Characteristics of Sociotypes in Sex and Marriage

V. L. Talanov

For the purposes of this article, we selected questions related to sex and marriage from a number of our socionics diagnostic questionnaires – specifically, those for which averaged responses for each type are available, collected with good reliability, that is, from sufficiently large samples of strictly anonymous respondents (from 500 to 3500 people).

The questions are divided into several groups, which respectively characterize:

1. Libido strength (need for sex);
2. Marital fidelity;

Separately considered are:

3. Strength of orgasms
4. Tolerance of interethnic and intersocial marriages

All values in the tables are expressed in fractions of a standard deviation (which characterizes the standard statistical dispersion of a quantity among the subjects in the sample population). The intertype mean is taken as zero.

The intertype mean is the average (with equal weights) of the indicators of all 16 types, which in turn are averaged across all examined representatives of each type. The intertype mean differs from the population mean in that, in the population mean (as in the sample mean), different types are represented with different frequencies; therefore, in overall population (or sample) averaging across all people, different sociotypes are represented with different weights. This is not the case in the intertype mean, and the contribution of all 16 sociotypes to this mean is the same.

Thus, in all tables in this article, the indicators are measured relative to the intertype mean, which in all cases is taken as zero. At the same time, the magnitude of all indicators is expressed in fractions of the standard deviation (that is, the dispersion) of the corresponding indicator in the sample population. For example, the notation Ni=+0,5 means that Ni in this case is 0,5 standard deviations above the intertype mean (a measure of the statistical dispersion of the indicator) in the complete sample of all subjects who took part in the experiment (this standard deviation is approximately equal to the standard deviation in the general population, that is, in the entire human population). Accordingly, Ni=-1,5 means that the magnitude of Ni is lower than the mean type value by one and a half standard deviations.

For clarity, recall that a value of zero means that equal numbers of people in the population lie above and below this value. A value of +1,0 means that 17% of people in the population lie above this value, while 83% of all people lie below it. Accordingly, a value of -1,0 means that 17% of people have an even lower value of this indicator, while 83% of people have a higher value. A more detailed conversion into percentiles of values expressed in fractions of a standard deviation can be found in any tables of mathematical statistics.

Sex and age differences among the subjects were not taken into account when compiling these tables. All tabular indicators are based on averaging the self-assessments of anonymous subjects (after correction of the raw indicators for social dissimulation). Libido strength was assessed by averaging responses to 13 different questions analyzing the need for sex and the magnitude of sexual desire (17 thousand respondents in total), marital fidelity – by averaging responses to 3 questions (2 thousand respondents), and strength of orgasms and tolerance of interethnic and intersocial marriages – by one question for each property (700 and 1200 respondents, respectively).

Table 1. Mean shift in the expression of a number of properties among representatives of each of the 16 types of the socion (in fractions of the standard deviation of the entire sample population)

The type deviations for each property given in Table 1 can be recalculated into the relationship of the corresponding properties with the 8 functions of the psyche using the formulas in Table 2.3 of this work (conversion of the type profile into a functional profile). In this case, Table 2 is obtained, reflecting the functional loadings of the properties under consideration:

Table 2. Functional loadings of four properties related to sex and marriage

Thus, extraverted sensing and, to a lesser extent, extraverted ethics are responsible for libido (whereas Ni and Ti, by contrast, reduce libido). Strength of orgasms has approximately the same profile as libido strength, but the main negative influence shifts from introverted logic to extraverted intuition - this can be explained by a deficit of dopaminergic sensitivity in extraverted intuitive types. First, many facts are known that indicate a direct relationship between the individual expression of Ne and reduced sensitivity of type-2 dopamine receptors in neurons of the relay thalamus (which in extraverted intuitive types leads to a reduction in the quality factor of sensory filters and, accordingly, an expansion of the associative field), while at the same time it is known that an additional release of dopamine in the CNS occurs before orgasm, that is, dopaminergic transmission is necessary for experiencing a full-fledged orgasm (dopamine is not called the neurotransmitter of pleasure for nothing).

Fi has a positive effect on marital fidelity, while Se has a negative effect. Note that there is only one dual pair in which, at the level of a trend, everything is in order with mutual marital fidelity (LII+ESE). SEE and ILI, by contrast, at the level of a statistical trend are mutually prepared for their own infidelities.

With respect to the strength of orgasms, a tendency toward harmony is observed only in the ESI+LIE pair, where in each type of the dual pair (a rare case), dopaminergic sensitivity (or a compensatory increase in dopamine production) appears, as a group tendency, to be above the population mean.

The higher Ne and the lower Te and Se, the greater the tolerance of interethnic and intersocial marriages.

St. Petersburg,

June 2014

© V. L. Talanov 2014

Permanent address of the article: http://sociotoday.narod2.ru/sex.html