Interim Results of the First Large-Scale Experiment in History on the Study of Socionic Intertype Relations

A word from V. L. Talanov:

• THE BASIC PROPOSITIONS OF SOCIONICS CONCERNING INTERTYPE RELATIONS ARE FULLY CONFIRMED BY THE INTERIM RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT (including propositions that are unique specifically to socionics - in comparison, for example, with MBTI).

Duality relations lead all others by a substantial margin in popularity among opposite-sex pairs (this applies to intimate, friendship, and even kinship relations, although the contrast is stronger for intimate relations). By contrast, in same-sex pairs, duality relations occupy a middle position in frequency, while identity relations predominate. And again, this applies to intimate, friendship, and even kinship pairs.

The rarest types of relations are, as socionics predicts, relations with the opposite quadra (for example, for Alpha – with Gamma, that is, with the quadra in which all valued functions differ). On average across all groups, quasi-identity, extinguishment, and superego relations have the lowest frequency of occurrence. As it turned out, mirror relations do not differ from them in frequency (they are also rare). Conflict relations, however, occupy an intermediate position in frequency.

A separate word should be said about relations between blood relatives. Apparently, the results of our experiment will not make it possible to establish indices of trait heritability. The reason is that related pairs are subject to the same laws of psychological interaction as unrelated pairs. For two people to find common ground and coordinate joint actions in sending their questionnaires for processing, particular types of relations are required (predominantly duality relations in opposite-sex pairs and predominantly identity relations in same-sex pairs). And, as the statistics show, this regularity applies equally to pairs of blood relatives. Thus, the statistics of these pairs, which send their questionnaires for processing voluntarily, mainly reflect the same notorious peculiarities of socionic relations, while saying almost nothing about indices of genetic heritability (to study the latter, compulsory rather than voluntary type diagnosis would have to be carried out in preselected pairs of blood relatives). A curious exception is the increased percentage of conflict relations in pairs of same-sex relatives – in this case, the voluntary presentation of these pairs for diagnosis is apparently generated by a desire to understand the origins of the intrafamilial conflict that has already developed within these pairs. Presumably, in opposite-sex pairs, conflict relations lack the potential for real conflict that they have in same-sex pairs.

COULD THE STUDY RESULTS BE THE RESULT OF RESPONDENTS UNCONSCIOUSLY “FITTING” THEIR TYPES WHILE COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRES TO THE MODELS OF THE INTERTYPE RELATIONS MOST POPULAR IN SOCIONICS?

Our answer: NO, and this “NO” is based on the following experimental results:

1. 102 pairs of respondents connected by intimate (sexual) relations were divided into three subgroups with different levels of socionics competence. The first consisted of 34 pairs with the most pronounced socionics naivety. The product of the socionics-competence scores of the members of these pairs ranged from 1 to 3 (recall that 1 is the minimum level, corresponding to complete ignorance of socionics). The third subgroup likewise consisted of 34 pairs, but, conversely, had the highest level of average socionics competence within the pairs. The product of the socionics-competence scores of the members of these pairs ranged from 6 to 16. It turned out that the third subgroup, compared with the first, had no advantage in the frequency of duality relations (which, however, received the highest ranking both in the first and third subgroups and among all 102 respondents in the intimate-relations group).

2. Intertype relations were compared in groups of opposite-sex and same-sex relations. The classical socionics of Aušra Augustinavičiūtė says nothing about differences in the preferred types of relations in these groups. Its prediction is the same in all cases, and in every case it predicts an advantage for duality relations.

   However, our experiment detects an advantage for duality relations only in groups of opposite-sex pairs, which is completely inconsistent with the claims of classical socionics, but is fully consistent with considerations that follow directly from evolutionary biology.

DOES THE VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONNAIRES FOR PROCESSING DISTORT THE RELATIONSHIP STATISTICS?

• There is no doubt that the voluntary submission of questionnaires for processing affects the relationship statistics, and this is clearly visible, for example, in pairs of blood relatives. If we conducted a complete survey within families, we are convinced that we would obtain entirely different relationship statistics. But in pairs connected by intimate or friendship relations, it essentially has no effect. By definition, friendship and intimate relations are precisely those in which the members of a pair are capable of interacting effectively with one another, arriving at common decisions and joint actions. But it is this condition alone that is contrasted by the principle of voluntary submission of paired questionnaires for processing.

HOW DID WE DETERMINE THE TYPES OF RELATIONS WITHIN PAIRS?

• This was done not from a single leading peak of the type profile, but from the type profile as a whole (sometimes this corresponds to a different diagnosed type of relation, with the type diagnosed from the type profile as a whole being the more accurate one).

Each type of relation corresponds to a matrix of equality or inversion of signs across the 15 Reinin traits. This matrix can be applied to transform each initial type profile into 16 profiles related to the initial profile by the 16 forms of intertype relations. The profile of the second actual member of the pair can then be correlated with all these “ideal” profiles of the 16 possible relations, and the one for which the correlation is highest can be selected.

But it is also possible to proceed differently, and this method gives even more accurate and stable results. First, a certain transition vector of transition from one member of the pair to the other member of the pair is calculated. This is a vector of 15 Reinin traits, where each element of the vector (for example, for vertedness) is calculated as:

= знак(экстрав1*экстрав2)*корень(abs(экстрав1*экстрав2))

Next, the vector of 15 transitional Reinin traits composed of such elements is transformed, using a matrix that converts the 15 Reinin traits into 16 relation types, into quantitative indicators of all 16 possible intertype relations. Ultimately, the relation with the largest resulting final value is selected.

This may be difficult to understand immediately in words. But anyone who has already dealt with such things in practice (Ivan Romanov, Andrey Parfenov, et al.) will readily understand what is meant.

MAIN PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FIRST STAGE OF THE STUDY:

1. In opposite-sex pairs (regardless of how they are formed – sex, friendship, or even blood-relative pairs), duality relations predominate, whereas in same-sex pairs identity relations predominate (including in same-sex pairs of blood relatives!). This circumstance indicates a close connection between duality (complementarity) and the sexual instinct – in this way, apparently, the genetic opposition of the gametes being combined is achieved unconsciously (the principle of genetic centripetality). In relations within same-sex pairs, by contrast, what predominates in their formation is not the principle of attraction between opposites, but the principle of value kinship.

2. Conflict relations are substantially less frequent than duality relations in opposite-sex pairs, whereas in same-sex pairs they are equal to them in frequency, which in this case is at an intermediate level.

3. The rarest relations, which apparently do not lead to the formation of pairs capable of acting effectively together, are quasi-identity, extinguishment, superego, and, somewhat more surprisingly, mirror relations. Benefit, supervision, mirage, and semi-duality relations are fairly common (even more so than business and kindred relations!).

4. In opposite-sex pairs, the logic–ethics, intuition–sensing, and positivism–negativism poles of the pair members most often complement one another according to the principle of attraction between opposites, whereas the poles of rationality and of the value traits (judiciousness–decisiveness, merriness–seriousness, democracy–aristocracy) most often coincide.

5. According to the results of the experiment, socionics currently turns out to be the only psychological typology existing in the world that provides a largely correct, experimentally confirmed prediction of the comfort and effectiveness of relations in pairs of people of different psychotypes. In this respect, it obviously far surpasses both the MBTI system and the Big Five system.

NOTE:

In the attached tables, owing to the specifics of the experimental derivation of the percentages, the frequencies of business relations are averaged with kindred relations, supervisee relations with supervisor relations, beneficiary relations with benefactor relations, and mirage relations with semi-duality relations.

168 opposite-sex pairs (share of relations in percentages)

132 same-sex pairs (share of relations in percentages)

Correlation of traits within pairs:

V. L. Talanov 2019 Copyleft (free reproduction is permitted)