V. L. Talanov

Content and Physiological Interpretation of the Socionic Traits “Constructivism-Emotivism,” “Tactics-Strategy,” “Yielding-Obstinate,” and “Carefree-Farsighted”

The possibility of reliably determining TIMs from psychological questionnaires using a multistage procedure for symmetrizing the statistical structure of the data is demonstrated; using the material of correlated questions, the content of the Reinin traits is analyzed. Constructivists are balanced in logic and unbalanced in ethics, while Emotivists are the reverse. Tacticians are balanced in sensing and unbalanced in intuition, while Strategists are the reverse. Yielding types are “weak” in ethics and “strong” in logic, while Obstinate types are the reverse. Carefree types are “weak” in sensing and “strong” in intuition, while Farsighted types are “weak” in intuition and “strong” in sensing. The poles of the traits coincide with the well-known partial properties of nervous-system strength with respect to excitation and inhibition, originating in Pavlovian physiology of higher nervous activity. An identity relation is demonstrated between an individual’s extraversion and the simultaneous strong-signal character of both of their dominant functions, and between introversion and their weak-signal character. On the basis of the obtained content of the poles of the four traits, a physiological model of the TIM is proposed that develops socionic Model “A”.

Keywords: socionics, Reinin traits, properties of the nervous system, balance of the nervous system, strength of the nervous system, psychophysiology, physiology of higher nervous activity, extraversion.

This publication summarizes our investigation of four “weak” Reinin traits (those not belonging to the traditional Jungian basis). Data were collected mainly in 2003-2004 - both through observation and through various research “one-off” experimental questionnaires (question banks), which made it possible, on the one hand, to perform highly accurate diagnosis of respondents’ TIMs on the basis of a training sample and, on the other hand, to investigate by the method of “scientific screening” (that is, in effect, sequential random enumeration) statistical relationships with TIMs, quadras, clubs, socionic functions, and the 15 socionic traits for a broad range of questionnaire items devised and compiled by us and reflecting a wide variety of behavioral and psychological properties. In total, about one and a half thousand primary traits reflecting various personality properties and behavioral stereotypes were investigated. Questionnaires were administered among students, acquaintances, in socionics groups, and elsewhere.

Research Methodology

Diagnosis of TIMs from one-off arbitrary question banks (without their being specially oriented toward socionic functions and traits) was based on an algorithm we developed, at the foundation of which is a self-learning procedure. In no case were primary, a priori specified diagnostic scales used to determine TIMs or dichotomy poles. Respondents’ answers provided, in different questionnaire forms, from 4 to 6 gradations of the degree of agreement with individual statements. Before questionnaire processing, respondents’ answers were normalized and corrected for social dissimulation and stylistic response characteristics (the tendency to agree or deny, the dispersion of ratings, etc.). The self-reported TIMs of some respondents familiar with socionics were treated as a training sample. Our experience and that of others shows that self-reported TIMs coincide with the true ones in approximately 40-60% of cases. This percentage proves sufficient for the self-learning procedure provided that there are 150 or more respondents. In the training sample, for responses to each individual questionnaire item and for all groups of respondents of each self-reported TIM, group deviations of the response from the “inter-TIM” mean were calculated (in units of the standard deviation of the entire sample). At the next stage, a refining procedure for symmetrizing these deviations was performed. Symmetrization makes it possible, first, to correct random fluctuations of TIM-specific mean deviations caused by the admixture, within the “TIM groups” of the training sample, of extraneous, incorrectly self-reported TIMs. Second, the symmetrization procedure relies not only on the training sample but on the answers of all respondents who completed the questionnaire, which makes it possible to refine the values of the diagnostic coefficients during the procedure. The essence of symmetrization consists in such a linear transformation of the N16 matrix (where N is the number of questions in the questionnaire, 16 is the number of TIM groups, and the matrix elements are the group-average values of normalized responses for each TIM and each questionnaire item) that, as a result, the “inter-TIM” correlations of loadings calculated across the array of N questionnaire items satisfy the requirement of socionic symmetry, namely: the correlation between the loadings in the LII column and the ILI column must be the same as that between the LIE and ILE columns, the ESE and SEE columns, and so on. An analogous equality must be observed for all 15 pairs of possible intertype relations. As a result of such a symmetrization procedure, a square matrix of rotation coefficients of size (1616) is obtained. The matrix of rotation coefficients is sought under the criterion of minimal rotations, that is, maximization of the correlations between the loadings in each of the 16 columns of the “rotated” and the original {N;16} matrix. In practice, these correlation coefficients usually lie between 0.85 and 0.97. The symmetrized (that is, corrected and refined) matrix of item-by-item loadings for the 16 TIMs is then transformed into a matrix of item-by-item loadings for the 15 Reinin traits, in which the 15 columns of item-by-item loadings are mutually orthogonal across the array of N items of the given questionnaire. These “loading columns” are the coefficients that subsequently make it possible to calculate the normalized value of each of the 15 Reinin traits for all respondents who completed the questionnaire. From the individual values of the 15 traits, “images” of the traits are calculated (trait values calculated from the generating functions of seven pairs of the other traits, excluding the given one), as are individual TIM profiles (when constructing the profiles, both the direct values of the 15 traits calculated from respondents’ answers taking the corrected item-by-item loadings into account and the values of their images, calculated using special continuous SIN-shaped generating functions that model the socionic laws of nonlinear interaction among Reinin traits, are taken into account). Next, the leading TIM of the profile is identified in each individual TIM profile. As a result, a table of “primary diagnoses” of TIM is obtained for the entire experimental sample; it is used to calculate new within-TIM group means and for a new, subsequent procedure of data symmetrization. After several cycles of symmetrization, the procedure effectively converges, the correlations between the traits and their images (across the array of all respondents) are maximized, and the excess kurtoses of the distribution functions of the values of the 15 Reinin traits and their images in the respondent sample become sufficiently deeply negative, which appears as the emergence of distinct two-humped distributions in the distribution diagrams. The TIM diagnoses obtained after this are considered final for the respondents in the sample. The proportion of agreement between the final diagnoses and self-reported TIMs ranged from 0.39 to 0.65 in different samples.

In addition, the procedure makes it possible (here we merely state this without detailed comment), by a separate method based on the nonlinear interaction of traits, also to refine the coordinates of the true mean (zero) points of the traits separating their poles. It is clear that, owing both to the randomness of the sample and to the nonuniform distribution of TIMs in the population, the true zero values may differ substantially from both the sample means and sample medians. As a result of the correction, the placement of the boundaries between TIMs is refined, after which it reflects not only the nonuniform empirical representation of different self-reported TIMs in the training and overall samples, but approaches the true physiologically determined position of the boundaries.

We tested the accuracy of the final TIM diagnoses calculated using the stated procedure with respondents who had answered more than one questionnaire. Because the two questionnaires had no questions in common, and because the procedures for obtaining diagnostic coefficients for each questionnaire were mathematically unrelated, the TIM diagnoses from the two parallel questionnaire forms are therefore, in the mathematical sense, independent of each other. In the set of respondents who completed two forms (80 people), the proportion of matching TIM diagnoses was 0.78. Mathematically, this reliability coefficient corresponds to agreement between the diagnoses and the true TIM in almost 90% of cases and is, first, a very encouraging result - especially considering that, owing to the screening nature of their construction, the questionnaires were filled with almost random questions that were far from always being strongly related to socionic traits, functions, and TIMs. Second, such a high reliability figure means that the accuracy of TIM diagnosis using research questionnaires (question banks) is entirely sufficient for the practical purposes of studying the substantive content of TIMs, traits, functions, quadras, and clubs in their projection onto diverse questionnaire questions (items).

The present paper discusses the obtained substantive content of four Reinin traits that are of greatest interest (as we shall see from what follows) from the standpoint of their possible relationship with the principal partial properties of the nervous system according to Pavlov-Teplov-Nebylitsyn.

The “Constructivist-Emotivist” Trait

The Constructivist pole: rational Ethical types and irrational Logical types.

The Emotivist pole: irrational Ethical types and rational Logical types.

According to Model “A”, in Constructivists ethics is in the so-called inert block, while logic is in the contact block. In Emotivists, conversely, logic is in the inert block and ethics in the contact block. According to A. Augustinavičiūtė’s observations, the functions of the inert block are inert, whereas the functions of the contact block are more plastic, “quick to get going” for use as working, contact, executive functions.

What does the experiment show?

CONSTRUCTIVISM: In questionnaire items reliably correlated with the Constructivist pole, two substantive clusters are clearly distinguished, and within them a series of subclusters.

The first generalized cluster of Constructivism (we identified 103 questionnaire statements corresponding to it) clearly corresponds to the ideas of the Pavlov-Teplov-Nebylitsyn school concerning imbalance of higher nervous activity in the isolated partial sphere of emotions and ethical evaluations. Its first subcluster is associated with impatience, irritability, quick temper in communication situations, the ease with which offense and disappointment arise, and sharp inadequate emotional reactions to unexpected events and especially to sudden troubles and failures. The second subcluster is associated with ethical uncompromisingness. The third subcluster is associated with emotional instability, absence of a sense of inner emotional equilibrium, and easy and frequent “internal” (externally poorly motivated) switching of the sign of emotions. The fourth subcluster is associated with difficulties in conscious control (inhibition) of one’s emotional and facial expression. The fifth subcluster is associated with frequent, intrusive, difficult-to-control memories, predominantly negative in character, as well as with frequent turning of thoughts and fantasies toward the past, which again has a difficult-to-control, “drawing-in” character for respondents. The sixth subcluster is clearly associated with dysphoria, dissatisfaction, bad mood, and is expressed at the level of questionnaire statements in a tendency toward negative evaluations; attention focused on seeing shortcomings; striving to improve one’s mood by some means; heightened anxiety or a prevailing subdepressive mood background; predisposition to frustration and dissatisfaction; a general background of concern; a tendency toward lingering awkward experiences and conscientiousness. The seventh subcluster is associated with a tendency toward reactions of anger, rage, and aggression, as well as frequent thoughts on this subject and sublimating actions (a liking for films with fights, a liking for shooting weapons, etc.). The eighth subcluster is associated with excessively high demands, fastidiousness, and fault-finding in communication situations. The ninth subcluster is associated with frequent dreams that reflect experiences of the preceding day or of the more distant past, with the dreams often accompanied by nightmares and nocturnal awakenings, while morning awakening may occur against a background of anxious feeling. The tenth subcluster is associated with slow fading of visual afterimages and the prolonged presence in mental vision after awakening of residual dream images, as well as intrusive, difficult-to-control mental visual images in the waking state. The eleventh subcluster is associated with heightened and poorly inhibited emotional autonomic activity of the sympathetic type (trembling of the fingers in situations of excitement, a tendency to turn pale in situations of fear) or with a tendency to instantaneously tense the muscles in response to abrupt movements by people nearby. The twelfth subcluster is associated with preference for certain occupations in which the requirements for emotional stability and balance are minimal (owing to the individual nature of the work), whereas the requirements for fine motor coordination and balance in the process of carrying out a chain of work actions are, conversely, high (dancer, professional athlete, drawing cartoons, graphic design, sewing clothes, arranging bouquets, etc.). The thirteenth subcluster is associated with imbalance of the body’s immune reactions and with an increased frequency of the corresponding diseases (rheumatic, autoimmune, etc.), - one immediately recalls old, half-forgotten works on a direct correlational relationship between immune response and emotional excitability owing to their neighboring hypothalamic substrate, as well as comparatively recent studies on the correlation of the frequency and vividness of dreams with rheumatic diseases. The fourteenth subcluster (also shared with the “Farsighted” pole, in which, however, it is less pronounced) is associated with an increased frequency of experiencing symptoms of derealization and, to a lesser extent, depersonalization (sensations of deadness, alienation, lifelessness, colorlessness, and grayness of the surroundings; unreality, “manufacturedness,” “drawnness” of the surroundings; at the level of a tendency, a feeling of bodily alienness, as well as, often and to a pronounced degree, a sensation of thoughts stopping with inability to concentrate). The symptom of “thought stopping,” however, should more probably be associated with the “logical” cluster of the trait, since it is evidently caused by increased logical inhibitability against the background of increased emotional disinhibition and inertia. The fifteenth and final subcluster of emotional-ethical imbalance is partly related to the preceding one and is associated with unextinguished or difficult-to-extinguish orienting reactions (which may be associated with elevated hippocampal serotonin and reduced acetylcholine) and manifests itself in prolonged, motorically inhibited (while, in the emotional sense, precisely difficult-to-inhibit) contemplation of various trinkets; in careful examination and good memory of architectural details of buildings seen by chance; and in periodically occurring “hypnotizing” sensations of a certain brightness and unusualness, surprisingness, and unfamiliarity of familiar surrounding objects.

On the basis of the characteristics of the cluster of emotional imbalance considered above, it can be said that any Constructivist tends to be a donor of negative and an acceptor of positive emotions (which, as we know, is quite characteristic of ILE, and even more so of SLE and EIE, as well as ESI and ILI, and EII and SLI; only ESE departs somewhat, though not entirely, from this series). But this is a small and particular point. The principal characteristic of a Constructivist is associated with selective (partial) physiological imbalance, a deficit of inhibition and control of nervous processes in the emotional-ethical sphere, the sphere of feelings, emotions, and ethical evaluations.

The second main cluster of Constructivism (68 questionnaire questions) contains questionnaire statements associated with good controllability of the logical and, partly, motor sphere, with its balanced, subordinate, and executive character, and with well-developed processes of control and inhibition within it. In other words, in the broader and customary physiological sense – again with the balance of nervous processes in this sphere.

The first subcluster describes a person’s handwriting – Constructivists more commonly have neat, legible handwriting with a moderate slant and clearly formed letters. By contrast, Emotivists’ handwriting is graphologically inconsistent, awkward, poorly legible, sweeping, and often has a considerable rightward slant. The next, second logical subcluster of Constructivism is associated with occupational preferences, is related to the first, and, like handwriting, is associated with developed fine motor coordination in which the processes of control and inhibition are well represented. This subcluster is expressed in readiness to deal at work not only with large physical objects but also with small ones (work as a jeweler, engraver, proofreader, casino croupier, assembly under a microscope, etc.). The third subcluster is associated with high plasticity in the course of performing work processes – the ability to restructure rapidly and change work habits; the ability to interrupt work and stop “at the bell”; the ability to relax and rest. The fourth subcluster is associated with well-functioning control processes when performing logical tasks: Constructivists more often report that in work or problem solving they make almost no errors, so that there is no need even to recheck; that in writing they do not omit letters from words; that their logical chains of reasoning are always error-free and impeccable in short links and details; that they like and are able to proofread and edit manuscripts well and quickly; and so forth. This subcluster is also shared with the “Obstinate” and “Carefree” poles, which, as we shall see below, reflect the sensitivity of logic and sensing. The fifth subcluster is associated with the well-controlled “executive” function of the logical sphere: liking to make things; readiness for manual household work and physical work in general; memory for necessary facts and dates; readiness to allow other people to set work tasks for them and even critically intervene in the process of carrying them out; a liking for prolonged logical games (chess, preference); preference for logical rather than emotional arguments for self-defense or persuasion (by contrast, Emotivists, even Logical ones, in such cases prefer to use emotional arguments, “stroking,” or deception instead of logical argumentation), and so forth. The sixth subcluster negates the dogmatism and logical inflexibility characteristic of Emotivists (at least many of them), including a tendency toward logical-structural excess. Constructivists are alien to dogmatism; less demanding about uniforms for employees; more tolerant of other people’s logical arguments; do not yearn to punish workers with fines or children with rods; are substantially less often supporters of a universal all-encompassing order; readily rearrange furniture; change habits more easily and agree more readily to changes in rules; admit the justifiability of different points of view on the same phenomenon; and so forth. It should be noted that this subcluster is also shared with the “Obstinate” pole, which, as we shall see later, is associated with sensitivity, the weak-signal character of logic – the fact that the balance of any function is partly correlated with its weak-signal character was not discovered by us, but has also been shown in the work of E. P. Ilyin (2001).

EMOTIVISM: In Emotivists, the identified subclusters are exactly the same as in Constructivists, only with the opposite substantive sign. Emotional balance. A more optimistic and upbeat mood background, lack of tendency toward prolonged dysphoria. Absence of intrusive unpleasant memories, experiences, and pangs of conscience. Low vulnerability. Ethical flexibility and tolerance. Positive attitude toward oneself. Virtual absence of outbursts of anger and malice. Strong nerves. Confident and uninhibited behavior among people. An interested attitude toward harmonizing relations in the group and improving its emotional background (donor of positive emotions, acceptor of negative emotions). Low anxiety. Absence or rarity of nightmares. Good emotional repression. Indifference to philosophical “soul-searching.” Dulling of taste and smell sensations associated with the emotional sphere (evidence of their inhibition). At the same time – dogmatism, logical excess, rigidity of habits, intolerance of another person’s (different) opinion, and a not infrequent preference for deception, ethical persuasion, or some other ethical influence (“stroking”) instead of the use of logical arguments. Thus, even for LII and LSI, logically justifying their actions aloud sometimes proves “too much bother”; “patting someone on the head” is easier for them. Emotivists are yielding in conversations about art and not excessively demanding about morality, indulgent toward ethical transgressions, but are prepared to argue persistently and take a principled stand on logical matters, on questions of the “correct” structure, system, efficiency, and sequence of actions. In these matters they tend to be dictators or, at least, tend toward rigidity and stubbornness. Emotivists react extremely painfully to anyone’s attempts to interfere in the process of their personal work and in their logical decisions. They can be careless in logical details (thus, when trying to conceal from others the traces of some nasty act, an Emotivist is highly likely to “leave traces,” even if they are “Obstinate,” that is, a specialist in weak-signal logic); as a group they tend to avoid proofreading and fine manual work; have “disheveled” handwriting; and so on and so forth (see the description of the Constructivist clusters above). In the logical sphere, Emotivists have a certain attraction toward “large-block” logic, toward large-scale ideals and projects (from a major discovery leading to a Nobel Prize to the establishment of a new world order) – this partly overlaps with the description below of logical strong-signal character in the “Yielding,” but in this case it also has other causes associated with logical uncontrollability and idealization, with the detachment of such projects from the real tasks of practice. Let us also recall that some, not very substantial, mutual correlation between logical imbalance and logical strong-signal character is expected (see the remark at the end of the preceding point on Constructivists).

Among the occupations preferred by Emotivists (by any Emotivist TIMs almost regardless of whether they are Logical or Ethical), particularly preferred and distinctive are occupations requiring good emotional self-control, flexible emotional influence and manipulation, “working primarily with the tongue,” and at the same time involving autonomy and independence in making logical decisions (diplomat, public politician, political commentator, company director, journalist).

The “Constructivist-Emotivist” trait is very clearly expressed in human behavior and is easily diagnosed externally, - according to our observations, even more easily than the “Irrational-Rational” trait.

Thus, Constructivists are unbalanced in the emotional-ethical sphere and balanced in the motor-logical sphere. Emotivists are balanced in the emotional-ethical sphere and unbalanced in the motor-logical sphere. There is a weak correlation of the Constructivist pole with the Obstinate pole (because of the physiologically conditioned moderate correlation of logical balance with the weak-signal character of the logical function). Analogously, the Emotivist pole is weakly correlated with the Yielding pole (owing to the weak correlation of ethical balance and ethical weak-signal character).

Let us recall that imbalance, as a universal and long-known physiological concept, was traditionally regarded by the physiology of higher nervous activity as an imbalance between the processes of excitation and inhibition (with predominance of the former), which leads to a reduction in the processes of conscious control, inhibition, and regulation, making the sphere of the corresponding nervous phenomena impulsive or rigid, dominating behavior, and prone to inadequacy of reactions.

The “Tactician-Strategist” Trait

The Tactician pole: rational Sensing types and irrational Intuitive types.

The Strategist pole: irrational Sensing types and rational Intuitive types.

According to Model “A”, in Tacticians intuition is in the so-called inert block, while sensing is in the contact block. In Strategists, conversely, sensing is in the inert block and intuition in the contact block. According to A. Augustinavičiūtė, the functions of the inert block are inert and rigid, while the functions of the contact block are more plastic, “quick to get going” for use as working, contact, executive functions.

As in the case of Constructivists-Emotivists, in the case of Tacticians-Strategists direct experimentation with questionnaires confirms that A. Augustinavičiūtė’s empirical (observation-based) interpretation of the properties of the poles of the traits considered in our article, although not especially detailed and at times differing from our results in particulars (see A. Augustinavičiūtė, 2004), is on the whole quite close to them. As a brief digression, we shall emphasize only that the substantive concept of “inert” and “contact” positions of functions introduced by Augustinavičiūtė follows from the properties of TIMs that she investigated secondarily and empirically, but is in no way exclusively connected with Model “A”; therefore, experimental confirmation of Aušra’s proposed hypotheses regarding the principal properties of the “Constructivist-Emotivist” and “Tactician-Strategist” traits cannot be regarded as confirmation of the correctness and validity of Model “A”. Rather, on the contrary, the experimental confirmation obtained for the substantive content of the two traits indicates an imperfection of the model: after all, on the basis of Model “A” it is impossible to predict in advance, and with justification, the observed fact that functions in the program and mobilizing positions prove more rigid than the creative and contact functions. According to physiological conceptions, balance-imbalance arises from the interaction of excitation and controlling inhibition. But is their balance reflected in Model “A” in any way?

According to our results, Tacticians have high balance in the sensing sphere (and, accordingly, well-developed inhibition and conscious control). In the sphere of intuition they are unbalanced and exhibit a clear imbalance between excitation and inhibition. Strategists, conversely, are balanced in the intuitive sphere and unbalanced in the sensing sphere. As in the case of Constructivists-Emotivists, in the case of Tacticians-Strategists there is a direct analogy with the partial properties of nervous-system balance studied in detail by the Pavlov-Teplov-Nebylitsyn physiological school.

Let us consider the clusters of the Tactician and Strategist poles identified in the array of questionnaire statements reliably correlated with the trait.

The first large cluster (70 original questionnaire statements) is associated with balance of sensing. It can conventionally be divided into subclusters.

The first subcluster reflects, in Tacticians, good control and inhibition of drives and desires: sexual, food-related, thirst, etc., as well as the general absence of any clearly prominent, intrusive and suppressive, inadequately dominant needs. In Strategists, the opposite is true: “vital” needs can sometimes be strong to the point of intrusiveness and impatience, requiring obligatory and rapid satisfaction. Strategists tend to subordinate everything to their dominant and strong needs and drives. Some nonstandard, nonnormative needs, for example sexual perversions, are also more common among Strategists. In addition, a Strategist concentrates all attention on only one goal coinciding with the principal need. The Strategist is impatient in satisfying a need, strives to obtain reinforcement already at the beginning of work, and prefers to proceed toward satisfaction of the need not by a roundabout route but by the shortest path – for this reason, work is more often begun with simple tasks that can be completed certainly and quickly, already at the beginning of activity. A Strategist also finds it difficult to proportion financial means to desires and needs and therefore is inferior to a Tactician in competent planning of a personal budget.

Incidentally, all needs belonging to the first sensing subcluster are hypothalamically conditioned in character. Such needs are generally considered to be controlled primarily in the “amygdala-hypothalamus” chain and in the hypothalamus itself, whose posterior and anterior divisions contain opposing centers of excitation and inhibition of needs that are differently connected with neurotransmitter systems.

The second subcluster in Strategists is associated with difficulties in changing the pace of work and difficulty in consciously switching visual and auditory attention during work. Tacticians have no problems with this.

The third subcluster in Tacticians is associated with the controllability and subordination of sensory attention. A Tactician’s gaze does not jump from side to side; it is attentive and controllable, concentrated, sometimes intent. A Strategist’s gaze spends a substantial part of the time wandering randomly from side to side, jumping or floating, engaged in free automatic search and scanning space in an uncontrolled automatic mode. For this reason, Tacticians remember people’s faces better, whereas Strategists feel more comfortable running across a road with heavy automobile traffic – their “wandering” gaze in automatic mode instantly registers the arrangement and speed of the cars on the road, while controlled and concentrated intuition helps predict the local situation on the road over the next several seconds. In the case of stationary objects, Tacticians easily and steadily focus attention on one thing; in Strategists, visual attention begins to disperse fairly quickly.

The fourth subcluster is associated with the fact that Strategists often automatically pay attention to some surrounding triviality that is none of their business and should not concern them (for example, automatically noticing someone’s wart or characteristic features of another person’s speech such as habitual throat-clearing, an accent, etc.; and even if they are visually watching something intently, they notice with peripheral vision everything happening around them). Tacticians do not merely have no concern for sensory details that do not directly affect them; they simply do not notice any of it at all. Finding themselves at a picnic outside the city in a new place, Strategists (both Sensing and Intuitive) begin wandering widely around the surroundings in search of impressions. Tacticians calmly sit near the car, wash it, go swimming themselves, or grill shashlik. Strategists like sitting by a fire and aimlessly looking at the flames, at their ghostly changing tongues. Fire does not attract Tacticians; they are unlikely to depict it – either in thought or on paper.

The fifth subcluster is associated with peculiarities in the manifestation of Se. Tacticians like to feel their controlled power over people’s lives, fate, and health (on average to a greater extent than Strategists), whereas Strategists more often and more easily break into direct aggression and physical violence (a problem with inhibition).

The sixth subcluster is associated with the fact that Tacticians, more than Strategists, are inclined and able to observe generally accepted protocol in the sensing sphere. Thus, with respect to clothing they possess more reliable taste or, at least, are more concerned than Strategists with choosing it harmoniously, sometimes resorting to the advice of others for this purpose; they wear a suit appropriate to the occasion and not conspicuous at receptions; they shout at the stadium and remain modestly silent at a cemetery.

The seventh subcluster is associated with occupational preferences. Strategists prefer occupations in which their sensing can be “set into free flight,” given free rein and not watched particularly closely – on the assumption that in automatic mode it knows by itself what to do and will redundantly scan and filter through itself a mass of details, some of which may accidentally prove important: harmful or useful. By contrast, this desired range of occupations places quite strict demands on voluntary controllability of intuition, imagination, and fantasy: imagination must be brought into action quickly and operationally in order to visualize clearly the future result of the work and outline a path toward it, while one must not become excessively carried away in fantasies but must be able to control, inhibit, and stop them in time, in accordance with the client’s requests. Examples of such occupations are designer, fashion designer, stylist, makeup artist, manicurist, cosmetologist, confectioner, and cook. Statistics show that they are often chosen by “Strategists”. Tacticians, conversely, need occupations with controllable and operational-executive, subordinate and easily focused sensing alongside intuition that roams about without control and has an encouraged and permanent right to a “free hunt”. For these reasons, Tacticians often choose the occupations of archaeologist, forensic expert, censor, fisheries inspector, fishing-boat sailor, where the free “hunt” of their intuition is unrestricted, while sensory attention is required to be obedient, tense and concentrated, narrowly directed. For the same reason, Tacticians also simply like fishing with a rod from a boat or from the bank, dreaming about burbot and staring intently at the float, and because of these same characteristics they become religious and political fanatics more often than Strategists (the uncontrollability and unrestrained character of anxiously preoccupied intuition combined with a slavishly obedient, narrowly directed view of the world), – which is also confirmed by the material of the questionnaires we analyzed.

The second main cluster of the “Tactician-Strategist” trait is associated with intuition: rigid, inflexible, independent, disobedient, uncontrolled, unmanageable, and unbalanced in Tacticians, and quite balanced and manageable in Strategists. Empirically, in our material it included 45 questionnaire questions correlated with the socionic trait under consideration and likewise divided into subclusters.

The first subcluster reflects (in Tacticians) uncontrollably arising dreams and fantasies of a negative character (“to spit in someone’s mug,” to do something nasty to an enemy), as well as tense unpleasant expectations and anticipations that also arise because of intuition (“cotton-wool legs” at thoughts of falling from a height; fear of the impending drilling of teeth while waiting in the dentist’s chair). Accordingly, Strategists are freer from such constant unproductive “roaming” pressure of fantasy.

The second intuitive subcluster is associated with the positive role of the automatic, background work of intuition in Tacticians. This background work provides, in particular, high-quality apperception in Tacticians, which is manifested in a predominance of agreement with statements such as: “Usually I instantly, ‘automatically’ and without reasoning, understand the meaning and significance of any situation in which I find myself”; “Everything that happens has a taste and meaning for me; I always directly sense certain invisible threads connecting me with the world, with people, with tomorrow”; “A person has not said anything yet, but I already guess what thoughts are in their head,” and so forth.

The third intuitive subcluster in Tacticians is associated with excessive redundancy, lack of control, scale, and sweep of intuitive images combined with the unproductiveness that arises from this. For example, this may be an excess of abstract generalizations in explanations that are incomprehensible to the interlocutor, or an uncritical tendency to present the desired as the actual, to speak of one’s dubious assumptions as accomplished facts. This includes adherence to esotericism and the large scale of ideas and fantasies, with readiness to entrust all details and particulars to other executors. It also includes readiness to engage in something out of sheer curiosity without obtaining any result from it.

The fourth subcluster is associated with difficulties in sequential and directed intuitive thinking in Tacticians (the “life of their own” of thoughts, their uncontrollability; rapid racing of thoughts and ideas).

The fifth subcluster is manifested positively in Strategists and is associated with their capacity for voluntary imagination, rapid mental and vivid representation “on demand” of the faces of familiar people, certain memorable smells, the voices of familiar people with their characteristic timbre, and the imagination of tactile sensations: the touch of one’s fingers against sandpaper, velvet, water, glass, tree bark, and so forth.

The sixth subcluster is also manifested positively in Strategists and is associated with good memory for reproducing poems. Overall, as a tendency, any kind of memory in Strategists, compared with Tacticians, works more obediently and executively (all else being equal, since the principal influence on memory quality is exerted by the intuition-sensing balance).

The seventh subcluster is associated with Strategists’ prudence in the use of their time, which may likewise be interpreted in favor of the controllability of intuition.

The eighth subcluster is associated with Strategists’ predisposition toward scientific work in biology, physics, or mathematics, with their ability mentally to “hold the goal” and focus their imagination on the main information and principal problems, avoiding “slipping,” ignoring insignificant details and collateral associations.

If one uses the interpretation of the term “balance of nervous processes” traditional in the physiology of higher nervous activity, then, as we can see, the empirical picture obtained in our study of the properties of the poles of the “Tactician-Strategist” trait fits fairly precisely into a scheme of high balance (and conscious controllability) of Tacticians in the sensing sphere and high balance (and controllability) of Strategists in the intuitive sphere.

The “Yielding-Obstinate” Trait

The Yielding pole: extraverted Logical types and introverted Ethical types.

The Obstinate pole: introverted Logical types and extraverted Ethical types.

Item-by-item and cluster analysis of reliable correlates of this Reinin trait shows that the essence of the trait lies in the “weak-signal” or “strong-signal” character of the ethical and logical spheres, and accordingly of the ethical and logical functions. The “Yielding” are specialists in weak-signal ethics and strong-signal logic; the “Obstinate” are specialists in weak-signal logic and strong-signal ethics. There is no connection here with the color of the functions, – we shall discuss this later in a separate section, after considering the “Carefree-Farsighted” trait.

What, from the standpoint of psychophysiology, does the predominantly weak- or strong-signal character of functions mean? Specialists in weak signals have high sensitivity and low thresholds of perception and response - partially, that is, partly and selectively, specifically in the given functional sphere. Strong incoming signals may cause inhibition in them (subcritical or transmarginal). In any case, strong signals fall outside their zone of optimal adaptation and cause rapid fatigue. The optimal individual magnitude of outgoing signals is evidently positively correlated with the optimal magnitude of signals entering the given functional sphere – if only because the outgoing signal is controlled by the CNS and in this case is also an incoming signal for it; therefore, a function predominantly produces signals of the intensity to which it itself is optimally sensitive. Specialists in weak signals prefer an information environment with a weak signal level adequate to their sensitivity. An analogous picture applies to specialists in strong signals, except that they choose an information environment with powerful signals, whereas in an environment with weak signals they must constantly strain their attention, voluntarily and with effort changing their customary level of power adaptation only for a short time.

As is known from the research of Nebylitsyn’s school, optimal threshold sensitivity has a direct relationship with the property of strength-weakness of the nervous system discovered by I. P. Pavlov. In the “strong,” the linear segment of the response curve (the dependence of the intensity of the response reaction on the intensity of the incoming stimulus) is shifted, within their customary adaptive norm, into the region of strong signals; in the “weak,” it is located in the region of weak incoming signals. As a result, when responses to objectively weak and strong, high-intensity incoming signals are compared, it turns out that in the “strong” the response intensity increases substantially as input power rises, whereas in the “weak” the response increases only slightly or even decreases in intensity (because of critical inhibition by strong signals exceeding the upper boundary of the individually optimal response range).

From the examples of questionnaire items we analyzed, we are convinced that the foregoing is directly relevant to the “Yielding-Obstinate” dichotomy.

The first main cluster of questionnaire items correlating with the trait (58 questionnaire statements) reduces to differences in threshold sensitivity in the ethical-emotional sphere. The “Yielding” note their frequent anxious motor restlessness. They can easily evoke in imagination some unpleasant smell or a mental sensation of tactile contact with a surface of a characteristic texture (from the preceding text it is known that this is simultaneously a property of the good intuitive controllability of “Strategists,” but intuitive controllability alone is insufficient for such an ability; there must also be high sensitivity to weak triggering emotional stimuli, which is what we have here). The “Yielding” have many emotionally saturated childhood memories; in general they have an excitable emotional memory for the past that responds with a recollection even to a weak triggering emotional impulse. Usually it is difficult for them emotionally to “encompass” a situation as a whole; they prefer to deal with its elements (weaker signals). And, very importantly, they unconditionally strive for emotional communication at a greater distance and avoid close communication distance, at which the intensity of emotional signals increases – in particular, they dislike accidental touches, feel uncomfortable if someone looks over their shoulder at their newspaper, make sure that people do not come too close to them in conversation, and so forth. They tend to produce strong responses (excitation, anxiety, panic) to emotionally weak internal stimuli. Often even very familiar objects seem bright and unusual to them. They are romantic in feelings and inclined to idealize people (inadequate amplification of objectively weak emotional features of objects). Emotionally, they are more attentive to individual and isolated nuances of relationships, to the “small details” of the world, to ethical-emotional details torn out of context, than to a holistic and general emotional evaluation of a situation, because of which their emotional reactions sometimes appear strange and inadequate from the outside. They easily and sensitively find common ground with people of any culture. There is a tendency toward increased attraction to humiliating and painful sensations, toward self-abasing experiences (an easily arising sense of guilt). They avoid any emotional “excesses”: they react painfully to flattery and feel unwell in an emotionally noisy, demanding social environment. They very rarely laugh loudly or roar with laughter; loud sobbing and hysteria are equally uncharacteristic of them. Thoughts about tomorrow contain for them many emotionally attractive details, and every individual person has for them an individual flavor and significance of their own. Accordingly, it is easier for them to communicate with an individual person than with an audience, which requires a more intense level of emotional expression. In general, in any situation of emotional communication or evaluation they prefer the small to the large; a part to the whole; an individual person to a crowd.

In the ethical sphere, the “Obstinate” display opposite properties, revealing the fact that they are specialists in strong and intense ethical-emotional signals. For illustration, it may be added that the “Obstinate” (including Ethical types, and even Fi types) easily throw out of their minds everything that is no longer current, everything that happened and is over. They are characterized by relative dulling of taste sensations and comparatively poorer memory for people’s faces; their own background facial expressiveness is relatively weak (because of high emotional thresholds). Compare, for example, the background facial expressiveness (in the absence of strong emotional experiences) of Hugo and Dumas. In the latter (the “Yielding”), it is noticeably more lively. Owing to their striving for strong emotional stimuli, the “Obstinate” willingly pick up and amplify the emotions of those around them. They like there to be much laughter and merriment around them. They like listening to music while working. In conversation they often change the volume of their voice and often speak in raised tones. A sense of guilt is uncharacteristic of them. To change their ethical point of view, they require strong and abundant ethical arguments. They strive to establish a close distance of emotional communication, with maximum emotional rapprochement. They like situations that throw them an emotional challenge and willingly raise their level of emotional excitation in response. And so on and so forth.

The opposite picture is observed in the logical sphere. Here the “Yielding” prove to be specialists in strong signals, while the “Obstinate” become specialists in weak signals. To substantiate this thesis, let us analyze the second, logical cluster of the trait. The “Obstinate” (weak-signal, sensitive logical-motor sphere) are easily motorically excited and frequently demonstrate “sweeping” movements. They enter into movement and work easily and quickly (motor excitability). Among other things, the “Obstinate” also begin walking around the room while thinking more often than the “Yielding”. The “Obstinate” prefer to begin work not with complex questions but with simpler and more obvious, even secondary ones (logical weak-signal character). They prefer logically routine forms of leisure (looking through sports tournament tables in their free time) and types of work that require logical attention to small details and facts: the work of a censor, judge, expert, political technologist, programmer, analyst, mathematician, geologist, screenwriter, and writer of action-oriented fiction. They remember small facts. They are attentive to small details in logical chains: less often than the “Yielding” do they omit letters or whole syllables from words when writing – the “Yielding,” with their strong-signal logic, especially if they are also “Farsighted” with strong-signal sensing (SEI, for example), make errors of this kind very often. The “Obstinate” are not inclined (at least outwardly) to demonstrate a command-administrative style of leadership and thereby take on increased logical responsibility for the whole, which requires the large-block logic of the “Yielding”. In the role of a leader, even when they have dictatorial tendencies (LSI), the “Obstinate” tend to share logical responsibility with others and consider the most important questions at meetings. Unlike them, the “Yielding” (Logical extraverts and Ethical introverts) are more inclined toward sole, large-scale, responsible decisions in the logical sphere. Thus, the “dictator” I. V. Stalin (“Obstinate”) convened the top leadership of his Politburo to resolve the most important questions, whereas the apparently “democratic” F. D. Roosevelt (“Yielding”) was accustomed to consulting no one. Incidentally, Stalin noticed in Roosevelt another trait of the “Yielding” associated with their large-block logic: “Roosevelt can be trusted, - the leader and connoisseur of human souls said of him, - He is not the sort to bother with trifles, and if he steals, it will only be a large sum of money.”

The “Yielding” (specialists in strong, intense motor-logical signals) willingly take on tasks of global bureaucratic organization, organization of document flow in a large enterprise, and organization of the joint activity of many people in common work – here their logical “strong-signal character” manifests itself in the desire to “pile on more logical mush,” to seize not one task but many logical tasks at once in order to increase the overall intensity of the signal (let us recall that in their weak-signal ethical sphere everything is the reverse: instead of an ethical whole they prefer parts and details, instead of an audience – an individual person). The “Yielding” prefer an environment of intense, large-scale structural-logical stimuli: they dream immediately of the highest steps of their future official career, like contemplating an excess of vertically organized orderliness, willingly assume principal logical responsibility, are stubborn, conflict-prone, and uncompromising in disputes on matters of principle, but are usually yielding in logical details and trifles (the “Obstinate” are ordinarily the reverse). Having low logical excitability, the “Yielding” sometimes begin to utter a sentence aloud without yet knowing how they will finish it (the “Obstinate” always know its forthcoming ending in advance). The “Yielding” (even Logical types), believing in the logical force only of very intense signals (such as fines at work), are not inclined to overestimate the influence of logic and ordinary logical arguments on masses of people. Therefore, like Emotivists (but apparently for another reason), they tend toward the opinion that people are usually easier to deceive than to persuade with logical arguments. Motor coordination is close to the logical sphere; therefore, in physical work the “Yielding” are not lazy and like energetic, intense physical work with demanding requirements for coordination of movements (with low-intensity work, they will perhaps become bored). This is one reason why in excavator and bulldozer cabs one sees EII much more often than LII, - after all, coordinating the movements of mechanisms is an extension of coordinating the movements of one’s own hands, only requiring still greater effort, constantly available only to the “Yielding”.

As our study shows, the “Yielding” like occupations such as cashier at a checkout register in a store or operator of a telephone information service. All occupations of this kind place demands on intensive, superficial (without delving into details), but “strong-signal” use of logic and motor coordination, whereas in the ethical sphere – conversely – they demand high emotional sensitivity, making it possible to distinguish nuances of behavior and character from small details (which is probably important for a cashier in a store in the process of determining the amount of change required, and also helps a telephone information-service operator, remote from the client, not to become bored).

A strong signal is not simply a signal that imposes an increased processing load. A strong signal is a clear, contrastive, and large-scale signal. Specialists in strong-signal logic strive not to complicate and detail, but to simplify, clarify, and generalize. They strive in both their perception and their logical production to avoid logical beadwork in the form of exceptions, traps, and hooks. Therefore, the “Yielding” prefer a single coherent, large-scale, transparent structural-communicative order rather than many tangled, detailed, and diverse ones. The “Obstinate” ILI (C. Darwin) published the theory of the origin of species as a detailed, intricate work tracking various versions of possible logical objections – in this work the main point sank and hid in a mass of secondary details, and logical contrast was thereby reduced. A “Yielding” ILE in his place would have published a short pamphlet of theses transparently presenting only the principal ideas. There is an erroneous opinion that LSI is absolutely in everything and always a greater dictator than LSE and always strives for uniformity in everything. Nevertheless, SLE and LSE, as well as ESI, SEI, and other “Yielding” types, will strive to “impose” one common technology in all production workshops (logical contrast), whereas LSI and SLI are prepared to keep in reserve “just in case” many small, different, and obsolete ones. For example, LSI, striving for all-encompassing uniformity in the lives of subordinates, for their complete emotional clarity and transparency to himself, and also for the epic heroic-military scale of his great-power projects (strong-signal ethics requiring emotional contrast), is inclined in the logical sphere to detail and fuss over trifles, to build clever logical traps into laws and instructions, to play logical games with subordinates (who will catch whom), and at the same time is inclined to ignore global mismanagement and ruin, avoiding responsibility and large-scale decisions (weak-signal logic sensitive only to details, to signals with low significance contrast). An LSE (or LIE) boss will say: “This is my decision: let them come to work in whatever they want; I do not need uniformity here; let them say whatever they want about me; let there be not one grandiose building to delight the eye but several workshops in cheap hangars, – but the equipment in them must be identical and the best, even if expensive, while document flow, communications, and roads on the premises must obey a single, all-encompassing, transparent, and clear plan and order, without any irresponsibility, confusion, legalistic trickery, or mess.” An LSI boss – because of belonging to the “Obstinate” pole - will convene a meeting at which, with pressure, he will force through all the decisions listed above, possibly with exact reversal, leaving numerous small exceptions and “hooks” in the rules, while forcing his deputy or the chairman of the board to assume responsibility for the decisions.

In business terms, the “Yielding” person likes to direct a large-scale construction project of the century, while the “Obstinate” person likes to be an accountant, bookkeeper, or expert. As a group tendency, the “Yielding” prefer open and responsible power, the “Obstinate” - secret power (of course, again only as a group tendency; this property is also strongly influenced by other Reinin traits). The motto of the “Yielding”: the process of solving a problem should be labor-intensive in logical terms, should rely on “large-block,” transparent and open logic with the involvement of large and large-scale resources and intense physical forces (contrast plus quantitative load). Emotionally, the solution of the “Yielding” should be modest and inconspicuous, taking into account the ethical diversity of people, whereas its resulting outcome should be logically comprehensive, unambiguous, transparent, and simple, and should require the further expanded involvement of labor resources (that is, once again satisfy the criterion of a strong logical signal). The motto of the “Obstinate”: the solution should be costly-economical in the logical sense, clever, rely on nonobvious points and details, on a finely woven intrigue involving a minimum of physical forces and labor resources; emotionally it may quite well be (and even preferably should be) provocative or shocking, and moreover emotionally obligatory and universal for everyone; while its resulting outcome should be logically subtle, clever, and tangled, incomprehensible to the majority, not permitting unambiguous interpretation and leaving scope for further subtle logical intrigues and maneuvers (the criterion of a weak logical signal: low contrast with a small quantitative load). The difference, for example, between LII and LSI (both “Obstinate”) will most often be that LII will weave this intrigue in a detective story he is writing, while its emotional apotheosis will perhaps be the triumph of overcoming, discovery, or the pathos of universal condemnation and calamity; LSI will weave the intrigue both in film scripts and in life, while its emotional pathos will be total and will perhaps have the flavor either of “a blow to the forehead,” or of the triumph of territorial acquisition, or of the triumph of revenge, or of threat and horror. Among scientists, an “Obstinate” person is readily prepared to dig through archives of old, long-past results, refining and checking details in them and trying to stumble upon an emotionally stunning revelation (which sometimes succeeds). A “Yielding” person will not do this. The “Obstinate” relies on analysis and comparison of a multitude of details, on the subtleties of probabilistic and statistical analysis; the “Yielding” - on successful suppression and disregard of all details, on an immediate, direct “X-ray” perception of the generalized outline of the principal regularity. The “Obstinate” places more trust in the work of painstaking individual specialists, the “Yielding” – in the results of the activity of large scientific collectives.

The “Carefree-Farsighted” Trait

The “Carefree” pole: extraverted Intuitive types and introverted Sensing types.

The “Farsighted” pole: introverted Intuitive types and extraverted Sensing types.

This trait is similar to the preceding one, except that here the “Carefree” prove to be specialists in weak-signal sensing and strong-signal intuition, while the “Farsighted” are specialists in weak-signal intuition and strong-signal sensing. Accordingly, the former, in the spirit of Pavlov-Teplov-Nebylitsyn, may very well be “weak” in the sensing sphere and “strong” in the intuitive sphere, while the latter are the reverse.

Let us first consider the sensing sphere. Weak-signal sensitivity in the sphere of hypothalamic drives gives rise to envy and greed. Indeed, according to the results of our analysis of empirical data, the “Carefree” tend always to have too little of what they already possess (at least in comparison with “Farsighted” TIMs of the same poles of the Extraversion-Introversion and Judicious-Decisive dichotomies).

The “Carefree” are finely sensitive to auditory signals: they accurately and quickly determine the direction of a sound source; they perceive nuances of another person’s voice well, including easily determining from the voice the dynamics of a person’s mood during a conversation and noticing the moment at which the person begins to become nervous; they notice characteristic features of another person’s manner of speech; while working they notice any weak and accidental extraneous sounds from the street, and so forth.

They are equally visually sensitive: visual deceptions are uncharacteristic of them; they are attentive and observant toward small details in the surrounding natural environment, toward clouds, insects, blades of grass; they are good trackers.

The Carefree are highly sensitive to real physical smells (for example, the weak smell of another person’s sweat that other people do not notice). They tend to prefer the “pure,” subtle taste of foods, without a mixture of flavors and without masking by the intense taste of sugar (lemons – without sugar, tea – without sugar, etc.). As we can see, here too specialists in weak signals choose isolated weak-signal details and parts rather than a mixed integral whole.

They are sensitive to external physical stimuli: those who often feel like “the princess and the pea” are also among them. Some accidental abrupt movement near them causes them instantly to tense. They feel poorly in the midst of a dense crowd with its numerous and strong sensory stimuli. They are also highly sensitive to weak signals from their own organism: they can concentrate and “feel” the functioning of their internal organs, catch the very first signs of an illness beginning, and feel a change in their internal tone even after a single cup of coffee.

A very important and characteristic feature reliably linked with the “Carefree” pole is their high pain sensitivity (incidentally, this fact indicates that pain sensitivity belongs more to the sensing than to the emotional sphere). To no lesser and even to a greater degree, they are sensitive to the sight of blood and to the sight and sound of other people’s physical suffering.

It is also worth noting that, as a group tendency, the “Carefree” are “night owls”. This can be explained by the fact that toward evening a person’s sensory thresholds rise, while the number of random auditory and light stimuli from the street decreases, making the stimulus environment more comfortable for the sensorily sensitive “Carefree”.

Among occupations, the “Carefree” prefer those that impose high demands on sensing sensitivity and low demands on intuition sensitivity. These include, for example, the occupations of makeup artist, cosmetologist, florist, interior and clothing designer, confectioner, taster, and gardener. Sewing clothes and manufacturing footwear also belong here.

Unlike the “Carefree,” the “Farsighted” have high sensory thresholds and low sensory sensitivity. The coarseness of their sensing manifests itself, in particular, in sensory inattention to small details: they overlook accidental slips made in writing; are unobservant of details in their surroundings (all the houses on a street look the same to them); because of the same inattention to details they may lose their way in a city or forest; and so forth. Their handwriting, as in Emotivists, tends to be sweeping and graphologically heterogeneous. Only in the case of Emotivists this is caused by imbalance of motor coordination with poor motor inhibition, whereas in the “Farsighted” it is caused by the strong-signal character and coarseness of sensory control. In their perception, the “Farsighted” rely more on vision than on all other sensory modalities taken together - this may be explained by the relative universality of vision as a sensory modality with redundant information, so the information flow used through the visual channel depends little on the height of the thresholds of the visual analyzer. Unlike the “Carefree,” the “Farsighted” feel confident in critical situations of time pressure with many operating factors, – one must suppose that in this case they are helped both by “coarse” sensing, which copes well with a strong, though superficially generalized signal from a multitude of objects, and by sensitive, low-threshold intuition of time. They know how to filter the visual stream, ignoring the greater part of incoming information and lying in wait only for the “necessary” moments. Like the “Obstinate,” they often shout and speak in raised tones (only in the “Obstinate” this occurs because of the strong-signal adaptation of ethics, whereas in the “Farsighted” it is because of the strong-signal adaptation of sensing). For the same reason, they like listening to television at an elevated volume that is uncomfortable for others present (although the “Farsighted” cannot be called hard of hearing). The visual world in their perception is coarsened and consists of standard details. How does this differ from Intuitive types? In Intuitive types (unlike Sensing types), the visual world is less bright and less saturated with color, and is also fragmented in time: it is sometimes registered, sometimes seemingly ignored and disappearing somewhere. There are no such group differences between the “Carefree” and the “Farsighted,” but they differ from each other in that the visual world of the “Farsighted” consists of a multitude of mostly standard objects, and for this reason people sometimes seem to them like mannequins, while everything around them seems ordinary, flat, and unreal, often strangely distorted (that is, “tastelessly strange” - because of a deficit of visual information about details), whereas the visual world of the “Carefree” more often consists of one unique object singled out in close-up, with a multitude of equally unique, plausibly real, unmistakably concrete, and often delightfully surprising details that require separate examination by the subject.

In the sphere of intuition, the differences between the poles of the trait have the opposite sign. The intuition of the “Farsighted” is weak-signal, highly sensitive, and easily excitable. Thus, they have a good sense of time, know how to distribute work correctly within it, sort tasks by urgency, and feel confident in situations of time pressure. On the other hand, more than the poles of most other nonbasic Reinin traits, with the exception of Process types, the “Farsighted” are characterized by symptoms of illusions and pseudohallucinations (visual and auditory), reflecting increased excitability and sensitivity of the internal intuitive sphere (reference images of visual and auditory memory, belonging to the intuitive sphere, are excited easily, while real sensory signals pass through the analyzer only if they are strong-signal). In this case, excitable sensitive intuition substitutes for narrowly filtering strong-signal sensing, comparatively easily presenting to consciousness an internal image from the store of memory templates in response to random stimuli. Thus, imaginary voices often arise in the heads of the “Farsighted,” voices that are difficult to drive away and suppress (the difference in the clinical picture of paranoid schizophrenia is that the voices cannot be driven away at all). In the noise of falling water, they also not infrequently hear the illusion of someone’s voices. In the same series are intrusive thoughts and spontaneous, vivid imaginary visual images. Impulsively arising intuitive fears and apprehensions are not uncommon. In the sphere of imagination, the “Farsighted” are able rapidly to discover the unusual and interesting in what, at first glance, is most ordinary. They can maintain unbroken attention on an imagined object and sense small transformations of the imagined object. In exactly the same way, they instantly notice any deviations from “ordinariness” in the picture of the world. It might seem that the latter should be a property of sensitive sensing, but this is only a first, incorrect impression. Comparing a visible object with an internal template in search of differences requires not so much sensitivity to the details of the sensorily perceived world as sensitivity to the details of the internal template, that is, sensitive inner vision, intuition.

At first glance, the descriptions of the intuition of the “Farsighted” reveal something in common with white intuition, the intuition of time, but it would be erroneous to equate the “white intuition” of Decisive Dynamic types with the weak-signal intuition of introverted Farsighted types. Thus, if in the description of the “weak-signal intuition” of the Farsighted the sense of time manifests itself as the ability to orient oneself in time, sort tasks by urgency, compare objects at different moments in time while maintaining good fixation of the object and registering the changes occurring, as well as in the detailing of the internal intuitive template of the object, then in the case of white intuition (according to our data) the matter is rather one of the capacity for foresight and prediction, as well as anxious expectations and a distinctive dynamic, unstable and floating pensiveness that is poorly maintained on a single “internal” object.

The “strong-signal character” of intuition in the Carefree manifests itself not only in the negation of the sensitive intuitive properties of the “Farsighted,” but also in another special quality. The strong-signal character of the intuition of the “Carefree” manifests itself in their liking for situations that excite and stimulate expectations and imagination: risky bets in games, books and films about pirates and distant travels, bohemian company with risky entertainment and adventurous escapades. Like the “Obstinate,” the “Carefree” enjoy flattery and compliments addressed to them – in this case compliments should be placed in the same series as adventures and attributed not to strong-signal ethics but to strong-signal intuition, which requires intense exciters, one of which compliments may be. In the same sense of their intuitive strong-signal character, the “Carefree” are optimistic in their expectations: they set the bar of their hopes too high. Accordingly, in contrast to the “Carefree,” the “Farsighted,” both in games and in life, prefer reliable and nonrisky bets, lowering the bar of hopes – they have no need to stimulate their intuition (expectations) with risk and stress; owing to its high sensitivity, it is sufficiently overexcited and even frightened in its ordinary state.

Thus, introverted Intuitive types and extraverted Sensing types (“Farsighted”) have low excitation thresholds in the intuitive sphere and high excitation thresholds in the sensing sphere. Accordingly, the “Farsighted” exhibit excitable and vivid images of imagination; memories, anxious thoughts, and so forth are easily provoked, while sensory excitability is relatively weak and has high thresholds. In the “Carefree,” everything is the reverse - the excitation thresholds of “intuitive” mechanisms are high, while sensory excitation thresholds are reduced, with a corresponding increase in sensory sensitivity. Hence an early tendency to fall in love, sensory impressionability, attentiveness to the sensations of one’s own body, and so on and so forth.

Relationship of the Traits Considered to the Properties of the Nervous System According to I. P. Pavlov

When the general properties of the nervous system (including balance) began to be studied in greater detail in the 1960s, the picture of “general” properties broke down into partial components, and it became clear that general properties as such almost do not exist. A person may be balanced or, for example, strong with respect to excitation processes (that is, a specialist in intense signals) in one modality and unbalanced or a specialist in weak signals in another mental modality. At the same time, the properties of the visual and auditory modalities nevertheless correlated positively with each other (a commonality of the sensory sphere), which could not be said of correlations between the sensory sphere and the emotional, motor-movement, and other spheres.

These difficulties, inexplicable at the time, ultimately halted research in the physiology of higher nervous activity. Today, looking through the prism of socionics, we may suppose that the solution to the problem lies in the pairwise opposition of the same property of the nervous system in different functional spheres, namely the spheres of emotions (ethics) and motor activity (logic), and sensing and intuition. And the issue is precisely the oppositional character of threshold heights, not merely their partial character, that is, the issue is not simply the independence of properties in different modalities of the psyche. Researchers of the 1960s were also stopped by the fact that, when they attempted to find correlations between properties of the nervous system and the psychological markers known in their time (the same Extraversion-Introversion or special balance questionnaires), they obtained nothing – which undermined society’s faith in the usefulness of the physiology of higher nervous activity. And, of course, they could not have obtained anything, because within the questionnaires physiologists of the last century did not divide Extraversion-Introversion and balance by the spheres of action of the four Jungian functions. Had this been done at the time, reliable correlations would more likely have been found. Indeed, balance of the emotional sphere is characteristic only of Emotivists, while balance of the logical and motor sphere is typical of the opposite pole, Constructivists. An analogous dichotomy operates for Tacticians (balanced in the sensing sphere) and Strategists, who are, conversely, balanced in the intuitive sphere. In the 20th century, people did not know how to determine TIMs reliably by questionnaires, and within physiological research it never occurred to anyone to do so, so the discovery may very well have been missed through a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the same happened with research on the correlation of extraversion with strength-weakness of the nervous system. As we suppose, this correlation would have been obtained many decades ago and could have changed the fate of psychophysiological research if sensitivity to weak signals in the sensing sphere had been compared not with introversion in general but exclusively with introversion of Sensing human types. After all, introverts of Intuitive types, as we saw in the section on Carefree-Farsighted, are directly obliged to demonstrate the opposite specialization, namely in strong sensory signals. If a sample contains approximately equal numbers of Sensing and Intuitive types, what will result? Correct: zero correlation. And if Sensing types predominate in the sample? A weakly positive one. And if Intuitive types? A weakly negative one. Finally, everyone became tired of this confusion, and the research was stopped already in the 1970s. It is now clearer what the elementary error consisted in.

On the Possibility of Applying Psychophysiological Methods to Socionic Diagnosis, and Socionics to Solving Problems of Psychophysiology

In the present article we have reached the conclusion that four socionic traits, and after them Extraversion-Introversion as well, may receive a hypothetical explanation within the traditional terminology of the physiology of higher nervous activity developed in the 20th century through the work of the Pavlov-Teplov-Nebylitsyn school. It is natural to recall which principal methods were used at that time to investigate the corresponding properties of the CNS and could today be used for the purposes of socionics. But the question may also be formulated differently: what experiments could socionics today propose to psychophysiologists in order to revive their aging science?

The concept of the balance of excitation and inhibition, as well as of the balance of nervous processes as a property of the nervous system, arose from I. P. Pavlov’s experiments, in which the criterion of the excitatory process was taken to be the speed of formation and consolidation of positive motor reactions to a conditioned stimulus, while the criterion of the inhibitory process was the same speed of formation and consolidation of inhibitory conditioned motor reactions, that is, reactions involving the restructuring of a previously consolidated reflex. On the basis of these criteria, I. P. Pavlov’s student A. G. Ivanov-Smolensky (1971) distinguished four types of temperament: labile – with good mobility of both processes; excitable – with predominance of the excitatory process; inhibitory; and inertial – with slow formation of conditioned reactions in both processes. Subsequently, different authors distinguished many different types and subtypes of temperament depending on the excitation-inhibition balance. According to V. D. Nebylitsyn, there are four primary properties of the nervous system: strength, mobility, dynamicity, and lability. Each of the four characteristics may refer either to excitation or to inhibition, giving 8 properties in total. There are also 4 secondary properties, namely the balances of excitation and inhibition for each of the 4 primary properties.

Different authors at different times also invested the concept of inhibition with different meanings. Inhibition is the simultaneous restraint, the control of an excitatory process that has begun. But inhibition is also the speed of restructuring a consolidated conditioned reaction of one sign into a reaction of the opposite sign. Inhibition is also the rate of fading, for example, of memory traces or of a conditioned reflex deprived of positive reinforcement; finally, it is also the rate of extinction of the orienting reaction, and so on and so forth.

At present, in psychophysiology and psychology, another indicator is used much more often for practical measurement of balance: the number of so-called “overshoots” and “undershoots” when, with the eyes closed, reproducing either a specified amplitude of movements or specified time intervals (overshoots and undershoots in tapping tempo). Indeed, in a state of pre-start excitation among athletes in such experiments, the number of overshoots increases, whereas in a state of boredom and drowsiness the number of undershoots increases. Caffeine (increasing excitation) and bromine (increasing inhibition) produce an analogous effect (E. P. Ilyin, 2001). According to E. P. Ilyin, both excitable and inhibitory individuals at the flanks of the population distribution of balance have a stronger nervous system (less sensitive, strong-signal), whereas balance more often corresponds to weakness of the nervous system, that is, to its weak-signal character and, accordingly, to its higher background activation (that is, greater energy expenditure per kilogram of body weight and per unit of time at rest). Characteristically, this effect is also noted by us in the present article in the description of the traits. For example, the poles of those who are sensitive (weak-signal) and balanced in ethics have quite a few questionnaire items in common, although, of course, there can be no question of these poles coinciding.

In addition to the traditional method of the so-called “external balance,” based on the traditional overshoots and undershoots of movement amplitude, E. P. Ilyin proposed a method of the so-called “internal balance”. In this case, after training a particular movement amplitude, the subject is asked to increase the amplitude by as little as possible and then to decrease the amplitude by as little as possible. It turns out that the magnitude of the minimal “quantum” of amplitude is not the same when it is increased and decreased, and the corresponding balance differs among different people (and under different conditions). The balance between the increment quantum and the decrement quantum was called the “internal balance”. Usually both balances (external and internal) are measured at two different amplitudes of training movements: large and small. Internal balance does not correlate with external balance and has other dependencies: for example, internal balance is associated with cerebral serotonin content, among other things (E. P. Ilyin, 2001). Because both methods (measurement of external and internal balance) are fairly simple and in some modifications require no special equipment at all, they can easily be used in a socionic experiment.

Of the numerous methods for measuring strength-weakness of the nervous system in the sensory sphere, time itself has selected only two, the simplest and most reliable. One is the method for determining the characteristic slope of the curve of response magnitude as a function of stimulus magnitude in the auditory analyzer. Two points are usually used: with a weak-intensity and a high-intensity auditory stimulus (the so-called KhNK-2 scheme). On the Y axis, the time of a simple motor reaction (t of pressing a button) in response to a tone is plotted. The measure of strength-weakness is taken to be the slope of the line connecting two points statistically averaged over the results of many trials on the graph. In the “weak,” the slope is shallow; in the “strong” it is fairly steep. The principal “minus” of the method is that its results depend quite strongly on the subject’s motivation, because they require a voluntary motor response each time. The second minus is that a voluntary motor response belongs to the motor rather than the purely sensory sphere, unlike the auditory signal, and its characteristics depend strongly on the functional state of the premotor regions of the cortex.

Another method for measuring strength-weakness is based on EEG, specifically on the coefficient of entrainment, in the EEG power spectrum, to the frequency of a stimulating flickering-light signal (usually in the delta-theta rhythm range). The greater the entrainment (“imposition”) of the external frequency, the weaker, that is, more sensitive, the visual analyzer (Golubeva E. A., 1980). The minus of the method is that it requires an electroencephalograph and the attachment of electrodes to the subject’s head, and also requires subsequent, fairly laborious decoding of the data.

In any case, in the interests both of differential psychophysiology and of socionics, it would be desirable to test directly by experiment the assertion that, in an isolated sample of Sensing types, extraversion should correlate linearly and positively with the strength of the nervous system of the visual or auditory analyzers, whereas in a sample of Intuitive types it should correlate negatively. It is also interesting to investigate individual TIMs. There are many circumstances and problems here that would be interesting for both physiologists and socionists to test.

Is the Color of Functions Related to Their Strong- or Weak-Signal Character?

In fact, the question is not even this, because it is generally clear that, at least within the socionic paradigm being used, an equality sign cannot be placed between the color of a function and the level of its threshold sensitivity to excitation (both a priori-mathematically and in practice, the correlations between them are zero or nearly zero). In essence, the principal question lies elsewhere: in the competition between two alternative dichotomies equally suitable for modulating functions (the dichotomy of socionic color and the dichotomy of threshold sensitivity) for their role in generating such a fundamental property for any psychological typology as Extraversion-Introversion.

Let us recall that each of the 8 functions of a particular color is generated (in the language of socionic traits) as the product (combination) of the poles of three socionic traits. For irrational functions – Intuition-Sensing, Judicious-Decisive, Static-Dynamic. For rational functions – Merry-Serious must be substituted for Judicious-Decisive, and Logic-Ethics for Intuition-Sensing. Extraversion-Introversion turns out to have nothing to do with this at all. Thus, Ne = intuitionJudiciousnessStatics; Ti = logicMerrinessStatics; and so forth.

Each of the 8 functions marked by different heights of psychophysical thresholds (weak- or strong-signal) is likewise generated as the product of the poles of three traits, but substantially different ones:

Strong-signal intuition = intuitionCarefreeextraversion;

Weak-signal logic = logicObstinateintroversion.

As we can see, Extraversion-Introversion is now very much “involved”. Indeed, in extraverts, of the two “strong” functions (in the sense of leading, first in the hierarchy), only one function is black, whereas both are strong-signal (although the little-used 3rd and 4th are weak-signal). In introverts, both first dominant functions are weak-signal, while the little-used 3rd and 4th are strong-signal. It follows that an individual’s Extraversion-Introversion is determined not by the color of the functions of the EGO block (indeed, it is quite conventional which function in a pair of strong functions is regarded as first and which as second). Extraversion-Introversion is determined by the weak- or strong-signal character simultaneously of all functions of the EGO block, that is, ultimately, by the membership of these functions in one of the poles of the “Yielding-Obstinate” traits (for rational functions) or “Carefree-Farsighted” traits (for irrational functions). The color of the functions of the EGO block (taking their rationality/irrationality into account), however, codes not the pole of the individual’s Extraversion-Introversion but the pole of their Static-Dynamic trait.

Where, then, do all the discussions come from about the extratimity (orientation “outward”) of black functions and the introtimity (orientation “inward”) of white functions? These discussions are, of course, not accidental. Here, evidently, lies the principal question to which a clear answer must be found. To begin with - why did the confusion of the concepts of extratimity and extraversion arise, a confusion still present in socionic culture today? First, probably because the property of weak- and strong-signal character of functions at the poles of the “Yielding-Obstinate” and “Carefree-Farsighted” traits had not been known until now, or was perceived indistinctly. Without this, the trait of an individual’s Extraversion-Introversion remained, as it were, without explanation, and nature abhors a vacuum. Second, probably because extraverts (individuals predominantly strong-signal in their two leading functions) strive for a high level of energetic excitation and therefore in some respect – but is it the principal respect? – do indeed give the impression of individuals oriented “outward”. We should nevertheless remember that a pure extraverted temperament, in which the central element is by no means extratimity but energy expenditure, objectively and actually exists in nature, whereas a pure extratim temperament is impossible in principle within the socionic paradigm, because of an individual’s two strong functions one is necessarily extratim and the other introtim. Can one say that LII, LSI, or SEI are, by character or temperament, unconditionally introtims? One cannot. Specialists in weak-signal leading functions – yes; specialists in energy-saving behavior – yes; introverts – yes; introtims – no.

Probably we have not answered the question posed in the title of this section completely. This question deserves further study and discussion, which is what we wished to emphasize. In subsequent publications, the author hopes to discuss in detail how Ne and Ni, Se and Si, and so forth actually differ from each other and, most importantly, what the true causes of these differences are, – causes evidently in no way connected either with the threshold sensitivity of the corresponding functions through the excitation channel, or with the energy-expenditure-energy-saving strategy, or with the Extraversion-Introversion dichotomy. Apparently, the matter lies here in differences in inhibition thresholds, but this will be discussed in greater detail in another article.

Psychophysiological Model of the TIM

What is balance? There are two approaches to explaining this physiological concept. According to one approach, balance means equal intensity of the excitatory and inhibitory processes, and accordingly imbalance is a sharp predominance of either the excitatory or the inhibitory process. However, the concepts of the “intensity” of processes, especially the inhibitory process, are not defined unambiguously in physiology and for this reason remain mysterious “things in themselves”. Another approach is clearer and more precise: within it, each of the two processes (excitatory and inhibitory) is considered to have its own initiation thresholds (upper and lower), and as a result this leads to the existence of a certain optimal zone of signal intensity (that is, a threshold filter – one for excitation and another for inhibition), and only within this optimal zone is a signal capable of effectively initiating either the process of excitation or the process of inhibition. In this case, balance means coincidence of the optimal zones (“filter settings”) for the excitatory and inhibitory channels, while imbalance means their substantial difference and noncoincidence.

Indeed, under such an assumption, in the case of balance of a particular functional sphere, any internal signal arising within it is capable of playing both an excitatory and an inhibitory role, that is, of carrying out regulation. In the case of noncoincidence of the threshold filters of the excitatory and inhibitory channels, however, a signal arising within the functional sphere corresponds in its intensity range only to the excitatory input and cannot produce effective inhibition, because of which the functional sphere “swings up,” enters self-resonance, and cannot perform self-regulation. Predominance of the intensity of the excitatory process (for example, in E. P. Ilyin’s experiments on external balance) will in this context mean only that the signal intensity imposed on the functional sphere (for example, the amplitude of hand movement) is below the level optimal for the function, which is why a tendency to increase the amplitude occurs. Accordingly, when the optimal signal level is exceeded, a tendency arises to reduce the amplitude, which some researchers interpret as a predominance of inhibition.

A “predominance of inhibition” of an entirely different nature should occur if the action of another signal filter, external with respect to the function, is superimposed on the input excitatory filter of the function and the passbands of these filters are mismatched. In such a case, the probability of initiation of the excitatory process in the given psychic function will decline (instead of frequent use, the function will operate in rare “bursts”). Behaviorally, this too can supposedly be interpreted as “inhibition,” whereas in the Jungian sense it apparently means subdominance of the function (for example, for ethics and sensing in all types from the Scientist club). The role of the “external filter” may be played by the individual’s general property of strength-weakness with respect to excitation, superimposed on the partial property of strength-weakness of the given functional sphere (the internal filter).

Such conceptions and reasoning, taking into account the empirical data obtained in the present work on the strong- and weak-signal character, balance, and imbalance of functions at the poles of the four Reinin traits, led us to the following TIM formula:

(1) $^{h}I_{l}; ^{h}L_{h}; ^{l}S_{l}; ^{l}E_{h}$

The formula is given as an example for the ILE TIM. Here I is intuition, L is logic, S is sensing, and E is ethics. The indices attached to the functions show the settings of the partial filters. The upper left indices are for the excitation channel of the function. The lower right indices are for its inhibition channel. The index “h” denotes selective tuning predominantly to high-intensity signals, and the index “l” to low-intensity signals.

Formula (1) simultaneously proves to be a fully developed psychophysiological model of the TIM, going considerably further than Model “A” in its predictive properties and perfectly explaining all intertype relations, the interaction of functions within the individual’s psyche, and the content of the poles of many Reinin traits:

In the next article we intend to demonstrate this, substantiate in greater detail the physiological socionic model of the TIM based on different values of partial thresholds for excitation and inhibition for each of C. Jung’s four functions, and consider its principal consequences.

Conclusions

1. The possibility has been demonstrated both of reliable diagnosis of TIMs and of determining, independently of one another, the poles of all 15 Reinin traits without exception from psychological questionnaires. Multiple gradations of respondents’ agreement with the statements offered for evaluation are an important condition for successful diagnosis of socionic traits of the “non-Jungian” basis. The universal method of self-learning diagnosis proposed by the author uses, at the first stage, a training sample of persons with partly erroneous self-reported TIMs (up to 60% errors), while refinement of the diagnoses is achieved using a special multistage procedure for symmetrizing the statistical structure of the data.

2. Several hundred original questionnaire statements from research question banks correlating with the “Constructivist-Emotivist,” “Tactician-Strategist,” “Yielding-Obstinate,” and “Carefree-Farsighted” traits were clustered. The content of the poles of these traits was revealed and its similarity to the partial properties of the nervous system in strength and balance known from the physiology of higher nervous activity was identified. Constructivists are balanced in logic and unbalanced in ethics, Emotivists are balanced in ethics and unbalanced in logic. Tacticians are balanced in sensing and unbalanced in intuition, Strategists are balanced in intuition and unbalanced in sensing. The Yielding are “weak” in ethics and “strong” in logic, the Obstinate are “weak” in logic and “strong” in ethics. The Carefree are “weak” in sensing and “strong” in intuition, the Farsighted are “weak” in intuition and “strong” in sensing.

3. A number of psychophysiological methods suitable for direct physiological diagnosis of the poles of socionic traits were analyzed, and the simplest and most promising among them were proposed for use in socionics.

4. It was shown that an individual’s Extraversion-Introversion is determined not by the “color” of one of the two socionic functions of the “EGO” block, but by the strong-signal or weak-signal character simultaneously of both dominant functions, with the strong- or weak-signal character of specific functions following from the individual’s membership in the Yielding-Obstinate and Carefree-Farsighted poles.

5. A psychophysiological model of the TIM was proposed, based on the conception of threshold filters of each function separately for its excitation and inhibition channels and representing, in comparison with Model “A”, an alternative way of explaining the information metabolism of psychic functions.

References

Augustinavičiūtė A. Theory of Reinin Traits // Psychology and Socionics of Interpersonal Relations, 2004, Nos. 7-12.

Golubeva E. A. Individual Characteristics of Human Memory (A Psychophysiological Study). Moscow: Pedagogika, 1980. 151 pp.

Ilyin E. P. Differential Psychophysiology. – St. Petersburg: Piter, 2001. – 464 pp.

Nebylitsyn V. D. Psychophysiological Studies of Individual Differences. Moscow: Nauka, 1976.

Pavlov I. P. Twenty Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity (Behavior) of Animals. Leningrad: Medgiz, 1951.

Peisakhov N. M. Self-Regulation and Typological Properties of the Nervous System. Kazan, 1974.

Talanov V. L. Content and Physiological Interpretation of the Socionic Traits “Constructivist-Emotivist,” “Tactician-Strategist,” “Yielding-Obstinate,” and “Carefree-Farsighted” // Report at the XXII International Conference on Socionics “Psychoinformation Technologies, Personnel Management, and Personality Psychology,” Kyiv, September 16-23, 2006.

Teplov B. M. Selected Works: In 2 Volumes. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1985.

Jung C. G. Psychological Types. Moscow: Alfavit, 1992.

September-October 2006

© Talanov V. L., 2006

Note: an article under the same title was published in the journal SMiPL No. 5, 2006; however, for unclear reasons, its text in a number of points of principle does not correspond to the author’s text sent on 17.10.2006 for publication and agreed by the author with the journal’s editor-in-chief.

The authentic author’s text is presented here.