

3. Can descriptions of Reinin traits from the internet be trusted?

The semantic content of Reinin traits was first proposed by A. Augustinaviciute, and subsequently was almost never rechecked by anyone. Because of the small magnitude of most of these traits, their meaning is difficult to detect and study in ordinary communication, often overlaps with similar meanings of stronger traits, and “drowns” in them. In addition, the “folk” version of socionics often contains a literal reading of RT—the search for their meaning in the name given to them by A.A. As the statistical analysis of V. L. Talanov’s questionnaires showed, these names are in a number of cases quite far from the “nuclear” meaning of one or another trait, often singling out one property (not necessarily the most important) from the set gravitating toward the target trait, while ignoring the others.
Conclusion: the author does not recommend using commonly widespread descriptions of RT. Links to the most reliable among them are given here.

4. Can socionic type be determined without taking the influence of Reinin traits into account?

No; in that case we obtain an MBTI type, not a socionic one. The statistics of Talanov’s questionnaires show that failure to account for Reinin traits in type diagnosis, and especially such traits as judiciousness-decisiveness, merriness-seriousness, and positivism-negativism, reduces the reliability of correctly determining the sociotype by 25%. [learn more]
Since the diagnosis of Talanov’s questionnaires is based on mass self-diagnosis, it can be confidently stated that the semantics of at least some RT are present in mass consciousness. However, they are not always correctly interpreted by particular type diagnosticians.

5. Are all socionic traits equally important in determining sociotype?

The importance of correctly determining the pole of a dichotomy in type diagnosis is determined by the strength of that dichotomy—that is, the volume of personality properties associated with its traits. As statistics show, only 5 dichotomies are strong enough to define the main personality properties of most people: the 4 dichotomies of the “Jungian basis” and judiciousness-decisiveness. The other 10 dichotomies can in some cases have a significant influence on the personality portrait, but only as additional factors, not as the main ones.

6. Must a person with a given sociotype display all 15 Reinin traits corresponding to that sociotype?

The values of Reinin traits are strictly tied to the leading sociotype of a personality only in theory; in practice, however, they are mostly independent of it and of one another. Since sociotype is determined mainly by the poles of strong dichotomies, their inversion (i.e., the personality’s gravitation toward a different pole than should be observed for its leading type) is a rarer event. Nevertheless, even taking this into account, half of people have at least one trait of the “Jungian basis” that does not correspond to theory for their leading type. Inversion of weak traits is far more frequent. Overall, in the population there are practically no people in whom at least one RT does not gravitate toward a different pole than predicted by theory.
Moreover, because of mutual correlations between different RT, for a number of types the inverted state of some RT is even more frequent than the “correct” one. The general situation is shown in this table.
Thus, the author categorically does not recommend determining sociotype by relying on the values of only 4 random RT, especially weak ones.

6a) How should one type by traits correctly?

In type diagnosis by dichotomies, the author recommends proceeding in the following order: first determine the poles of extra-introversion, logic-ethics, and sensing-intuition; then, when choosing between two quasi-identical types, take into account the values of ir/rationality and judiciousness-decisiveness (in case of contradictions, following the scheme); if doubts remain, check weak traits, remembering that their values often contradict the theoretical model.

7. What are “small groups” in socionics?

In socionics, a “small group” is usually understood as a division of the socion into 4 subgroups of 4 sociotypes each, such that in each of them all sociotypes (in theory) possess 3 common Reinin traits. Depending on how “strong” the traits forming this trio are, the intrinsic semantic content of the subgroups of the small group may range from very significant to vanishingly small.
Combinatorics allows for only 35 possible partitions of the socion—35 “small groups.”
Learn more about specific small groups.

8. What are quadra values?

Quadras are not the strongest small group, but they are the most important in terms of commonality of life values.
Quadra values are the 3 Reinin traits (judiciousness-decisiveness, merriness-seriousness, and aristocracy-democracy) that form this small group. The pole of judiciousness-decisiveness determines which functions are valued for the personality within the irrational block of functions—Si and Ne or Se and Ni, respectively. The pole of merriness-seriousness determines what is valued among the rational functions—Ti and Fe or Te and Fi; the pole of aristocracy-democracy determines Di and Qe or Qi and De (what is this?)

Section C. Functions

1. What is a socionic function?

A socionic function is the apparatus by means of which the personality manages one or another aspect of surrounding reality. In the original version of socionics, 8 aspects and 8 functions are considered.
Brief descriptions of aspects and functions by the author.
The special feature of the 8-function model is that in this case the functions reflect the contribution of only 7 Reinin traits out of 15. Subsequently, other models for calculating functions were developed, including V. L. Talanov’s expanded model, which counts 24 functions and reflects the variance of all 15 RT.

1a) How is function strength calculated?

Each socionic function corresponds to a number of traits: for example, for Ne (intuition of possibilities), these are extraversion, irrationality, static, intuition, and peripherality. The value of any function is mathematically calculated as the sum of the products of the values of the corresponding traits by additional coefficients indicating the contribution of that trait to the semantic content of the function.

1b) Why are the coefficients in calculating functions from trait values precisely these?

Each of the socionic functions manifests best in those sociotypes in which it is in the extreme, most distant from the norm, inert position. Therefore, to calculate the properties related to a function, the most natural approach is to consider the difference between the averaged sets of properties of two sociotypes in which it occupies the program position (inert in strength). For example, the value of Ne in this case will be proportional to the sum of the content of the 7 traits common to ILE and IEE.
However, while in a system of 24 functions it is possible to account for the contribution of all traits, in the “classical” set of 8 functions this cannot be done. In the system of 8(12) functions, weak traits connected not with strength but only with the inertness of one or another function are ignored when calculating function strength (because, first, with this number of functions they would inevitably become linked with other traits, and second, because they increase the contribution to the content of the function of properties of those types in which it is vulnerable, i.e. also inert, but not in strength—rather in weakness—which is not always justified). At the same time, the contribution of static-dynamic—a trait also connected with the inertness/contactness of functions, but not of just 4 functions, rather of all of them—is traditionally taken into account.
The coefficients for all traits used in calculating functions are selected in such a way that the sums of their absolute values, calculated across all 12 functions, are equal—that is, so that the variance of each trait is present in the function profile in equal volume.
The resulting system of coefficients is not the only possible one, but it is the one currently used in Talanov’s questionnaires. Slightly different calculation systems are given in V. L. Talanov’s works: the old version of the model, 8 functions, and the new version, 24 functions.

2. What is the difference between the concepts of “aspect” and “function” in socionics?

The founder of “classical” socionics, A. Augustinaviciute, understood “aspect” as information of a certain type, and “function” as the role of this information in a person’s “information metabolism”—the position of this aspect in Model A of his type of information metabolism. For example: “in ILE, the program function processes the Ne aspect.” This terminology was subsequently preserved in a number of socionic schools using the so-called “informational approach” (which reduces sociotype to features of the personality’s “information metabolism”).
In V. L. Talanov’s socionics, the concept of “aspect” is not considered, and “function” is understood as a complex of personality traits (neurophysiological, behavioral, motivational-value-related) connected with activity of a certain kind. Accordingly, here it would be more correct to say: “in ILE, the Ne function occupies the program position.”
The author considers V. L. Talanov’s approach more scientific and generally correct; nevertheless, he still uses the concept of “aspect”—but not in the sense used by A.A., rather as a description of objectively existing phenomena in reality, the evaluation of which constitutes the main task of one or another function. For example: “the Si aspect is the internal dynamics of matter in the organism, metabolism; the Si function is responsible for managing this dynamics, perceiving its features by reading bodily sensations; in type ILE, the Si function occupies the suggestive position.”
For those interested in the history of the issue and terminological subtleties, I recommend Kanonik’s article On the differences in terminology in “old” and “new” socionics (the article is written from the standpoint of V. L. Talanov’s views).

3. Is the following true with respect to socionic aspects: ethics=energy, logic=matter, sensing=space, intuition=time? That is, the function of ethics is the management of energy, logic of matter, and so on?

This model is widely used in so-called “aspectonics” (a quasi-scientific philosophical direction within socionics focused on searching for parallels between features of individual psychology and general laws of being). In the author’s opinion, this model mixes the everyday understanding of the terms used with the scientific understanding, and presents the desired as actual. In search of the deep nature of the phenomena studied by socionics, the author developed the theory of social energy. It considers the possible nature of sociotypes as an abstract-metaphorical repetition of basic phenomena of the objective physical world at a new level of systemic complexity.

4. Which traits influence the determination of functions? Can it be said that, for example, Ne is extraverted intuition? Fi is introverted ethics? and so on?

The semantic content of socionic functions depends on the properties of which types we take into account (and with what weights) for calculating the value of one or another function. The compromise model at present is as follows: the largest contribution to the content of any function is made by the properties of those types in which it is in the program position; types in which it is creative also make a positive contribution; and those for whom it is vulnerable make a deeply negative contribution. When translated into the language of traits, the following coefficient system is used.
For example, according to it, the value of Ni = 3intuition + 3decisiveness + 1.5*irrationality + introversion + dynamic. Thus, the largest contribution is made by the trait basic to the function (in the example above: intuition) and the trait that determines the valuedness of this function (here: decisiveness). The contribution of the temperament-group traits (including vertness) is smaller; their variance is evenly dispersed across all functions. Nevertheless, because of the greater range of vertness values in the population, its actual contribution is often more important in determining the relative strength of functions of the same nature but different vertness than the contribution of value traits.

5. Does one and the same function differ in the program position and in the creative position, and if so, how?

Yes, a function in the program and creative positions (in “Model A”) differs, and strongly. For example, program Fe in EIE and creative Fe in IEI are both dynamic, merry, ethical functions; however, program Fe additionally carries properties connected with extraversion and rationality, while creative Fe, on the contrary, carries properties connected with introversion and irrationality. As a result, the differences between these two versions of any function are so numerous that it is more appropriate to speak not of 8, but of 16 functions. In the system first proposed by A. Khizhnyak, the 16 functions are named according to the nature of the function (ethical, logical, sensory, intuitive), and also the temperament group formed by the intersection of the corresponding traits of vertness and nality. For example, in this system EIE has two strongest functions—linear-assertive ethics, LA-E (also classical Fe), and linear-assertive intuition, LA-I (most of whose properties are connected with a deficit of Si). In this case, the ethical subtype of EIE corresponds to the predominance of LA-E over LA-I in the personality structure, and the intuitive subtype, conversely, to LA-I exceeding LA-E. The same applies analogously to the other sociotypes.

6. Which function is the strongest, and which is the weakest, in representatives of a certain socionic type?

Most often, the strongest function is the one occupying the program position in “Model A,” and the weakest occupies the vulnerable position. In the presence of corresponding accents, the program function may be surpassed in strength by functions occupying the background or creative positions (one of them or both), much more rarely by the limiting or activation functions (in this case, one usually speaks of a “mixed” type). The function occupying the vulnerable position may also strengthen, and then the weakest will become the suggestive, role, limiting, or activation function.
There is a strong dependence between which functions are relatively strengthened in a given person and the presence of additional accents to his leading type [view].
The results of a study of the frequency of the strongest and weakest functions depending on sociotype are published here.

7. Can a person “pump up” his weak functions so that they become stronger than another person’s strong functions?

Unfortunately, the very formulation of this question indicates a misunderstanding of the essence of socionic functions. None of the parameters used in socionics can serve as an equivalent of the quantity of any skills of a personality; they are always only an assessment of the direction of its personality accentuation. Mathematically, the sum of all functions is strictly equal to zero, therefore if strengthening of one is possible, it is only at the expense of weakening the others. But even in such a situation, what will occur is not personality development as such, but merely a change in the main direction of its development and the accompanying system of motivations. The latter, however, is quite possible and occurs in the case of:
use of psychoactive substances (pharmacological ones, and partly also ordinary food of a certain kind);
mood fluctuations connected with purely psychological factors;
changes in hormonal background having age-related or other physiological causes.

8. What are inertness / contactness of a function?

Contactness of a function is determined by its closeness to the population norm (zero on the functional profile diagram); inertness is the magnitude of deviation from this norm. The properties of inertness/contactness manifest more strongly for functions of the so-called “mental ring”—i.e. the program and vulnerable functions are usually the most inert, and the creative and role functions are contact.
More details.

9. What are valued functions?

A function is valued in theory if it occupies a position in the “ego” or “superid” blocks of Model A of its sociotype. In practice, because Model A does not work for everyone, and also for reasons of general understanding, the following definition is more correct: a function is valued if, together with its complementary function, it is stronger than the sum of antagonist functions (or, equivalently, if the pole of the dichotomy from the group of quadra values that contributes to its content (see above) coincides with the pole of this dichotomy predominant in the personality). For example:
Ne (and also Si) is valued if Ne+Si > Ni+Se is true (i.e., if the personality is closer to the “judicious” pole of personality properties than to the “decisive” one);
Ti (and also Fe) is valued if Ti+Fe > Fi+Te is true (i.e., if the personality is closer to the “merry” pole of personality properties than to the “serious” one)

10. Why are logic and ethics rational functions, while intuition and sensing are irrational?

This is a socionic tradition going back to C. G. Jung’s theory. Jung assumed that all people are divided into those who perceive the external world as it is (irrationals) and those who form judgments about it (rationals). The first of these Jung divided into those who give preference in perception to sensation (sensing), and those who perceive the world intuitively. The second—into those who rely on thinking and on feeling when forming judgments (logics and ethics in modern socionics).
In fact, the question of whether this assumption should continue to be made remains open. In one of his works, the author attempts to build a traditional socionic model on an alternative set of functions—namely, taking as the basic set 8 functions in their creative position (BS-I, BS-S, LA-I, LA-S, FA-E, FA-L, CR-E, CR-L). In this model, all logical and ethical functions are irrational, while sensory and intuitive functions are rational; changes also occur in the structure of relations—in particular, the so-called “rings of request and supervision” are reversed in the opposite direction.

11. Is it true that the Se function is connected with aggressiveness? And Ne is not? Does that mean all people with strong Ne are good, and those with strong Se are bad?

It is assumed that Se perceives the external world as a set of material objects, vivid images of which evoke the desire to bring them closer, appropriate them, possess and use them, exploit and consume them.
Thus, it can be said that the social role of force sensing is the concentration of material resources under the control (ownership) of the subject. Under conditions of limited material resources, Se inevitably encounters the need to push competitors aside; i.e., its subject manifests aggressiveness in one form or another, up to physical violence. He manifests it inevitably also in the case where the resource he desires is itself a subject unwilling to become a resource for someone else (for example, this occurs in the natural environment in predator-prey relations).
And the stronger a specific subject’s Se is, the more expressed these properties are and the less susceptible they are to rational control.
For comparison: the function intuition of possibilities (Ne) is also responsible for concentrating potential—but not material potential (property), rather informational potential (knowledge). Here it remains to recall one of the statements attributed to Bernard Shaw: “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples, then you and I will each still have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.” This phrase shows as clearly as possible the difference between the basic egoism of Se (there will not be enough real resources for everyone; one has to fight for them) and the relative altruism of Ne (information about potential resources is never superfluous, which encourages the exchange of ideas).
The author of this site, as a structural logician, would prefer not to touch on ethical evaluations of the social role of the Se function — since, as is known, they can be diametrically opposed, depending on whose side the evaluator themselves is on. From an objective point of view, however, both Ne and Se are demanded by evolution — but in different situations, in different ways. Thus, Ne, as a peripheral function, is more valuable in a situation of insufficient population density, when survival and life success depend more on the ability to move forward quickly and master new territories and spheres of activity not yet occupied by anyone, and to create new alliances. Se, as a central function, is more in demand under conditions of excessive population, or, what is practically the same thing, a shortage of resources — where one cannot do without the ability to “push with one’s elbows” and defend one’s territory and property.
You can also read about the semantic content of the trait of decisiveness (as valued Se) here.

12) Is it true that the Ni function is connected with a good sense of time and an absence of tendency to be late?

A good sense of time is most strongly connected with the functions Te and Ni. But the absence of a tendency to be late is determined by belonging to the rationality pole, and, above all, by a deficit of Ne — on average, representatives of the sociotypes LSI, ESI, and LSE are late least often. This property also has a negative correlation with the strength of Ni, but not such a pronounced one.
In the author’s opinion, Ni as a function is primarily responsible for the instinct of self-preservation and is connected with the subject’s striving to preserve the free time of their life intact from encroachments upon it by other subjects and circumstances of the external world.
You may also read some of the author’s reflections on the nature and evolutionary meaning of the Ni function.

13) Where can I read about socionic functions?

what functions are in theory (what they are in the most general sense)
how they manifest themselves in practice (by which properties they can be recognized as strong)

14. What are questim and declatim functions (Qi, Qe, Di, De)? Why are they needed?

Questim and declatim functions are responsible for a person’s positioning relative to society as a whole, for awareness of oneself as a source of individual will (Qi, De), and of society as a source of collective will (Di, Qe). These functions are also judgmental (rational), like the logical and ethical ones.
In very brief terms: people with strong Qi advocate for the rights and freedoms of the individual and strive for justice; De types are optimistic and initiative-taking, democratic in affairs; Di types are dutiful and obedient to decisions from above; Qe types strive for leadership and elitism, and try to speak on behalf of the collective. More details.

Section D. Subtypes

1. My personality has much in common with two (three, four…) socionic types, and it is difficult to single out the main type. Is this normal?

Yes, this is normal.
In socionics, a person’s personality is most fully characterized not by one type, but by a type profile — a set of 16 numbers indicating how close a person is, in their qualities, to each of the 16 types. If only the leading type is determined, while everything else is ignored, a significant share of information about personality properties is lost. This is permissible only for people with a relatively “pure” type (in the type profile — one high peak), who are a minority. Most people have mixed types, and artificially “rotating” oneself into one of them in such a situation is a path not toward improving self-understanding, but toward worsening it.

1a) Where can I read descriptions of people with mixed types?

Examples of psychological portraits of accentuated types:
frequently occurring accentuations intermediate between two types (from V. L. Talanov);
all additional accents of the LSI sociotype (from kanonik);
all additional accents of the LII and ESE sociotypes (works by the author).

2. Are two people of the same socionic type always more similar from the position of socionics than two people of different types?

No, the intratype diversity of people is very large.
When there are additional “accents” toward other types (that is, individual strengthening of personality traits attributed to other types), a person who has the same leading type as you may be less similar to you than a person of another type.
This will happen especially often (for an understandable reason) if you also have strong accents toward your leading type. For example, an ILE with a strong accent toward the ILI type will be much more similar to an ILI with a strong accent toward ILE than to an ILE with a strong accent toward ESE.
Incidentally, it also follows from this that not every dual is always better suited to you in the socionic sense than every non-dual (especially if you have a mixed type).

3. Are types quantized? (i.e. is it always possible to draw a clear line separating people of one type from people of another)?

As V. L. Talanov’s studies have shown [read], the space of socionic traits is continuous and is not quantized. The distribution of people by the values of each socionic trait is close to a bell-shaped normal distribution curve [download research result], that is, ambiverts on this trait numerically predominate over people in whom one of the trait poles is strongly expressed. Under such conditions, it is practically impossible to assume the existence of 16 independent and relatively isolated poles formed at the intersection of traits.

4. What are subtypes?

Subtype theory is an addition to the socionic model whose goal is to explain the diversity of people belonging to one sociotype. There is no single and universal way to divide into subtypes (and, in principle, there cannot be one). In different subtype systems, it is customary to speak of the strengthening (variant: strengthening and weakening) of one or another function, pair of functions, trait(s), or an integral set of properties corresponding to another sociotype(s).
Learn more.

5. What is the best way to divide sociotypes into subtypes?

The best level of detail is provided by the method of accents, according to which the personality can be defined as a “profile of 16 types”.
A type profile is a set of 16 numbers, each of which shows how much the personality, by the totality of its qualities, resembles the generalized portrait of one or another “pure” sociotype (similarity is measured in standard deviations from the set of qualities of the statistically average personality).
For a representative of sociotype X, the number of their sociotype should be the maximum in the profile, while the other numbers may be distributed almost arbitrarily, reflecting individual personality features. However, because different traits have different ranges of possible values (different “strength”), most often the 2nd–3rd places in the profile are occupied by types that coincide with the leading type on 3–4 of the 5 most important traits, while the lowest value is received by the type that differs from the leading type on all 5 strong traits — the conflictor.

6. What is an “accent toward a type”? How can it be determined, knowing one’s type profile?

Reference values (i.e. values typical of a “pure type”) of indicators in tests created according to V. L. Talanov’s methodology are usually shown with a dotted line. However, the type profile of a real person may differ significantly from such an ideal variant. If the real indicator of some type differs especially strongly from the reference value in the positive direction, one should speak of an accent toward this type.
There is a strong dependence between the relation in which the leading type and the accent type stand to one another and which functions will be relatively strengthened in this person.
In addition to accents toward a type, one can also speak of accents toward a specific function or toward the strengthening/weakening of some trait — for this, one must examine the personality’s functional and trait profiles and accordingly find the functions and traits with the greatest deviations from the reference value for the given leading type.

7. It is said that a person’s subtype is visible immediately, while the type is not, and that it is very difficult to distinguish manifestations of the former from the latter. Is this true?

No, in general and overall, this is not the case. Nevertheless, two arguments are often brought in defense of this opinion:
many people, consciously or not very consciously, supposedly “wear masks” in society, hiding their true essence;
people even within one type differ greatly from one another — therefore, in addition to the “type” layer, there is also some other “layer” of personality, which can also somehow be classified.

What can be objected to all this? Regarding the first, I will say simply: one can suspect others of insincerity. But extending such suspicions to all situations and all people in general is an unhealthy mental practice, akin to conspiracy theory. If we are talking about a situation of acquaintance, job search, or public speaking — yes, observing a person in such circumstances, judging their sociotype can be difficult. However, if we are talking about self-knowledge, about answering test questions at home, in a relaxed setting, when there is no need to prove anything to anyone… probably, there is a small share of people who tend to enact models of thinking and behavior uncharacteristic of them even in such a case. But, it seems to me, this is still a very, very small share.
Regarding the second. The point is that for most people, including “socionics experts”, it is psychologically simpler and more comfortable to work not with a continuous space of psychological diversity, but with quantized, clear, and unambiguous concepts. But since people within one type objectively differ, and ignoring this today means looking completely inadequate in the eyes of clients, some socionists have invented the hypothesis that there are several quantized “layers” (two or even more) of understanding sociotype, the upper of which is accessible to everyone but of little value, while the true value supposedly lies in the lower one, which only true “gurus” know how to reach and correctly combine with the upper one. (Another variant of this same misconception is the use of external typologies to clarify the sociotype. For example, bringing in the so-called psychosophical type to explain personality features that do not fit into the standard description of its sociotype.)
There are no arguments in favor of the idea that several independent logical circuits can exist within a person’s personality, directing their behavior depending on different circumstances. All typologies essentially consider the same personality qualities, with small differences.
In this connection, the author considers it important to state the following. True knowledge is usually formulated simply and does not need various “crutches” and supports in the form of repeated duplication of basic principles. Everyone who continues to use “crutches” in socionics in the form of subtypes in no way connected with type, or psychosophy, or anything else — that is, everything that splits a unified system of knowledge into unrelated fragments — must realize that they are playing on the side of pseudoscience and socionics charlatans, who wish to confuse the public as much as possible in order, amid the chaos of misunderstanding, to extract more money from clients.

Section E. Relations

1. Is duality the best type of relation for family life?

As is known, in order to increase the survivability of offspring, the gene pool of a population must be mixed; individuals with closely related genes should avoid interbreeding with one another. From a biological point of view, duality, along with conflict relations, connects people who are maximally distant from one another in the space of psychological diversity. If we take into account that phenotypic (behavioral) features largely reflect differences in genotype, it can be assumed that dual psychological attraction has a fully natural explanation, going back to evolutionary expediency. Also, unlike conflict relations, duals coincide in their views on how one should behave with respect to the heritage of ancestors and how offspring should be raised (these views are determined mainly by the 3 quadra values and the pole of the irrationality/rationality trait).
Studies by E. S. Filatova (1999)[link] and V. L. Talanov (2019)[link], independently of one another, showed that duality is the most common type of relation among opposite-sex married couples (in a sample of those who came for type diagnostics), which indicates the higher stability of relations of this kind and/or a better ability to coordinate one’s actions with a partner in them.

2. Is socionic type transmitted from parents to children?

Because of the polygenic inheritance of all traits considered in socionics, no clear dependence between the types of parents and children can be traced. However, the heritability of the poles of at least the strongest dichotomies should nevertheless not be entirely random. Otherwise, for example, the known differences in the “mentality” of different peoples and large populations within a single humanity could not have arisen under the influence of natural selection.

Section F. Socionics and MBTI

1. Are personality type in socionics and in MBTI the same thing?

These are close, but not fully identical categories. While personality types in MBTI are defined through the simple mechanical combination of the poles of 4 dichotomies from Jung’s basis, socionics was originally built on the basis of definitions of 8 functions of the psyche. In addition, sociotypes in it are themselves integral constructs, whose images formed naturally in the process of their long “discussion” in the popular milieu.
In addition to Jung’s basis, socionics considers 11 alternative sections of the socion, mutually orthogonal to one another and to the Jungian dichotomies — the so-called Reinin traits. At least 6 of these traits have their own independent substantive content, including one (judiciousness-decisiveness, also Se or Si valuing) comparable in its significance to the dichotomies of Jung’s basis.
As practice has shown, Reinin traits can manifest independently of one another and of the values of the traits of Jung’s basis (i.e., in essence, independently of MBTI type), and a situation often arises in which their poles are inconsistent with one another. Because of this, in approximately 45% of people MBTI and sociotype differ (or, equivalently, at least one of the dichotomies of Jung’s basis turns out to be inverted)[link].
All Reinin traits contribute to the well-known properties of socionic types and functions. This makes socionics much richer in meanings than MBTI. Thus, while MBTI is well suited only as a tool for finding the optimal sphere of employment (knowledge of one’s poles on the 4 classical dichotomies is quite sufficient for this), socionic knowledge can also be useful for solving fundamental tasks — for becoming aware of one’s basic personality values and finding a life partner close in spirit, as well as for global social design.
Also on this topic: On how and why the paths of MBTI and socionics diverged, and why this made socionics a much more advanced and meaningful scientific direction.

2. Is it true that the analogue of the J/P dichotomy in MBTI is socionic staticity-dynamicity?

No, this is a myth supported by two circumstances:
in a number of MBTI branches, the relation between types considered optimal for living together is one in which complementarity occurs not across 3 dichotomies of Jung’s basis, as in socionics, but across all 4, including J/P. That is, it turns out that MBTI promotes conflict relations instead of dual relations.
socionic LII (but only this type!) is indeed closer in its properties to the description of the MBTI type INTP, an irrational type, than to INTJ, a rational type. The reason for this is an absurd accident, by whose will the description of INTJ became excessively loaded with meanings of the socionic trait of decisiveness — ignored in MBTI, but no less real for that.
As a result, in order to satisfy everyone, a number of socionists proposed treating the MBTI dichotomy J/P as an analogue not of socionic irrationality/rationality, but of staticity-dynamicity (despite the fact that in its semantic content J/P corresponds precisely to irrationality/rationality). The author categorically does not recommend engaging in such adjustment of meanings, and proposes honestly acknowledging that MBTI was mistaken in its recommendations. And it was much easier for them to make this mistake than for socionists — since J/P in MBTI is generally understood one-sidedly and is strongly correlated with the S/N dichotomy (much more strongly than in socionics). It is therefore unsurprising that such confusion became entrenched there and continues to exist even contrary to common sense.

Section G. Type diagnostics

1. What is the most accurate way to determine one’s sociotype?

The most accurate method of type diagnostics is taking professionally composed tests (questionnaires). With proper questionnaire quality and length, reliability of 80–85% is quite achievable. Higher reliability after a single completion of a questionnaire (no matter how long and accurate) is impossible in principle, since people’s psychological state changes over time, and in a number of cases this can objectively lead to changes in the leading type.
There are also several categories of people for whom this method of type diagnostics works worse than average. These include:
highly suggestible people, incapable of independently separating the desired from the actual in their personality;
people with strong mood swings;
people already familiar with socionics and interested in one or another testing result (consciously or unconsciously acting out one or another type);
mediocre and constitutionally stupid people (with a low level of personality accentuation).
To achieve the highest accuracy, the questionnaire should be taken in a psychological state typical for oneself, and preferably at least twice with a time gap of several weeks.
Among other methods, expert diagnostics (through live communication or an interview) gives an average reliability of determining the leading type of 40% (from 6.25% to 70–75%, depending on the adequacy and knowledge of the expert). Manually composed tests on 4 dichotomies have an upper reliability limit of 65% (more often much lower), self-typing — 70%[link].
A serious drawback of all these methods compared with typing by questionnaires created according to Talanov’s methodology is that they determine only the leading type, ignoring and discarding the rest of the information contained in the type profile. In a number of cases, this will lead to unjustified coarsening and distortion of the overall image of the personality.

2. Is expert typing the most reliable?

Type diagnostics through live communication or an interview (both in written and video form) has a significant vulnerability in that all people, including “experts”, are subject to many cognitive distortions, which they are unable to correct (and often even to recognize). The situation is aggravated by the absence of quality control in socionics, because of which outright fantasists and simply unscrupulous dealers from psychology go into diagnostics.
Overall, if an expert does not use questionnaires for independent quality control of their work, they will almost certainly determine your type with lower reliability than you could achieve yourself on the basis of studying a wide range of materials available online.

3. Can socionic type be determined by a person’s appearance?

Relations between a person’s appearance and their sociotype do indeed exist, but almost all of them are statistically weak. Type diagnostics exclusively by appearance is unreliable, and, considering that most “experts” who resort to it are frankly mistaken about many type markers, it usually amounts to outright profanation.
Download V. L. Talanov’s 2018 study on this topic (Excel file)

4. Can socionic type be determined by the frequency with which a person uses certain words and expressions in speech?

At present, the author is not aware of a single study of the frequency content of speech in which the reliability of determining the leading sociotype was shown to be above 20%. The problem with all programs of this kind is that they act too artlessly and “head-on”, whereas the memes characteristic of different sociotypes (semantic constructs) can obviously take different forms and receive different verbal framing depending on the features of the specific personality and the specific situation in which they express their thoughts.

5. Many discrepancies between a personality and the classical image of its sociotype can be explained if, simultaneously with the sociotype, its psychosophical type is also determined. Is this so?

As Talanov’s 2018 study showed, socionics and psychosophy as typologies consider one and the same universal set of personality qualities (only the position of the so-called psychosophical Will is additionally influenced by a range of non-socionic factors — such as, for example, personal ambition). Thus, if these two typologies are combined, the result is “buttery butter”. Why, then, is this done?
In the author’s opinion, the desire to clarify socionic type by means of psychosophical type is a sign not of high, but, on the contrary, low skill in a type diagnostician. Normally, a significant share of personality features that do not fit into the “reference” of its leading type can be explained by the presence in this specific person of additional accents toward other types, or (which is the same thing) by the strengthening/weakening of individual traits and functions. But such a system seems too complicated to most people (and type diagnosticians are people too), and instead of delving into the “shades” of accentuated types, they simply pile one system on top of another. As a result, we have the classic pseudoscientific approach — instead of resolving contradictions within one logical system, several systems are created, by balancing between which it is always possible to “explain” anything whatsoever.

6. Does socionic type influence a person’s political convictions?

This question was analyzed in detail by V. L. Talanov in his work Ideological Differences and Psychological Types of People (2008). In general and overall — yes, fairly strong relations have been found between sociotype and a person’s inclination toward one or another idea of how a “normal” society should be organized. Moreover, importantly, in a number of cases Reinin traits related to quadra values manifested themselves especially strongly.

7. Does socionic type influence intellectual abilities?

As V. L. Talanov’s 2018 study showed, a relation between IQ and socionic traits does exist (belonging to the logical-intuitive club increases the probability of having high intelligence, while belonging to the ethical-sensory club decreases it), but it is weak. But the difference, for example, between IQ level and the ability to recognize emotions from facial expressions already depends almost entirely only on socionic factors (since the contribution of intelligence proper in this case is bracketed out, unlike its orientation — logical-intuitive versus ethical-sensory).

8. Does socionic type influence a person’s sexual preferences?

Yes, it does. On this topic, socionics has both old works, in many respects (as the author believes) filled more with conjectures than facts, and newer ones already relying on reliable statistics. Among the former, the author especially wants to single out V. Gulenko’s work that has already become a “classic”, “Life Scenarios. From Ethical Feelings to Sensory Attractions” (1992). Among the latter — for example, these notes by V. Talanov: “Features of Sociotypes in Sex and Marriage”; “On the Secrets of Sadism, Masochism, and Sadomasochism”.

Section K. Criticism

1. “I know that some quite adequate and intelligent people have spoken on the topic that socionics is pseudoscience”

Modern socionics as a field of knowledge is still very “loose”; it has no unified and generally recognized system of standards and quality control for type diagnostics. In such a situation, it would be naive to expect that, out of the whole multitude of paradigms and methods, the most adequate ones would be the ones visible to the outside public. Real scientist-researchers usually do not succeed in PR: the ability to judge complex phenomena correctly and the ability to persistently and brazenly advertise oneself (offering the layperson simple and vivid bait-images) combine poorly in the same people. At present, socionics as a field of knowledge is surrounded by many people parasitizing on it, with varying degrees of dishonesty, inadequacy, and dilettantism, and, alas, opinions about it are often formed precisely after encountering such people.
Socionics is also often reproached for being pseudoscientific because it grew out of a sphere of psychological knowledge that is essentially non-scientific. The people who stood at its origins often resorted to dubious references to quasi-scientific, or even frankly pseudoscientific theories, to mysticism and natural philosophy. The hypothesis of “information metabolism” itself, adopted by A. Augustinavičiūtė from Kępiński, is at the very least highly questionable and controversial; and besides it, modern socionics contains many untested hypotheses (and their number is constantly growing).
However, without denying the problems indicated above, the author nevertheless urges against drawing hasty conclusions. In his view, all these problems are inevitable and even quite normal for a young emerging theory. One that is moving forward by touch, trying not to ignore anything potentially useful along the way, so as not to miss it. What will happen later is difficult to say. It is reasonable to expect that the accumulated body of knowledge will sooner or later be consolidated, in the process of which most hypotheses will be filtered out (including some of those that were typical of “classical” early socionics). It is obvious that this consolidation will proceed in close connection with other sciences of the human being — those studying their neurophysiology, genetics, and social behavior.

See also:
The connection of socionic traits with the factors of modern personality models (from V. L. Talanov’s studies) - BIG5
Why socionics is both needed and could be very useful to modern neuroscience

2. “Sociotypes do not exist, and what people supposedly observe is a consequence of the Barnum effect”

All living things possess variability, including variability of personal psychological qualities; this variability is necessary for increasing the survivability of the population as a whole. With respect to humans, the existence of stable personality accentuations over time was known long before socionics and apart from it. The connection of some of these accentuations with the stable neurohormonal balance of the personality is now already indisputable. A number of valid tests have been developed and are widely used for classifying psychological diversity — the MMPI, Cattell’s PF, etc.
Socionics stands out in this situation only because it introduces a universally symmetrical coordinate system for classifying the diversity of accentuated personalities. Thereby giving this classification a completed form.
The fact that some dilettantish descriptions of sociotypes are guilty of excessive “political correctness” and social desirability of formulations (because of which talk about the Barnum effect begins) is a fact. However, in the scientific part of socionics, this problem has long been recognized and successfully solved; the diversity of various personality traits has been classified with adjustment for social desirability and the fashionability of certain qualities and formulations.
Let us not exaggerate. Socionic descriptions, even those made unprofessionally and containing a heap of stereotypes, still make it quite possible to feel and understand the differences between different sociotypes, functions, and basic traits. But only if a person really wants to feel and understand this. Dishonest critics of socionics, thoughtlessly hiding behind the Barnum effect, are in essence claiming that the personality is in principle incapable of correctly assessing itself :-)
Alas, unwillingness to understand the subject, combined with the desire for the fame of a “debunker of pseudoscience”, is often a consequence of the same mentality as that of pseudoscientists themselves, who attack classical science in an analogous manner. To people who wish to form a correct opinion about the nature of things, I advise not to fall for cheap arguments from either side, but to think with one’s own head. Ultimately, this is the only path to understanding.

3. “The values of all socionic traits in the population have a normal distribution, therefore sociotypes do not exist”

The values of all socionic traits do indeed have a normal or near-normal distribution. The reason for this is that almost any personality property has polygenic heritability, and socionic traits, being complex sets of personality properties, all the more so. In such a situation, the emergence of quantized poles of socionic dichotomies and likewise quantized sociotypes (that is, sociotypes stably separated from one another in the space of psychological diversity) is impossible. The continuity of the space of socionic traits, and the absence in it of areas of relative clustering, were shown in V. L. Talanov’s studies.
But we can say exactly the same thing about any other psychological accentuation! For example, we call people schizoids when a complex of certain “schizoid” character traits goes beyond the boundaries of the population norm. Such people tend, in the expression of this complex, toward the positive tail of its distribution curve in the population. I note: a normal distribution. The boundary between schizoids and non-schizoids is smooth; in essence, it does not exist. There are many mixed accentuations: schizoidness+paranoiality, schizoidness+psychasthenia, etc. Does all this imply that schizoidness as an accentuation does not exist? Of course not. In socionics, everything is the same. Any sociotype is, in essence, the same kind of personality accentuation. By the leading sociotype of a specific personality, we call that one of the 16 considered by socionics whose traits are expressed most strongly in the person (the positive deviation from the population norm is the largest).

4. “I see how socionic type (someone’s, and possibly even my own) often changes, therefore sociotype does not exist, socionics does not work.”

The socionic profile of the personality is closely tied to the balance of neurohormones in the central nervous system. Its stable traits are apparently explained by features of the structure of the CNS itself, by the proportion in it of receptors for one or another neurohormone. This is set mostly at the very beginning of ontogenesis — in the intrauterine period of personality development and in early childhood[link]. Severe traumatic brain injuries can shift this balance and lead to a change of type, but under normal conditions it is stable — since, in essence, it is “written” at the material level. The socionic profile of personality in most people slowly drifts with age toward the strengthening of rational, sensory, and, most likely, also judicious traits[link].
In addition, the influence of chemical (food, pharmacology) and purely psychological factors can lead to short-term changes in mood, neurohormonal level, and, accordingly, fluctuations of the type profile around the point of equilibrium. The magnitude of these fluctuations differs among different personalities (with strong Fe it is usually greater than with strong Ti). In the case where the personality is initially close in its properties to the boundary of two or more types, even minor changes of this kind can lead to a temporary change of its leading type, which will also be recorded in type diagnostics. (A long-term drift under the influence of age-related factors can also lead to such a change; however, this will occur 1) more slowly, 2) in a non-random direction, 3) irreversibly.)
Thus, a frequent change of leading type can occur even in a person with a sufficiently high stability of socionic personality traits. In the case, however, where you are dealing with a person with an unstable psyche, experiencing problems with self-reflection or personal self-identification, the profile of personality traits may “float” even more actively. But are there many such people? Since they more often than others (in connection with their personal psychological problems) are interested in psychology and type diagnostics, and since such objections will more often be voiced by the one to whom they apply, it may seem that there are many of them. In reality, however, as the practice of type diagnostics shows, in the population they amount to only a few percent.

5. “Socionic tests are invalid because, by asking people about themselves, we learn only their image of themselves, not what they are actually like. If testing results are not verified in practice, they are worthless”

In fact, this statement is equivalent to the following: people filling out tests either deliberately conceal information about themselves in order to mislead those around them (i.e. everyone invents things and lies, no one can be trusted), or they are incapable of forming a correct idea of themselves (i.e. a person is unknowable to themselves, one cannot trust oneself). Both are a very productive approach, are they not? ;-) Obviously, among those filling out tests there is a small share of both the former and the latter. Moreover, in the answers of any person there is some share of both misunderstanding of oneself and invention, embellishment. But one can deny the value of tests only if one is certain that this share is 100%. In any other case, tests necessarily still have some value.
If I have not convinced you, think about what evidence you would need in order to believe in the reliability of a result. Ultimately, everything will still rest on trust in other people — those checking, those checking the checkers, and so on. How deep is your faith or disbelief in this world? Think about this.