Do Sensing and Intuition, and Logic and Ethics, Really Form Antagonistic Dichotomies?

A repeat fundamental study (IMPORTANT).

—-----------------

Using questionnaire 092 (495 respondents), we once again examined the degree of dependence between intuitive and sensing abilities considered separately, as well as between logical and ethical abilities considered separately.

For this purpose, 4 item scales were constructed, within each of which the items, by their meaning, pertained only to the abilities of one of the poles: intuitive, sensing, logical, or ethical. Each scale, in turn, was further divided into two subscales – with items affirming and denying the corresponding abilities.

These are the scales (after each item, the weight is indicated with which the response to that item is taken into account when calculating the total score of the corresponding scale):

INTUITION SCALE

INTUITIVE ABILITIES

1. Too often I leave a less pleasant activity for more pleasant daydreams. 0.62

2. My strong point is a sense of foreboding, foreseeing approaching changes. 0.57

3. I can easily discern the most remote possibilities that have no close or similar examples in the present. 0.53

4. I am sensitive to perceiving very “subtle” and weak probabilities - often, thanks to this, I notice trends in my surroundings that other people fail to notice even when looking directly at them. 0.51

5. I like reflecting on abstract ideas. 0.49

6. My strong point is anticipating in advance the changes taking place in the life around me. 0.47

7. I am able, behind small features of certain imagined objects and phenomena, to discern and find in them something extraordinarily original and unusual, “the very most”. 0.43

8. I easily invent various plot-based stories. 0.40

9. I am able to enjoy philosophical reflections. 0.39

10. I always keep something unfinished and contradictory in mind - because without a prospect, without something open and unfinished, life is boring for me. 0.34

11. A person who absent-mindedly put a frying pan on his head, and a person who fought windmills for the sake of an idea - both definitely describe me, although somewhat exaggeratedly. 0.33

12. I often worry about something that has not yet happened and does not exist, but that could in principle happen. 0.29

DENIAL OF INTUITIVE ABILITIES

13. Immersing myself for a long time in dreams and fantasies about something - that is completely unlike me. -0.59

14. For me, understanding and sensing the future is always a problem. -0.50

15. During the day I never indulge in fantasies; if I have any at all, it is only before sleep, when I am already falling asleep. -0.49

16. I have to strain myself to think about the future and make any forecasts. -0.48

17. When people talk about imagination, I do not really understand what it is. -0.46

18. Everything that is not factual, that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, or touched, readily arouses my distrust and suspicion. -0.42

19. I find it difficult to move through time mentally - whether into the past or the future. -0.41

20. It is true that questions concerning the philosophy of being, the boundaries of the human “self”, and the like have never seriously occupied me. -0.41

21. The most important thing for me is the sensations of the present moment, so that things are comfortable and pleasant here and now, rather than sometime or somewhere else. -0.41

22. I do not like discussions of alternatives and possibilities; I prefer unambiguous situations. -0.36

23. If I am cleaning, I think only about that (if I am thinking about anything at all at that time). -0.36

============================

SENSING SCALE

SENSING ABILITIES

1. I control my body well and have a good sense of the surrounding space, so bumping into objects, stumbling, or hitting things is completely unlike me. 0.70

2. I do not make superfluous, uncertain, trembling, or “loose” movements: my movements are always concise, confident, and “polished”. 0.59

3. I easily and quickly assess the size of objects - which is larger, which is smaller; which is farther away, which is slightly closer - even if they differ only very slightly. 0.53

4. The slightest changes in my sensations are noticeable and accessible to me; in general, bodily sensations are very important to me. 0.46

5. I am a philistine in the good sense of the word - what matters most to me is well-being today, and I am interested in what is near me rather than somewhere far away. 0.45

6. I can instantly catch a falling or thrown object. 0.40

7. I can easily draw a floor plan of my apartment from memory. 0.37

8. It is true that I am never internally constrained or tense - my muscles are practically always calm and relaxed, yet ready for mobilization at exactly the moment I want. 0.34

9. Changes in my body position occur without jerks, very smoothly. 0.29

10. I am good at driving a car. 0.29

DENIAL OF SENSING ABILITIES

11. I am clumsy when dressing - I often confuse the top and bottom, sleeves and trouser legs, when putting on a shirt or trousers. -0.64

12. At times I lose control over the coordination and sequence of my movements. -0.62

13. My balance is not very good - at times, when walking, I sway slightly from side to side, and even on the command “attention” it is difficult to remain motionless. -0.61

14. I sometimes stumble or even fall while walking. -0.55

15. Sometimes my own body seems alien to me. -0.52

16. In a state of nervous tension, I sometimes begin stumbling almost on level ground and become clumsy in my movements. -0.50

17. I am clumsy when tying my shoelaces. -0.47

18. My sense of taste is usually dulled - I suspect that it is weaker than that of other people. -0.46

19. I often become disoriented and confused in my own thoughts. -0.31

20. My movements seem somewhat abrupt, “angular”. -0.30

21. I am not very attentive. -0.29

============================

LOGIC SCALE

LOGICAL ABILITIES

1. I easily understand technical drawings and spatial diagrams. 0.59

2. When I read articles on the Internet, I am always interested in the tables of numerical information presented in them. 0.49

3. Being a research scientist in biology, physics, or mathematics would suit me very well. 0.48

4. I quickly perform arithmetic operations mentally on any integers (I believe my brain is fairly well trained for this, and the process itself is familiar and gives me some pleasure). 0.47

5. I have a strictly scientific worldview, alien to any magic or religion. 0.45

6. I have encyclopedic knowledge; at times I act as a “walking reference book”. 0.44

7. I am better than others at obtaining the maximum result with the minimum expenditure of energy. 0.44

8. I always get great pleasure from finding the solution to some problem. I even like to “chase” such pleasures. 0.43

9. The occupations of telephone installer or household-appliance repair technician would suit me very well. 0.41

10. I can clearly explain the essence of any phenomenon in a few phrases. 0.37

11. I like working through causal relationships among numerous facts. 0.34

DENIAL OF LOGICAL ABILITIES

12. I must admit, I sometimes lack logic in my reasoning. -0.60

13. The job of an HR manager would suit me better than that of a design engineer. -0.60

14. I have a peculiar kind of “arithmetical blindness” - perceiving numbers and operating with them is probably more difficult for me than for many others. -0.52

15. Physics, mathematics, technology, and chemistry are not fields in which I would like to work. -0.46

16. At school I always had problems with arithmetic, including arithmetic operations on numbers - numbers never interested me. -0.44

17. My interest in scientific questions is fairly superficial; in any case, I would not choose a profession in this field or in a purely technical field. -0.43

18. After a brief glance at a picture, it is easier for me to say what the depicted people and objects are like than what they are engaged in and what they are doing. -0.43

19. I have a strained relationship with complex household appliances. -0.42

20. I find it tedious and uninteresting to understand the technical workings of household equipment; I would rather call a repair technician. -0.42

21. After solving any mathematical problems, I would always later doubt whether I had solved them correctly or not. -0.39

22. As a rule, I begin to feel bored and irritated when discussing any logical contradictions. -0.35

23. If I had the opportunity, I would prefer to entrust another reliable person, a secretary or lawyer, with completely handling my bills and business papers. -0.23

============================

ETHICS SCALE

ETHICAL ABILITIES

1. I understand the experiences and moods of the people around me well. 1.09

2. I read people like an open book. 0.86

3. I always automatically pay attention to any changes in the relationships among my acquaintances. 0.78

4. I am sensitive to and observant of sudden small shifts toward a more positive and “warm” mood in my partner or interlocutor. 0.73

5. From small emotional nuances, I always instantly sense who is the leader in a new group. 0.64

6. I am a person of deep experiences and feelings. 0.64

7. Every person and every event has its own emotional flavor and meaning for me. 0.61

8. I like listening to people and relieving their emotional tension. 0.55

9. It is usually easy for me to understand whether another person is telling the truth or lying. 0.54

10. If my friends are frightened, I usually understand this immediately, although I do not share their fear. 0.46

11. I often influence another person in order to improve their mood, make them more self-confident and less gloomy or anxious. 0.42

12. I willingly listen to other people’s stories about all kinds of personal sorrows and troubles. 0.35

13. Each individual person has their own particular “flavor” and meaning for me. 0.35

14. I like influencing my partner’s psyche, improving it through my positive suggestions. 0.35

15. I am better than others at finding and seeing perfection and luminous, plastic beauty in the movements of the surrounding world and people. 0.34

16. I am an excellent negotiator. 0.34

17. I always know exactly which person close to me is specifically to blame for an outburst of my disappointment and dissatisfaction. 0.33

18. I am more responsive than other people I know. 0.31

19. There are things that, if I begin talking about them, make my voice tremble and may even bring a tear to my eye. 0.30

20. In communication, I more often give compliments, that is, words that are pleasant for the other person, than make ironic jokes. 0.30

21. The anticipation of someone else’s “thank you”, of sincere gratitude, almost always motivates me to act. 0.28

22. I usually find it more pleasant to hear praise not for my ideas, but for my ability to create a comfortable and harmonious environment around me. 0.27

23. It is unpleasant for me to watch another person grimace in pain - I immediately begin to feel something similar to their suffering myself. 0.26

DENIAL OF ETHICAL ABILITIES

24. I am emotionally “somewhat blind” and usually discern only very vivid and intense experiences in other people. -1.03

25. I am worse than others at recognizing people’s moods from their faces. -0.98

26. I do not always understand exactly when people become upset or offended - when they are sobbing uncontrollably, that is understandable. -0.87

27. I have always had difficulties in knowing and understanding other people. -0.86

28. I usually find it difficult to notice that my friends are frightened by something. -0.80

29. I do not always understand what the interlocutor took offense at during a conversation. -0.79

30. I find it difficult to feel anything toward people; more often I feel indifference. -0.63

31. There is probably more indifference and imperturbable disregard in my character than in others. -0.54

32. I sometimes treat another person like a thing, like an object of technical testing. -0.35

33. In a dangerous situation I behave in an emphatically calm and cool-headed manner; a warning of danger evokes not fear in me, but interest and a desire to test myself. -0.24

34. In my plans I never count on gifts or services from anyone, even if I have received them before. -0.21

Table 1. Intercorrelations of ability subscales separately for Intuition, Sensing, Logic, and Ethics

495 respondents, mathematical equalization of the type heterogeneity of the sample by dividing all scores, before calculating correlations, by the square root of the numerical proportion of the corresponding respondent’s sociotype in the sample

Table 2. Intercorrelations of ability subscales separately for Intuition, Sensing, Logic, and Ethics

495 respondents (all), without equalization of the type heterogeneity of the sample

Table 3. Intercorrelations of ability subscales separately for Intuition, Sensing, Logic, and Ethics

67 respondents with zero level of familiarity with socionics (=1), without equalization of the type heterogeneity of the sample

Table 4. Intercorrelations of ability subscales separately for Intuition, Sensing, Logic, and Ethics

217 respondents with an initial level of familiarity with socionics (=2), without equalization of the type heterogeneity of the sample

Table 5. Intercorrelations of ability subscales separately for Intuition, Sensing, Logic, and Ethics

188 respondents with a high level of familiarity with socionics (=3 or 4), without equalization of the type heterogeneity of the sample

Table 6. Correlations between ability scales in different subsamples of respondents to questionnaire 092 (without type equalization of the samples)

The intercorrelations of all 12 ability subscales are shown in Table 1 (for the sample mathematically equalized for equal representation of all psychotypes) and in Table 2 (for the sample “as is”, without mathematical type equalization).

Linear correlation of intuitive abilities with sensing abilities R= -0,59

Linear correlation of logical abilities with ethical abilities R= -0,44

There are more irreconcilable differences between intuition and sensing in their neurophysiological mechanisms that prevent the joint manifestation of their abilities. There are fewer such «irreconcilable differences» between logic and ethics, but they nevertheless exist, and the correlation between logical and ethical abilities in the array of results from the self-assessment ability scales of 495 respondents is also negative (-0,44).

However, it is interesting and important to check whether the negative correlation between the obtained self-assessments of abilities is caused by respondents’ self-suggestion under the influence of «socionics mythology», which, as is known, prescribes antagonism between logic and ethics, and between intuition and sensing.

For this check, we divided the sample into three parts: respondents experienced in socionics (with ratings of familiarity with socionics of 3 or higher), beginners in socionics (who had nevertheless heard and read something), and respondents completely naive with respect to socionics (with a practically zero level of socionics knowledge and, accordingly, the minimum rank rating=1 for their level of familiarity with socionics).

The results of this division are presented in Tables 3-5 and in the summary Table 6.

In the final Table 6, we see that the negative correlation between intuitive and sensing abilities, and between logical and ethical abilities, respectively, nevertheless depends appreciably on the respondents’ experience with socionics. It reaches its maximum absolute values only in the group of «socionics-experienced» respondents (R= -0,70 for the Intuition-Sensing pair and R= -0,60 for the Logic-Ethics pair). In the group of respondents naive with respect to socionics (with zero or near-zero knowledge of socionics), these correlations are much smaller in absolute value (respectively R= -0,29 for the Intuition-Sensing pair and only R= -0,20 for the Logic-Ethics pair). This suggests that the negative relationship within the pairs of intuitive and sensing abilities, and especially logical and ethical abilities, is nevertheless greatly exaggerated by the socionics myth of the Sensing-Intuition and Logic-Ethics dichotomies.

It follows that the real (rather than suggested) negative correlation between logical and ethical abilities is very small in absolute value, not exceeding 4-5% of their common variance. If this is so, it means that logical types can quite readily have strongly developed ethical abilities at the same time, and ethical types – logical abilities.

Of course, one would like to explain the obtained result by some artifacts – for example, by the possibility that there are simply more random responses in the socionics-naive group and that this is why all correlations weaken simultaneously. However, let us look at Table 3, which characterizes the correlations between indicators in this «naive» subsample of respondents. We see that the correlation between the Logic subscale based on positive-for-Logic items and the subscale based on negative-for-Logic items is 0,62. Similarly, the correlation between the Ethics subscales is 0,74. Both of these numbers are indeed smaller than the corresponding values of 0,77 and 0,82 in the «experienced» group, but the difference between the groups here is far less critical than that between minus 0,20 and minus 0,60 (which characterize the correlations between Logic and Ethics in these two groups of participants).

====================

CONCLUSION:

A weak antagonism between sensing and intuitive abilities, and between logical and ethical abilities, apparently nevertheless exists in the population, but it is considerably smaller than is generally assumed in the «classical» socionics of Aušra Augustinavičiūtė. In the logic-ethics pair, it is all the more detectable only at a trace level. In essence, logical abilities and ethical abilities are two almost independent and therefore almost orthogonal traits, which it is hardly advisable to combine into a single factor.