Factors in the Formation of the Socionic Personality Type and Their Interaction

For a long time, two different (and, at first glance, mutually contradictory) conceptions of TIM formation have coexisted in socionics. According to the first, TIM is innate and is formed by genetic factors; E.S. Filatova tends toward this view [11, 12]. According to the second approach, TIM is formed through the child’s early interaction with the surrounding world (primarily with the mother), or through prenatal influences of the maternal organism on the fetus. Among socionists who adhere to this approach is E.V. Olkova; according to her theory, the child’s TIM reflects the nature of the problems and hopes experienced by the mother during pregnancy [5].

Both Filatova and Olkova proceed from statistics they collected by typing large numbers of children and parents. However, apparently, their typing criteria differ, as a result of which different regularities are present in their data from the outset. Filatova emphasizes the physical (physiognomic) similarity of people of the same TIM and subtype, after which she cites the opinion of biologists according to whom “look-alikes” (people who strongly resemble one another) have very similar genotypes (including mutual tissue compatibility in transplantation) [12]. At the same time, however, other socionists have observed pairs of monozygotic twins (whose genomes are completely identical) with different TIMs. Filatova herself believes that MZ twins should have the same TIM, but bases this not on her own data, but on the observations of another socionist, D.A. Ivanov.

More broadly, the inheritance of psychological qualities and character traits is the subject of behavioral genetics – a science founded in the nineteenth century by F. Galton. Behavioral genetics has accumulated data on the inheritance of extraversion/introversion as measured by the Cattell and MMPI questionnaires (behavioral genetics has not yet dealt with Jungian typology). High heritability has been found – correlations on the order of 50% for MZ twins and 20% for ordinary brothers/sisters [3, §11.2], but there is no complete correspondence in extraversion/introversion among MZ twins.

Behavioral genetics also studies so-called maternal effects – prenatal or postnatal maternal influences on psychological qualities that manifest in offspring already in adulthood. The existence of such effects has been demonstrated, including by rigorously controlled animal experiments. Thus, experiments on mice showed that postnatal maternal influences can reduce the aggressiveness of males originating from a genetically more aggressive line. In other words, a maternal effect can enhance or suppress the action of ordinary genes; as a result, the same trait can be jointly influenced by genes, prenatal influences during pregnancy, and characteristics of offspring care [3, §9.6].

Incidentally, indirect confirmation of a maternal effect in TIM inheritance can be found in E.S. Filatova’s family statistics [11, 6] (although Filatova herself holds the view that TIM is entirely genetic in nature). The effect can be seen if the families included in Filatova’s statistics are divided by the extraversion/introversion trait into two groups: the first group consists of families in which the mother and father differ in extraversion/introversion, and the second consists of families in which the parents have the same extraversion/introversion. What do the statistics on inheritance of this trait show? In the first group, children more often inherit the father’s extraversion/introversion (with a probability above 2/3) and less often the mother’s; however, in the second group, the children’s extraversion/introversion is opposite to that of both parents in approximately half of cases! This is very difficult to explain by classical genetics alone. According to the latter, if the manifestation (phenotype) of a trait is the same in both parents, children with the opposite trait phenotype are indeed born (for example, through inheritance of recessive genes), but this certainly does not occur in half of cases, but much more rarely. A “normal” pattern of inheritance (in the Mendelian-genetic sense) in Filatova’s statistics is observed, remarkably, only for the rationality/irrationality trait. A number of other traits (extraversion/introversion, statics/dynamics, and some Reinin traits) behave in the manner described above, with children seemingly “repelled” from the mother on these traits. The overall result across the entire dataset and all traits is expressed in an elevated number of children who are duals of, or opposite to, the mother.

This repulsion can be called a reverse maternal effect (RME). E. Olkova also mentions a similar regularity: extraverted mothers give birth to more introverted children, and vice versa (although Olkova explains this effect in a completely different way). Some probable mechanisms of RME will be discussed below; first, let us make two more important observations.

The first concerns the distribution of socionic traits in a large population (such as an ethnic group). If traits were determined by the action of genes alone in the narrow sense, it would be possible, through selection, to form populations in which the ratio of carriers of different traits (say, extraverts and introverts) differed very strongly, by an order of magnitude. But such a population would be highly unbalanced in terms of social interactions; after all, TIM is, among other things, a basic social role (at the level of ethology). V.V. Gulenko showed that when identical TIMs interact, they “repel” one another, taking different roles in the group depending on their subtypes [1]. But from the standpoint of efficiency, the best solution is balance across traits, when approximately equal numbers of equally suitable people (in terms of TIMs) claim the roles of extraverts and introverts, rationals and irrationals, and so on; otherwise, even if the roles are distributed somehow, an uncompensated excess of “superfluous” social action will arise on some traits.

This is precisely where a reverse maternal effect would be extremely useful. It would continually turn some “genetic extraverts” into socionic introverts (and vice versa), thereby compensating an excess of people at one pole in the direction of the other. Of course, at the population scale the effect operates only on average, statistically; the traits of each individual person depend only on his or her parents.

Such traits will consist of two components: a genetic one and an epigenetic one, i.e. one caused by the maternal effect. At the same time, the population-average value of the first component may be shifted in one direction or another, which most likely determines the integral TIM of the population (ethnic group, subethnic group). Ethnic groups do indeed differ, above all, in the average expressiveness (mainly of nonverbal manifestations) of socionic traits. Thus, the temperaments of northern and southern Europeans are on average certainly different, but does this mean that socionic introverts numerically predominate (and to a substantial degree) among northerners, while socionic extraverts predominate among southerners? Not at all. Some “genetic introverts” have been pushed by the maternal effect into socionic extraversion, and vice versa. Moreover, in mixed groups it may quite plausibly appear from the outside that the trait depends more strongly on the genetic factor than on the epigenetic one (in our example, extraverted northerners will seem more introverted than introverted southerners). We will return once more to the question of separating and recognizing genetic and epigenetic factors in human behavior.

The second observation concerns the so-called handling effect [3, §9.6; 13]. It was discovered in studies of the influence of early experience on animal behavior. It turned out that if mouse and rat pups are regularly picked up during the first three weeks after birth (English handling), this has a long-term influence on their behavior (compared with control animals that did not receive handling, even if the latter was limited to three minutes per day). As adults, individuals subjected to handling in infancy demonstrate reduced emotional reactivity, low sensitivity to the stress of novelty, and also – as a consequence of the latter – greater curiosity. It has been shown that handling reduces tension in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and increases adaptive capacity under stress.

Initially, the change in animal behavior was considered a direct consequence of handling. However, subsequent observations of the relationships between handled animals and their mothers showed that after handling, in both mice and rats, mothers “jostled” and licked their pups much more (the stimulus was the human scent, which the mother attempted to remove), much more often assumed a “hovering” posture over the pup, and so on. It is precisely this increased stimulation by the mother that leads to a persistent reduction in emotionality in the offspring. If, however, the offspring of a highly active mother are raised by foster mothers with low activity, their emotionality increases. This proves that the effect of early experience is of primary importance.

From the standpoint of socionics, the consequences of handling look like suppression of Fe and Se (the hypothalamic-adrenal axis is associated with the neurotransmitters noradrenaline and adrenaline), with some shift toward intuition; the cause of their emergence is best interpreted as an intensification of Se-related action on the part of the mother. But the point is not the precise “typing” of the effect, but the evidence itself for the existence of such a mechanism of behavioral regulation in animals.

Let us return to the question of TIM formation. We have already shown in other works [7, 8] that all Jungian traits are essentially two-component. First, there is an activation (energy) component reflecting the activity of different brain systems (mainly subcortical ones). Second, there is the informational component of TIM proper, reflecting the representation of Jungian functions in the brain’s executive system (the prefrontal lobes of the cortex) through the latter’s preferential connectivity with different cortical regions and with different subcortical activation systems. As a first approximation, it can be assumed that the energy component is formed through the strength of particular brain systems, while the informational component is formed through the strength of the connections between them (a very schematic representation of this picture is shown in Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The brain’s executive system (dark rectangle) and its connections with functional cortical zones (above) and with subcortical activation systems (below). Dominant connections are shown by bold lines. According to [8], the functional cortical zones correspond, as a first approximation, to socionic clubs, and the activation centers to temperaments. For the extraversion/introversion and rationality/irrationality traits, MBTI notation (E/I, J/P) is used.

But if the mechanisms of action of the two components of the traits are different, the mechanisms by which they are formed may also differ substantially. Since we are discussing here the relationship between genetic and epigenetic factors (the reverse maternal effect), let us pose the following question: can these factors act differently on the informational and energy components of the traits? As a limiting case, can one of the components be formed entirely by the genetic factor, and the other by RME?

Animal experiments (including those involving handling) are not very informative here, because animal behavior essentially reveals only the energy component. As can be seen from the examples above, both mechanisms can contribute to it. But it is hardly possible to assess the connectivity component in this way, especially bearing in mind that in animals the prefrontal cortex is much smaller in relative size than in humans, and its contribution to behavior is incomparably weaker.

Data from twin studies may prove very valuable and significant here. These studies examine the inheritance of the same traits in monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic twins, bearing in mind that the former are genetically identical while the latter are not (from the standpoint of genetics, they are ordinary brothers and sisters). Studies report that MZ twins are very similar in temperament traits: for traits such as activity/passivity, stability of attention, reactivity threshold, and so forth, within-pair correlations of up to 90% and higher are obtained [3, §11.2], which is very high by the standards of behavioral genetics. (Moreover, the same correlations in dizygotic twins often turn out to be very low and even negative, which is completely uncharacteristic of the inheritance of quantitative traits.) For more “complex” personality factors identified by the MMPI, Cattell, and other questionnaires, within-pair correlations in MZ twins are certainly lower and rarely exceed 60%.

At first glance, comparison of MZ twins can tell us nothing at all about the action of maternal effects, because the latter act identically on both twins and are superimposed on their likewise identical genotype. However, in addition to maternal effects, here we also have the same kinds of influences of the twins on each other, which in mechanism may not differ at all from the mother’s influence. In particular, if twins grow up together, they communicate constantly from birth – initially, of course, only through nonverbal signals, but according to our hypothesis it is precisely these that are decisive for the reverse maternal effect. The result of this interaction can be called a reverse twin effect (RTE); it should lead to divergence in some behavioral (including socionic) traits, as a result of which even MZ twins will demonstrate different TIMs.

In principle, the higher correlation of “energy”, temperamental factors compared with more “higher-order” personality properties within a pair of MZ twins can be explained by a stronger influence of the social environment on the “higher-order” properties. But studies have also shown that MZ twins differ in other fundamental psychophysiological traits, in particular functional brain asymmetry. Thus, their resting EEG asymmetry differs [9]: if one twin has pronounced lateral EEG asymmetry, then in the other, as a rule, the EEG pattern is symmetrical (there are no true mirror pairs, i.e. MZ twins with pronounced asymmetry of opposite sign). MZ twins can differ in handedness – one may be left-handed and the other right-handed, with a probability exceeding 20% (and for DZ twins the probability is approximately the same).

Thus, we have a difference in EEG asymmetry between MZ twins while the level of temperamental traits is considerably more similar. But the latter reflect the activity of subcortical centers, whereas EEG asymmetry is formed as a consequence of unequal activity in different cortical zones (and also unequal activation of those zones by the same centers). This means that MZ twins have substantial differences in the strength of the connections through which activation is transmitted to the cortex. These differences are formed by epigenetic factors (since the genome is identical), including, possibly, the reverse effect described above.

Very important results were obtained by A.A. Ivonin and coauthors [2]. In a twin study, they established that the development of subcortical structures of the midbrain and brainstem, as well as associative thalamocortical systems of intracerebral integration, is the most rigidly genetically determined. In the development of interregional connections of the neocortex, hereditary and environmental factors operate non-uniformly, with the formation of long pathways being determined to a greater extent by the genotype, while closer intercentral connections within each hemisphere are determined to a greater extent by environmental influence.

As a result, the following general proposition can be advanced:

• Epigenetic effects (maternal and twin) influence primarily (and most strongly) the formation of connections among different centers of the neocortex, and more weakly – the formation of activation centers.
• Genes themselves, conversely, exert a stronger influence on the formation of activation centers and more weakly – the formation of connections (although the latter also have a genetic component, mainly for cortico-subcortical connections; see [2]).
• As a consequence, the informational, “connectivity” component of socionic traits – and TIM in the narrow sense, see [7] – is formed with the decisive participation of epigenetic factors (reverse maternal and twin effects). The “energy” component of the traits is formed primarily by genetic factors.

The same result can be reached from another starting point, taking as a basis the fact that subcortical centers are evolutionarily older, whereas the executive centers of the neocortex, whose connectivity with specific brain regions determines TIM, are much younger (after all, they encompass the youngest, tertiary association cortex, which developed intensively only in large primates). But younger structures are at the same time more plastic in ontogeny and respond more strongly to environmental changes (and a maternal effect is essentially an environmental influence, only of a narrower kind).

Now let us move to a more specific description of the mechanisms of TIM formation at the neurophysiological level. We will assume that epigenetic mechanisms are determined by (nonverbal) signals from the child’s immediate environment (first and foremost, the mother) during the first months of life (at most up to 1.5 – 2 years). The signals include facial expression, gaze, tone of voice, and hand movements, including manipulation of the child itself. They differ in intensity and modality, and in the predominance and excess of some forms at the expense of a deficiency of others – all of this constitutes the mother’s individual style of communication with the child, which depends, among other things, on socionic traits.

We will assume that these signals, being the innate ethological basis of early communication, are recognized by different systems of the infant’s brain that approximately correspond to socionic functions. Then, in response to the signals, the infant’s reaction is formed, including response signals (the same brain systems-functions operate here).

Likewise, the intensity and modality of external signals affect the development of functions in the following way: the more excessive and intense the external signals relating to a given aspect, the more the development of that function is suppressed. In particular, the child itself begins to avoid this aspect in its response signals; at the same time, the intensity of other functions may increase, and the infant will preferentially use them for its response signals.

Suppression of a function, as we have hypothesized, should occur through a relative weakening of certain connections in the brain – more precisely, not through weakening itself, but through suppression of their development during the critical period of ontogeny (although the final result is the same). Suppose that signals relating to Se are excessive on the mother’s part. This should suppress, first and foremost, the irrational-extraverted temperament, or more precisely, the connections of the corresponding subcortical system with the brain’s executive system (prefrontal cortex). In Fig. 2, the connections of subcortical temperamental systems with the PFC are shown below, while suppression of connection growth is indicated by thin red lines. The connections with the PFC of other temperaments that are not excessively represented in external signals will develop normally, and the representation of other temperaments in the PFC will increase. One of them (most likely the strongest according to the genetic factor) will become dominant in behavior – even if “its” subcortical activation system is objectively weaker than the Se system (in Fig. 2, the strength of the activation centers is indicated by blue bars at the bottom). This is a very important proposition.

Fig. 2. Influence of an environmental factor (excess influence relating to the Se aspect) on the development of connections between the executive center and specific brain systems. The notation is the same as in Fig. 1; the pathway of the Se signal is shown by a thin red line, and the strength of the temperamental activation centers is shown by dark-blue bars at the bottom.

Should the connections of the PFC with the sensory regions of the cortex (in Fig. 2, the upper row of connections), which give the Se aspect its actual multidimensionality, also weaken? Here the situation is more complex. First of all, the signals exchanged by the mother and child are generally simple and instinctively comprehensible; the higher dimensions of the function are not needed at all for their comprehension and processing. And at such an early phase of development, the brain is hardly capable of supporting these higher dimensions.

However, another effect may occur here. In [8] we already wrote that, in addition to the “multidimensional” executive centers in the prefrontal cortex, there are also additional “low-dimensional” centers (by socionic criteria), localized in the parietotemporal regions. They take over the integration of simple actions, or actions that have long been familiar and practiced to the point of automatism, in which it is already possible to do without the intervention of the powerful but energy-intensive PFC. Thus, an excess of signals relating to one aspect (say, Se) from the mother will cause the child to become accustomed to them very quickly, after which the brain will “offload” their recognition and the response to them to less powerful but less energy-intensive low-dimensional centers. As a result, the connections of the low-dimensional centers with the specific brain regions in which the primary processing of the given aspect takes place (in our case, sensing) will develop more rapidly. Conversely, a deficiency of external signals relating to the opposite aspect (in this case, intuition) will cause the infant to become accustomed to them more slowly; the brain will continue to process it with the “multidimensional” PFC. Thus, the connections of specific cortical regions with the PFC are strengthened, whereas connections with the “low-dimensional” executive centers develop more weakly. The connections of the two executive centers are shown in Fig. 3. (Note that informational influence proceeds “from top to bottom”, from specific cortical regions to the PFC; activation, by contrast, is transmitted from bottom to top, from subcortical centers to the PFC.)

Fig. 3. The environmental factor (excess influence relating to Se) stimulates the connections of “its” functional cortical zones with the low-dimensional executive center (right, thin green line) and suppresses their connections with the multidimensional center (left; thin red line). As a result, in the multidimensional center, the connection with one of the zones of the opposite function dominates (logical-intuitive, see bold lines).

Thus, we have described two possible epigenetic mechanisms of the reverse maternal effect in trait formation: a) through weakening (or, more precisely, underdevelopment) of the PFC’s connection with one of the activation centers, and b) through switching information processing from the multidimensional (PFC) executive center to the low-dimensional (parietotemporal) executive center. But we also allow for the existence of other similar mechanisms that differ in detail from those described here. Once again, the purpose of this text is to show, in the most general and schematic form, the fundamental possibility of interaction between genetic and epigenetic factors of TIM at the level of functional activation systems and their connections with the brain’s executive centers.

Let us proceed to analyze this interaction. For a particular trait, genetic and epigenetic factors may act in the same direction or, conversely, “pull” the trait in different directions. In the first case, the picture is simple and predictable: for example, RME suppresses connections with an “initially” weak activation center, as a result of which connections with the strongest center develop and it becomes absolutely dominant. Much more interesting is the second case, in which there is a contradiction, a conflict between the operating mechanisms of the two kinds. Let us examine these contradictions and the ways in which they are resolved in ontogeny in greater detail.

Suppose that the strongest subcortical center falls “under the pressure” of RME and its connections with the PFC are suppressed. This may lead to some suppression of the activity of the center itself, but it will nevertheless remain strong. At the same time, its activation is not demanded by the prefrontal cortex. Where will it go? First, it will be “expended” by specific centers not directly connected with thinking – for example, subcortical motor centers (which will be reflected in the person’s overall activity). Second, and much more importantly, the excess activation may be directed to low-dimensional executive centers. They are relatively independent of the multidimensional centers (represented by the PFC) and are occupied with routine, automatized actions in which one can do without the higher dimensions of functions and blocks [8]. As a result, it will turn out that in low-dimensional functions a person operates “in the wrong temperament” compared with multidimensional functions: for example, an ILE, when solving ethical or sensing tasks, may behave more like an introvert and/or a rational. Incidentally, according to V.L. Talanov’s data [10], this often does occur (although Talanov interprets this fact within the framework of his Model T). V.V. Mironov also proposed a scheme for distributing temperaments across the blocks of Model A [4].

Thus, the contradiction between factors of the two kinds results in the multidimensional executive center being dominated not by the strongest temperament (in absolute strength), but by another one (most likely the second strongest); at the same time, the first may dominate in the low-dimensional center (Fig. 4). This is resolution of the contradiction by means of separation in space: in TRIZ (the theory of inventive problem solving), it is one of the universal methods for resolving contradictions, along with separation in time (when competing centers alternate in dominance). The latter also occurs in the human psyche, since temperamental centers are capable of changing their activity according to situational demands. However, what interests us here are conservative properties of socionic functions that do not depend on the current situation: according to [7], they are determined by the system of long-range connections in the brain, and the latter are relatively stable; therefore, separation in time does not work for them.

Fig. 4. In the multidimensional and low-dimensional executive centers, connections with different specific systems dominate (see bold lines), as a result of which the former is “configured” as ILI (and operates in that mode), while the latter is configured as SLE.

Separation in space, as a way of resolving competition among different brain systems, can manifest in other ways as well. Recall that there are in fact four executive centers [8]: in the frontal and parieto-occipital cortex, on the left and on the right. Two of them are multidimensional, two are low-dimensional, and they are relatively independent of one another. As a result, one of the multidimensional centers may be preferentially connected with one temperament and one block of functions, while the second is connected with others (Fig. 5). Of these two centers, apparently, the one located in the speech-dominant hemisphere is decisive for TIM: after all, TIM, in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of socionists, is reflected in vocabulary and speech structure. (As a rule, the speech-dominant hemisphere in right-handed people is the left one, while in left-handed people it varies.) However, the second, non-speech executive center may produce subtype enhancement in the form of an increased tendency to process information in a given mode, but without its proper elaboration in verbal thinking and, consequently, without sufficient awareness of the process.

Fig. 5. Different connections dominate in the multidimensional executive centers in the left and right hemispheres; the left center (dominant in verbal thinking) is “configured” as ILI, while the right is configured as SLE.

The separation of functions between the hemispheres may resolve a possible conflict between two mechanisms of connection growth (although we believe that connections are “programmed” mainly by epigenetics, they are nevertheless also influenced by genetic factors; see above). Suppose that genetic factors specify a strong connection of the executive centers with sensing, while RME, conversely, “pushes” sensing into the low-dimensional centers. However, it can push it only out of the PFC of the dominant hemisphere, leaving its strong connection with the PFC of the opposite hemisphere (Fig. 5). In the same way, lateralization of PFC connections with temperamental activation centers is possible in principle: the left PFC is “closed” mainly onto one temperament, and the right PFC onto another.

In this regard, the results of T.A. Meshkova’s study of asymmetry in cortical bioelectrical activity (EEG and evoked potentials) in twins (as presented in [9]) are very illustrative:

• Twins are characterized by different degrees of EEG asymmetry. If one twin has pronounced asymmetry, the EEG of the other is, as a rule, symmetrical;
• Genetic factors manifest more strongly in the right hemisphere, and environmental factors in the left;
• The intensity of EEG asymmetry is determined by environmental factors;
• All these features are most clearly detected in the EEG of temporal regions.

What does this mean? Recall that the left hemisphere is normally specialized for processing social signals (not only speech and not only in humans, but also in other species; among other things, it is responsible for birdsong). The predominance of environmental factors in the development of the left hemisphere means that mainly social signals are operating – precisely of the kind assumed by us for the epigenetic effects (including the twin effect). In the opposite hemisphere, by contrast, the action of predominantly genetic factors remains. Thus, our hypothetical model of TIM formation is fully consistent with T.A. Meshkova’s results. The observation that asymmetry is most clearly detected in temporal regions may indicate the predominant role in TIM formation not of the prefrontal (multidimensional) executive centers, but, conversely, of the temporoparietal (low-dimensional) executive centers. Indeed, at this age the prefrontal cortex has not yet formed, and according to our model, connections with the low-dimensional ECs develop first, and only afterward with the multidimensional ones (see Fig. 3).

(One further observation. The compatibility of our model with the pattern of functional asymmetry of cortical activity in twins indicates that the best criterion for determining TIM should most likely be the EEG and EP asymmetry of the person being typed – either at rest or while performing different tasks. But this pertains more to the tasks of the future development of socionics.)

Finally, the principle of separation in space for resolving contradictions may also operate within an individual executive center. The latter maintains connections with all functional regions, but some connections are stronger and others weaker, as a result of which the center has access to an excess quantity of resources (information, activation) from the former and an insufficient quantity from the latter. Separation in space may result in different functions and blocks being “crossed” primarily with different temperaments. Suppose that the area of the EC onto which the strongest connections from, say, sensing-logical regions converge is “fed” mainly by rational-introverted activation. But in another, smaller area of the EC that maintains connections with intuitive-logical regions, another type of activation may dominate, say, irrational-introverted activation (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Nonuniform crossing of connections with different functional systems within the same executive center. LSI-type and ILI-type configurations dominate.

Of course, in different executive centers, functions and blocks may be “crossed” with temperaments differently. Example: the left PFC is connected predominantly with sensing-logic and rational introversion (LSI), while the right is connected with logic-intuition and irrational extraversion (ILE). In this case, behavior will show a relative balancing of the sensing/intuition, extraversion/introversion, and rationality/irrationality traits. At the same time, however, the Reinin traits formed at the intersection of the weakened Jungian traits will be strengthened: in this case, “Tactical” and “Carefree” (because in thinking, sensing will be tied to introversion-rationality, and intuition to extraversion and irrationality). Here we see that the expression of Reinin traits by no means necessarily “adds up” from the expression of the constituent Jungian traits: on the contrary, cases are possible in which a Reinin trait formed by two relatively blurred Jungian traits is expressed very strongly due to increased asymmetry in the “crossing” of informational and activation connections. This view, incidentally, is held by a number of socionists – V. Mironov, A. Trekhov, and A. Bukalov.

Thus, we have shown that competition between genetic and epigenetic factors of TIM formation in ontogeny is resolved by quite “peaceful” and standard means. Moreover, a psyche formed under conditions of strong competition between factors potentially has access to more diverse modes of information metabolism. Moreover, the latter clearly extends beyond the framework of Model A and Reinin theory. On the basis of the model of the distribution of activity and functional connections among executive centers, it is possible in principle to construct a new, more complex theory of subtypes that takes into account different structures of interaction between the activation and informational factors of TIM (= activation centers and connections with prefrontal executive centers). One possible solution is shown in [8]. However, we do not yet have a final solution to the subtype question, because competition between factors has so far been worked out only in general form, without sufficient specificity (the neurophysiological factors of information metabolism have so far been established only approximately). Nor are methods of typing by behavior and speech yet suitable for determining a large number of factors (the strength of centers and connections of all four executive systems of the brain). EEG and tomography may perhaps be of help here.

Returning to the question of interaction between factors, it can be summarized that the more factors in the brain (and psyche) work against one another, competing, the more “harmonious” the psyche and personality appear. Different brain systems and connections produce a complex mosaic pattern of activity in which different functions manifest themselves (but each with its own characteristics; for example, one of them is multidimensional but connected to an energetically weak activation center, another is the reverse, and so on). A psyche in which factors do not compete but instead add together, acting in the same direction, is necessarily simpler and poorer in its manifestations (although such people are much easier and more unambiguous to type, which is very difficult to achieve when many factors compete). It also has more weak points and “inaccessible” modes of operation, although this is often compensated for by outstanding capacities of strong – and even excessively strengthened – functions and modes of operation.

However, the principal epigenetic influences, as we have already established, are reverse effects: on some trait, the child is “repelled” from the same trait of the mother. Moreover, this repulsion occurs through the nonverbal, fundamentally ethological and essentially energy-related side of mother-child interaction. But “energy”, as already stated, is determined predominantly by genetic factors. Consequently, the child’s phenotypic trait (say, extraversion/introversion) is “repelled” from the same genotypic factor of the mother – and combines with a likewise genotypic factor inherited from one of the parents. If it comes from the mother, they balance one another through the mechanisms of competition described above. But if the second factor is inherited from the father, and if it differs strongly from the maternal factor, they do not cancel one another but, conversely, reinforce one another.

A very interesting consequence follows: the farther apart the father’s and mother’s genotypic traits are, the greater the probability of offspring that are strongly unbalanced on the given trait. For example, the most “deeply” introverted individuals will be born not to two introverted parents, but to an introverted father and an extraverted mother (here, the parents’ “extraversion/introversion” is meant in the sense of the genetic factor). This pattern differs strikingly from the inheritance of quantitative traits ordinarily found in behavioral genetics, but we have already shown that socionic traits are two-factor.

Note that the greatest probability of the greatest difference in genetic factors – and, as a consequence, a high probability of the birth of strongly unbalanced offspring – is produced by interracial crosses. Next come parental pairs from different ethnic groups or subethnic groups (the latter sometimes differ noticeably in temperament). But in principle this probability is high in any case if the parents differ strongly from one another in temperamental factors. Let us emphasize once again: this does not fit classical behavioral genetics of quantitative traits at all. However, a similar effect has long been familiar to breeders: when breeds that are distant from one another are crossed (for example, dog breeds), behaviorally strongly unbalanced offspring are born with high probability. This is further evidence in favor of the proposition that human psychological functions and TIM develop and function according to laws common to most higher animals, rather than being something unique to humans (although, of course, the human psyche is much more complex than the animal psyche).

References

1. Gulenko V.V. Theory of Subtypes: The DCNH System.

2. Ivonin A.A., Tsitseroshin M.N., Pogosyan A.A., .Shuvaev V.T. Genetic Determination of the Neurophysiological Mechanisms of Cortico-Subcortical Integration of the Brain’s Bioelectrical Activity. // Russ. Physiol. J. 2002. Vol. 88, No. 10. pp. 1330-1342. (abstracts here)

3. Meshkova T.A., Nikolaeva N.O. Behavioral Genetics (Internet textbook, 2004).

4. Mironov V.V. Several Remarks on Model A (2007).

5. Olkova E.V. “The Origin of the Socionic Type, or Problems as an Inheritance” (2007).

6. Popov I. On the Inheritance of Socionic Traits: A Technical Analysis of E.S. Filatova’s Statistics (2006).

7. Popov I. Connections (Blocks) of Socionic Functions (2010).

8. Popov I. The Neurophysiological Nature of Function Dimensionality (2011).

9. Ravich-Shcherbo I.V., T.M. Maryutina, E.L. Grigorenko. Behavioral Genetics. // Edited by I.V. Ravich-Shcherbo. – Moscow, 1999 // pp. 349-362.

10. Talanov V.L. Brief Exposition of Model “T”: A Physiological Model of Information Metabolism in the Human Psyche

11. Filatova E.S. Socionic Statistics for 299 Women, Men, and Their Children // “Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology”, Kyiv, 2000, No. 6 (33).

12. Filatova E.S. Socionics and Genetics // Filatova E.S. Personality in the Mirror of Socionics: Solving the Mystery of Look-Alikes. – St. Petersburg: B&K, 2001. – 286 pp.

13. Fridman V.S. Signal Inheritance in the Maternal Behavior of Mammals

Ivan Popov, February 2011