Are Psychological Types Quantized? Testing Population Density at the Boundaries Between the 16 “Standard” Psychotypes. Introduction of 4 New Functions of the Psyche.

V. L. Talanov

St. Petersburg,
June 18, 2016

Contents:

Abstract

Background and formulation of the problem

Methodology

Results and discussion

Examples of substantive content for some “borderline” types (their exclusive, marker properties)

Twelve functions instead of eight

Questions and answers concerning the introduction of questim-declatim functions

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References

Abstract

The hypothesis that strict boundaries exist between psychotypes was tested. For this purpose, diagnostic vectors of reference coefficients were constructed to identify respondents whose psychological properties place them closer to the boundary between a pair of any of the 16 psychotypes than to the center of any of the 16 psychotypes. It was found that the population density at the boundaries between psychotypes is fairly high and in all cases is no lower than 30% of the population density at the centers of psychotypes. Even the boundary regions between conflicting types and psychotypes that complement one another dually are not empty. Psychological portraits were constructed for a number of borderline accentuations. It is concluded that testing the hypothesis of “soft quantization”, that is, at least the existence of semi-transparent and smoothed boundaries between types, requires an additional study with special conditions imposed on the diagnostic vectors.

In the second part of the article, the introduction of four new socionic functions (in addition to the existing 8), based on the questimity-declatimity trait, is proposed. The properties and roles of the new functions (introverted and extraverted questimity, introverted and extraverted declatimity) are examined in detail, and psychological portraits of their properties are considered.

Background and Formulation of the Problem of Population Density at the Boundaries Between Standard Psychotypes

In the psychology of individual differences, it is considered that psychotypes are not quantized, and that the points representing all members of the population in the multidimensional space of psychological traits are distributed isomerically and isotropically. In other words, there are no local concentrations of distribution density in this space - when distinguishing psychotypes, we merely identify certain sectors of psychological space in a purely conventional and arbitrary manner. The conventional nature of this division also means that, on average, the number of members of the population at the boundaries between sectors should be exactly the same as at the centers of the sectors. The concept of the isomerism and isotropy of psychological space is based on the fact that, in any psychological experiments conducted on sufficiently large samples, the distribution of any psychological trait is Gaussian and unimodal rather than multimodal.

However, conclusions about the absence of “preferred zones” in multidimensional psychological space (and therefore about the directions of any psychological axes also being defined conventionally) are derived, on the basis of the results of these experiments, from a linear model of psychological traits. If, however, the interaction among traits of the psyche is nonlinear (for example, if a third trait is generated not by summing two other traits but by multiplying them), then the direction of some trait axes will nevertheless be uniquely determined rather than arbitrarily variable, and multidimensional psychological space in that case will likewise be non-isotropic (that is, nonuniform – zones of concentration and rarefaction should appear within it).

In socionics, until the appearance of a number of the author’s works, rigid quantization of psychotypes in psychological space had been postulated without evidence. This was facilitated to a considerable extent by the theoretical socionic “Model A” [1], which by definition proceeds from the existence of rigid boundaries between psychotypes. However, rigid quantization of the diversity of all people into 16 psychotypes too clearly contradicts the accumulated personal observations of people possessed by every experienced socionist. The point is that observations reveal too many people with clearly transitional characteristics, intermediate between two or even three psychotypes at once. Significantly, these people themselves also hesitate in self-identification, and sociodiagnostic questionnaires likewise yield “intermediate” results for them.

In 2006, a new psychophysiological “Model T” appeared [5] (at that time, its first version, now substantially improved by the author). Even in its first version, this model explained the laws of intertype relations known in socionics no worse, and even better, than the preceding “Model A”; however, unlike the latter, it was parametric in nature, permitting continuous transitions between types. The next step toward bringing socionics closer to reality was the appearance of V. L. Talanov’s sociodiagnostic questionnaires, which measure the respondent’s proximity simultaneously to each of the 16 psychotypes and produce, “at the output”, a complete personality profile in the form of a set of 16 numbers. Such personal “type profiles” made it possible to identify and investigate, using mathematical procedures, not only pure types but also any intermediate cases between them. A development of this method was the construction of functional profiles [6; 7], which likewise revealed substantial individual variability in the magnitude of socionic functions even among representatives of the same type. The method of constructing complete type and functional profiles provided an instrument for investigating conventionally “borderline” cases, that is, transition zones between types. In a subsequent study [8], it was shown that these zones are not empty and that at least a substantial number of people have reliably “borderline” psychological characteristics intermediate between types.

At present, it may be regarded as established that continuous transitions exist between the 16 psychotypes traditionally distinguished in socionics. However, the question remains not entirely resolved as to whether objectively determined decreases in population density at the boundaries between types exist at all. If decreases in population density do exist, then the types nevertheless exist in reality as certain zones of preferred equilibrium toward which brain mechanisms gravitate. If no such decreases in population density exist, then the boundaries of the zones distinguished for the 16 socionic types in psychological space are merely a matter of our complete arbitrariness (or, more precisely, are dictated by our cultural and linguistic traditions, which are unrelated to the physiological reality of the brain but nevertheless tend to assign greater importance to some psychological properties than to others). In that latter case, the current 16 sociotypes could successfully be replaced (from the standpoint of adequacy in describing the mechanisms of brain functioning), among other possibilities, by 16 entirely different types located, for example, exactly at the boundaries between those currently generally accepted.

Most practicing socionists have the impression that the 16 sociotypes currently in use are objectively distinguished within the human population, that is, that most people have characteristics tending more toward the centers of the types than toward the boundary zones between them. However, this conviction may quite possibly be merely an illusion of our perception (and therefore the author, who admittedly has the same impression, nevertheless continues to maintain a neutral position on this issue to this day). The point is that, having become accustomed to distinguishing certain psychological characteristics of people as basic (it is precisely these that correspond to the “centers” of psychotypes), we subsequently become captive to our own illusion - we primarily see only what corresponds to these peaks in the tuning of our perceptual detectors, without paying due attention to those properties that are exclusively characteristic of people from the “transitional” zones between types. In an entirely analogous way, we find it highly convincing that the spectrum of visible sunlight divides into 7 fairly distinct color zones (the seven colors of the rainbow), because the detectors present in the retina really do produce peaks of neural impulse activity for the centers of these seven zones, - although in reality the visible-light spectrum is absolutely continuous. Much here, incidentally, also depends on cultural and linguistic tradition – for example, some languages make no distinction between dark blue and light blue, or between green and blue, and most speakers of these languages do not see or understand the distinctions between these color zones.

Therefore, to understand the boundaries between psychotypes (and the extent to which the coordinates of psychotype centers are objectively distinguished in socionics), what we need is not convictions but experimental studies followed by rigorous mathematical processing.

The present work is devoted to further investigation of this problem.

Methodology

The most effective method for diagnosing the proximity of a person’s properties to one or another psychotype from a fixed set (that is, to a certain reference point in multidimensional psychological space) consists in calculating the linear correlation between, on the one hand, the examined person’s answers to a series of questions in a psychological questionnaire and, on the other hand, the averaged answers to the same series of questions obtained from members of a training sample whose members had previously been reliably assigned to the corresponding psychotype. The accuracy of this diagnostic method is additionally increased by excluding, during preliminary processing, from all “raw” respondent answers the contributions of result-noising “parasitic” variances (that is, variances not directly related to psychotypes) – namely, those caused by the frequency or rarity of the corresponding symptom in the population, its social desirability-undesirability, respondents’ individual stylistic tendencies to answer “yes” or “no” more often, as well as to give “cautious” answers with a small spread of ratings or, conversely, “decisive” answers with a large amplitude spread, etc. It is precisely this complete diagnostic procedure with corrections (developed by V. L. Talanov) that is used by modern sociodiagnostic questionnaires. By measuring the correlation of the respondent’s transformed answers (that is, answers cleared of the influence of parasitic factors and then normalized) with reference averaged vectors of analogous answers previously obtained for each of the 16 psychotypes, we obtain “at the output” for each respondent an individual personality profile in the form of 16 numbers – namely, a set of 16 linear correlation coefficients calculated between the respondent’s answers and the reference answer vectors of each of the 16 psychotypes.

But if we have at our disposal reference answer vectors for all 16 psychotypes, we can additionally construct reference vectors for diagnosing any intermediate cases. For example, if we have reference answer vectors for a certain questionnaire obtained for the LII and ESI types, then, by averaging these two reference vectors with one another (namely, by averaging their corresponding elements), we obtain a new, third reference answer vector intended to diagnose the exact boundary zone between the LII and ESI types. We can then also calculate the linear correlation of respondents’ answers with this third vector. It is entirely possible that this correlation will turn out not to be lower, but higher, than the separate correlations with the LII and ESI vectors. Of such a respondent we should evidently say that, by their properties, they are closer to the boundary zone between the LII and ESI types than to the centers of either of these psychotypes.

It was precisely this kind of work (constructing reference answer vectors for all possible intermediate cases between psychotypes by averaging coefficients in pairs of the 16 reference vectors) that we performed for the available questionnaire items with sufficiently large accumulated statistics. As a result, in addition to the 16 reference vectors for “pure” types, we obtained another 120 reference vectors characterizing 120 intermediate cases between psychotypes (120 is the number of all possible pairs of psychotypes, and accordingly each of these 120 vectors characterizes the averaged properties of a certain hypothetical person located in psychological space exactly midway between the two psychotypes in the pair).

It is then possible to calculate correlations between the answers of any questionnaire respondent and not 16 but 136 reference vectors (of which 16 correspond to “pure” psychotypes and 120 to strictly intermediate cases between them). The author performed this work for two groups of questionnaires. The first group consisted of “long” sociodiagnostic questionnaires (approximately 500 items or more), namely the questionnaire forms NSI-469, FS-584, HS-584, IOSG-579, ISG-584, NZ-584, SZ-584, NSIC-584, and WS-584, for each of which sufficiently large statistics had been collected (from 600 to 1200 respondents). The second group consisted of the “short” sociodiagnostic questionnaires SOLTI-160 and SOLTI-192 (160 and 192 items respectively), the anonymized respondent answers to which (8780 respondents in total) were provided to the author for scientific analysis by A. Khizhnyak.

Now, for respondents to each questionnaire, instead of a profile of 16 numbers “at the output” we obtain a profile of 136 numbers. The maximum number in this profile indicates the respondent’s location in psychological space: namely, the reference point within it to which the respondent is closest. If we selected the maximum only from the 16 correlations with the “pure” types, then, for example, in the group of respondents to the “long” questionnaires, all 100% of respondents, namely 7508 people, would be diagnosed as being closest to one of the 16 possible reference cases. But now, when selecting the maximum, we compare not 16 correlations but 136, and the number of respondents closest to one of the “pure” types is no longer the former 7508 people but only 2125. The remaining 5383 respondents (72% of cases) are closer not to one of the 16 “pure” types, but to strictly borderline “midpoint” zones between particular psychotypes.

The results obtained and their analysis are presented in greater detail in the next section of the article.

Results and Discussion

Tables 1 and 2 below show the results of socionic diagnosis using a detailed profile composed of correlations between the respondent’s answers and 136 reference vectors. In Table 1, they are presented for respondents to the relatively more accurate “long” questionnaires, and in the following Table 2 for respondents to shorter and therefore somewhat less accurate questionnaires.

In each profile composed of 136 correlations, one correlation is the highest. It is precisely this correlation that indicates the respondent’s “leading type”. If, for example, the maximum correlation is attained with the reference vector of the pure LII type, this means that, among all 136 variants considered, the respondent is closest specifically to this pure LII type. If, by contrast, the maximum profile correlation for a respondent is attained, for example, with the reference vector calculated for the boundary between the LII and ESI types, then, in terms of their psychological properties, the respondent will consequently be closest specifically to this point in psychological space, lying exactly on the boundary between LII and ESI, rather than to any one of the 16 “pure types”. As we can see from Tables 1 and 2 (see column 4 in them), there are many such cases (corresponding to intermediate types).

Whereas column 4 shows the actually observed number of respondents for each of the 136 psychological coordinates, column 5 shows the mathematical expectation of this number if psychological space were absolutely homogeneous and the measure of the respondent’s proximity to each of the 136 reference vectors were calculated with identically equal sensitivity. How are the values in column 5 calculated? Suppose that in our sample 129 respondents were found to have the pure LII type and 106 to have the pure ESI type. We need to predict the number of cases in which respondents would be found to be closest (of all 136 reference points that we have positioned in psychological space) to the boundary between the LII and ESI types. This predicted number (the mathematical expectation) is calculated as the mean of 129 and 106, and is therefore 117,5. The next column, column 6, shows the ratio of the actually observed number of respondents found in psychological space in the immediate vicinity of a specified point to their expected number taken from column 5. If there were no type quantization whatsoever (that is, if no boundaries between types existed even in the form of shallow depressions in distribution density on the graph), and if proximity to each of the 136 points of psychological space were calculated with identically equal sensitivity in all 136 cases, then all the numbers obtained in column 6 would be close to one. If, by contrast, quantization of the 16 psychotypes were strict, then all numbers in this column beginning with row 17 would be identically zero or very close to zero.

In reality, however, we observe an intermediate case – though one closer to the first variant, that is, to the absence of quantization. Specifically, the population density in the vicinity of the 120 pairwise boundaries among the 16 standard psychotypes is, on average (for the “long” questionnaires), 0,32 of the mean population density at the centers of all 16 standard psychotypes, and 0,5 for the “short” questionnaires.

This value is already not small; however, it becomes still larger if we correct for the apparent decrease in density at the boundaries, which does not occur in reality but is observed by us because of the lower sensitivity of the measurement instrument used for rows 17-136 in the region of intertype boundaries. The measure of instrument sensitivity affecting the amplitude of the resulting correlations with the respondent’s answers is the standard deviation of the spread of coefficient values in the corresponding reference diagnostic vector (see column 10). If this spread is small (a small standard deviation), then the share of variance in the respondent’s answers attributable specifically to this reference vector will be smaller than for other reference vectors, and when measuring the correlation coefficient of the answers with the reference vector this will, in all cases, reduce the amplitude of the resulting correlations (analogously, the magnitude of a correlation decreases if random noise is admixed to the quantity with which you are comparing the tested quantity). And if the correlations as a whole decrease in amplitude, the number of correlations from this group that turn out to be maximal in the profile will decrease along with them. For this reason, in particular, sociodiagnosis of questionnaires by calculating correlations is accurate only if all diagnostic vectors of reference values used have approximately the same spread of coefficient magnitudes within the vector (otherwise, the number of types and subtypes diagnosed using reference vectors with a small coefficient spread will be underestimated and will at least require correction).

The values presented in Table 3 show that this correction must under no circumstances be neglected - the correlation between the standard deviation of the coefficients of the reference diagnostic vector and the number of respondents diagnosed with its aid is, according to Table 3, greater than 0,82. This is an enormous value, indicating that more than 60% of the decrease in population density that we observed at the boundaries among the 16 standard types (in comparison with the population density at the centers of these standard types) is merely apparent and artifactual. After the correction has been applied (see columns 11 and 12), the population-density indices at the centers of the standard psychotypes and at their boundaries converge very substantially for the “long” questionnaires, while for the “short” questionnaires they even become, on average, practically identical.

The magnitude of the standard deviation (essentially, the contrast of the spread) of the coefficients of the reference vectors depends on the selection of diagnostic items in the questionnaires. First, in most questionnaires the selection of items was originally oriented toward the “central” properties of the 16 standard psychotypes, while questionnaire items that would yield the maximum spread in level of agreement specifically in the vicinity of the boundary between standard types are underrepresented. Second, when we obtain reference vectors for boundary regions and, for this purpose, average the vectors characterizing two standard psychotypes, we proceed from a strictly linear model – however, it is not always correct, and thus many properties that have a “hump” of manifestation precisely in the vicinity of the boundary and simultaneously decline closer to the centers of both standard psychotypes are discarded. Avoiding all these difficulties is not simple, but it is possible if a special selection of questionnaire items is used. An ideal selection of items for “equally fair” diagnosis with respect both to the centers of the standard psychotypes and to their adjoining boundary regions results in equalization of the strengths of all 15 socionic traits in the questionnaire items. This cannot be achieved strictly, but it is possible to approach it, and only such an experiment will make it possible to establish reliably the population density at the boundaries between types. The corresponding questionnaire has been prepared by the author and is being readied for launch. It will also make it possible to determine with maximum reliability a person’s membership in a particular point of multidimensional psychological space.

When Tables 1 and 2 are examined, one other important circumstance attracts attention, although it is no longer directly related to the problem of population density at the boundaries between standard types. For example, compare row 72 with row 70 in column 6 of both tables. It turns out that the population density in the region of the boundary between EIE and ESI is several times higher than in the region of the boundary between the analogously related LIE and LSI types. A similar pattern of sharp divergence in density at boundaries (repeated synchronously in both tables) is also observed for other pairs that are equivalent in terms of their intertype relations; for example, it is found when rows 52 and 50, 136 and 135, etc. are compared. There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon: either, because of certain established traditions in socionists’ views of the marker properties of types, experts type these types and respondents report them during self-diagnosis with a bias (and therefore this same bias, only partly reduced, is subsequently reproduced in questionnaire diagnosis), or socially significant properties of the types really do separate the LIE and LSI pair much more strongly than the equivalent EIE and ESI pair, the LIE-LII pair likewise noticeably more strongly than the ESE-ESI pair, etc. These and similar effects, which substantially and quite undesirably violate the symmetry of psychological properties, cannot be reduced to the artifactual influence of the standard deviation of the corresponding reference diagnostic vectors and therefore constitute an independent problem and subject for subsequent socionic research. Most likely, we are nevertheless dealing with biases caused by an unjustified, though tradition-entrenched, exaggeration of individual psychological traits in diagnosis. Because of this, for example, the similarity between ESI and EII in the Fi that unites them may be overestimated, whereas between ILE and SLE, in the balance of Ne and Se, it is precisely the difference between these types that is overestimated. As a result, EII and ESI are unjustifiably brought closer together in their marker properties during diagnosis, while ILE and SLE are just as unjustifiably and excessively separated from one another.

Table 1. Analysis of the Distribution of Maxima in Profiles of 136 Diagnostic Correlations (for 7508 Respondents to “Long” Questionnaires)

Table 2. Analysis of the Distribution of Maxima in Profiles of 136 Diagnostic Correlations (for 8781 Respondents to the “Short” SOLTI-160 and SOLTI-192 Questionnaires)

Table 3. Relationship (linear correlation coefficient) Between the Sensitivity of the Instrument for Measuring a Particular Correlation (Column No. 10 in Tables 1 and 2) and the Proportion of Cases Diagnosed by This Instrument (Columns No. 6 and 9 of Tables 1 and 2)

Examples of Substantive Content for Some “Borderline” Intertype Accentuation Profiles (Their Exclusive, Marker Properties)

Below we provide brief descriptions of the principal behavioral properties for a number of intertype accentuations and experimentally obtained lists of questionnaire statements characteristic of these accentuations and illustrating their principal properties.

Contents of the examples:

mean (LSI, ILI) Sharply contrasted secrecy, suspiciousness, and distrust against a general background of almost constant dissatisfaction and an unfriendly-cold attitude toward people

mean (SEI, EII) Sharply accentuated suggestibility, compliance, fear of conflicts and troubles, insecurity, dependence on the group

mean (EIE, SEE) Accentuated pretentiousness and posturing, striving for public demonstrativeness, scheming and manipulation, provocation, treachery, emphatically intonational speech (example: the British politician Farage, one of the advocates of the “British exit” from the EU)

mean (SLE, ILI) Sharply emphasized biliousness and caustic rudeness of character against a background of profound egoism. A typical example of this accentuation is the landowner Sobakevich, a character in Gogol’s Dead Souls.

mean (LSI, LIE) “Obsession” with planning and career, emphatically cynical-egoistic pragmatism; does only what they consider useful for themselves in terms of career advancement

mean (EIE, ESI) An anxious and perpetually panicky-tense person who reacts inadequately and painfully to any shortages and troubles

mean (SEE, LSE) Pugnacious, fault-finding, self-confident, stocky, inclined toward outward showiness, filled with cheap aplomb, and devoid of any feelings of awkwardness

mean (LIE, IEE) A restless and superficial humorist, pleasant in every respect, but with a major deficit of perfectionism, diligence, and conscientiousness

mean (ILE, IEI) A dreamer detached from life, awkward both in character and in movements, almost constantly captive to uncontrollable daydreams and hallucination-like fantasies, less capable than others of finding a goal in life and firm ground underfoot.

mean (ESI, LSE) Pedantic accentuation

mean (EIE, ILI) Pessimistic-depressive accentuation

mean (SEE, LIE) Assertive, superficial-boastful accentuation

mean (ILE, SEI) Accentuation of an optimistic-permissive style. It is also characterized by severe problems with memory and sense of time.

mean (LII, ESE) Altruistic accentuation

mean (LSI, EIE) Malicious-vindictive, denunciatory accentuation with heightened, inadequate demandingness toward people. With high probability, the Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible was a representative of this accentuation.

mean (SEE, ILI) Egocentric accentuation. Specifically intensified “irrational” egoism, whose bearer is completely indifferent to collective interests and values (and to any interests and values of others), has not determined their own interests and desires, and therefore lives and exists wherever the wind blows, “from one occasion to the next”.

mean (EII, LSE) Accentuation of heightened personal responsibility for others and heightened emotional-autonomic reactions

mean (ILE, SEE) Impatient-restless accentuation

mean (LII, ESI) Sensitive accentuation accompanied by inertia of sensory attention, dominance of the right cerebral cortex (that is, questimity, which leads to a predominance of negative emotions), dominance of the anterior cortical regions over the posterior ones (democratism, also egalitarianism), and dominance of the visual analyzer over the auditory one. The consequence of dominance of the anterior right-hemisphere cortical regions is sensitivity itself, with a strong component of developed empathy and vulnerability, and somewhat dry “social correctness” of behavior. The principal feature of the accentuation is vulnerability to any “attack” and to any observed injustice against a background of weakly developed division by the subject into “our own” and “outsiders”, as well as heightened seriousness in relation to what is happening (as if to say, “we do not understand jokes like that”).

mean (ESE, LIE) Hyperthymic accentuation. Presumably, at the physiological level it corresponds to dominance of the anterior regions of the left-hemisphere cortex (anterior regions = egalitarianism, democratism; left-hemisphere dominance = declatimity)

mean (LSI, EII) Viscous-epileptoid accentuation. At the behavioral level it is characterized, first, by motor and cognitive viscosity and rigidity (a consequence of which is also a tendency toward cognitive “sticking”, resistance to monotony, and pronounced conservatism in values, ideology, and behavioral style), and second, by irradiation of cortical excitation to the hypothalamus, which is typical of hyperactivation of the posterior cortical regions (especially the temporal and hippocampal regions), sometimes increasing convulsive readiness but almost constantly leading to growth of egoistic traits and to an overall dominance of vital values over social ones. At the physiological level, viscous-epileptoid accentuation presumably corresponds to dominance of the posterior left-hemisphere cortical regions (including the temporal and hippocampal cortex). It should also be taken into account that predominant activation of the left posterior and right anterior cortical regions corresponds to more introverted character traits (as in the present case), whereas the opposite diagonal, including the left anterior and right posterior cortical regions, corresponds to more extraverted character traits.

mean (EIE, LSE) Excitable-epileptoid (explosive) accentuation, likewise long known in psychology. At the physiological level, it presumably corresponds to dominance of the posterior (especially temporal) right-hemisphere cortical regions, excitation from which can readily irradiate to right-hemisphere hypothalamic nuclei responsible, among other things, for aggression, anger, and sexual arousal. Any epileptoid accentuation arising from hyperactivation of the temporal cortex - including both the introverted-viscous left-hemisphere form and the extraverted-explosive right-hemisphere form - is accompanied, as an additional “bonus”, by a tendency to “get stuck” on particular thoughts, heightened egoism, and a rather hostile attitude toward people.

mean (LSI, ILI): Sharply Contrasted Secrecy, Suspiciousness, and Distrust Against a General Background of Almost Constant Dissatisfaction and an Unfriendly-Cold Attitude Toward People

mean (SEI, EII): Sharply Accentuated Suggestibility, Compliance, Fear of Conflicts and Troubles, Insecurity, Dependence on the Group

mean (EIE, SEE): Accentuated Pretentiousness and Posturing, Striving for Public Demonstrativeness, Scheming and Manipulation, Provocation, Treachery, and Emphatically Intonational Speech (Example: British Politician Farage, One of the Advocates of the “British Exit” from the EU)

mean (SLE, ILI): Sharply Emphasized Biliousness and Caustic Rudeness of Character Against a Background of Profound Egoism. A Typical Example of This Accentuation Is the Landowner Sobakevich, a Character in Gogol’s Dead Souls.

mean (LSI, LIE): “Obsession” with Planning and Career, Emphatically Cynical-Egoistic Pragmatism; Does Only What They Consider Useful for Themselves in Terms of Career Advancement

mean (EIE, ESI): An Anxious and Perpetually Panicky-Tense Person Who Reacts Inadequately and Painfully to Any Shortages and Troubles

mean (SEE, LSE): Pugnacious, Fault-Finding, Self-Confident, Stocky, Inclined Toward Outward Showiness, Filled with Cheap Aplomb, and Devoid of Feelings of Awkwardness

mean (LIE, IEE): A Restless and Superficial Humorist, Pleasant in Every Respect, but with a Major Deficit of Diligence and Conscientiousness

mean (ILE, IEI): A Dreamer Detached from Life, Awkward Both in Character and in Movements, Almost Constantly Captive to Uncontrollable Daydreams and Hallucination-Like Fantasies, Less Capable Than Others of Finding a Goal in Life and Firm Ground Underfoot

mean (ESI, LSE): Pedantic Accentuation

mean (EIE, ILI): Pessimistic-Depressive Accentuation

mean (SEE, LIE): Assertive, Superficial-Boastful Accentuation

mean (ILE, SEI): Accentuation of an Optimistic-Permissive Style. It Is Also Characterized by Severe Problems with Memory and Sense of Time.

mean (LII, ESE): Altruistic Accentuation

mean (LSI, EIE): Malicious-Vindictive, Denunciatory Accentuation with Heightened, Inadequate Demandingness Toward People. With High Probability, the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible Was a Representative of This Accentuation.

mean (SEE, ILI): Egocentric Accentuation. Specifically Intensified “Irrational” Egoism, Whose Bearer Is Completely Indifferent to Collective Interests and Values (and to Any Interests and Values of Others), Often Resorts to Lying, Has Not Determined Their Own Interests and Desires, and Therefore Lives and Exists Wherever the Wind Blows, “from One Occasion to the Next”.

mean (EII, LSE): Accentuation of Heightened Personal Responsibility for Others and Heightened Emotional-Autonomic Reactions

mean (ILE, SEE): Impatient-Restless Accentuation

Sensitive accentuation

Sensitive accentuation, accompanied by inertia of sensory attention, dominance of the right-hemisphere cortex (i.e. questimity, which leads to a predominance of negative emotions), dominance of the anterior cortical regions over the posterior ones (democratism, i.e. egalitarianism), and dominance of the visual analyzer over the auditory analyzer. A consequence of the dominance of the anterior right-hemisphere cortical regions is sensitive disposition itself, with a strong component of developed empathy and vulnerability, together with a somewhat dry “social correctness” of behavior. The principal feature of the accentuation is vulnerability to any “attack” and to any observed injustice, against a background of weakly developed division into “one’s own” and “outsiders” and heightened seriousness toward what is happening (as in, “we do not understand jokes of that sort”).

Mean (LII, ESI)

Hyperthymic accentuation

Hyperthymic accentuation. Presumably, at the physiological level it corresponds to dominance of the anterior regions of the left-hemisphere cortex (anterior regions = egalitarianism, democratism; left-hemisphere dominance = declatimity).

Mean (ESE, LIE)

Viscous-epileptoid accentuation

Viscous-epileptoid accentuation. Presumably, its physiological basis is dominance of the posterior, especially temporal, left-hemisphere cortical regions. Any epileptoid accentuation arising because of hyperactivation of the temporal cortex - including both the introverted-viscous left-hemisphere form and the extraverted-explosive right-hemisphere form - is accompanied, as an additional “bonus”, by a tendency to “get stuck” on certain thoughts, heightened egoism, and a rather hostile attitude toward people.

Mean (LSI, EII)

Excitable-epileptoid (explosive) accentuation

Excitable-epileptoid (explosive) accentuation. At the physiological level it presumably corresponds to dominance of the posterior (especially temporal) right-hemisphere cortical regions, excitation from which can readily irradiate to the right-hemisphere hypothalamic nuclei responsible, among other things, for aggression, anger, and sexual arousal. Any epileptoid accentuation arising because of hyperactivation of the temporal cortex - including both the introverted-viscous left-hemisphere form and the extraverted-explosive right-hemisphere form - is accompanied, as an additional “bonus”, by a tendency to “get stuck” on certain thoughts, heightened egoism, and a rather hostile attitude toward people.

Mean (EIE, LSE)

Twelve Functions Instead of Eight

Of the examples of intertype accentuations considered in the preceding section, the last four (LII+ESI, ESE+LIE, LSI+EII, EIE+LSE) are of greatest theoretical interest. For these accentuations, the intuition-sensing and logic-ethics axes are neutralized; nevertheless, they have quite definite substantive content that is not reducible merely to the properties of rationality-irrationality and extraversion-introversion. Evidently, the matter lies in those four socionic traits that do not participate in the formation of the 8 mental functions traditional in socionics. These are questimity-declatimity, democracy-aristocracy (at A. Khizhnyak’s suggestion and, in our opinion as well, it would be more correct to call it egalitarianism-elitism), positivism-negativism, and, finally, process-result.

The fact that at least three of these four intertype accentuations coincide in their substantive content and meaning with character accentuations long known in psychology (hyperthymic, explosive, and viscous-epileptoid) was noted independently of the author in late 2015 - early 2016 by the Tyumen socionist Andrey Khizhnyak while examining small temperament groups of psychotypes (within the SHS paradigm) (private communication from A. Khizhnyak, in which he emphasized the importance for socionics of the fact that the properties of these small socionic groups coincide in detail with descriptions of a number of character accentuations in traditional academic psychology). At the same time, V. L. Talanov, independently of A. Khizhnyak, arrived at similar conclusions by a somewhat different route - by analyzing the boundaries between types (processing the material presented in its final form in this article). As shown above in this article, however, these intertype accentuations are far from the only ones that have clear substantive content. Nevertheless, the four listed accentuations (LII+ESI, ESE+LIE, LSI+EII, EIE+LSE) are in a certain sense unique. The author realized this while considering, in January 2016, within work on developing “Model T”, the possible role in the model of questimity and the other socionic traits that, strangely, do not participate in forming the eight traditional functions of the psyche.

If all socionic traits are grouped according to their mutually generative character and the role they play (or, for the newly considered traits, should play) in the psychophysiological “Model T”, the following picture is obtained (see Table 4 and Table 5):

Table 4

Table 5. Coefficients for calculating functions from traits

The magnitudes of the coefficients are determined by the requirement that reverse reconstruction of any trait must be performed by simple additive summation of all functions without additional coefficients.