Summary Statistics of Dominant Intertype Relations in Romantic and Friendship Pairs (Experiments With Questionnaires 065-096 in 2019-2021)
Русский оригинал этого текста пока недоступен; показан английский перевод.
For calculating relations in pairs, the following classical (according to Aushra) tables of correspondence between trait poles were used:
| Relation of the second to the first, if the 1st member of the pair is irrational | Identity | Mirror | Duality | Activation | Business | Supervisee | Mirage | Beneficiary | Super-Ego | Conflict | Extinguishment | Quasi-identity | Kindred | Supervisor | Semi-duality | Benefactor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extraversion | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 |
| Irrationality | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 |
| Static | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| Intuition | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| Judicious (peripheral) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Tactical | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 |
| Carefree | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 |
| Logic | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
| Merry (ascending) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Constructivist | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
| Yielding | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
| Questimity | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
| Democratic (egalitarian) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Positivist | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
| Process (right) | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
| Relation of the second to the first, if the 1st member of the pair is rational | Identity | Mirror | Duality | Activation | Business | Supervisee | Mirage | Beneficiary | Super-Ego | Conflict | Extinguishment | Quasi-identity | Kindred | Supervisor | Semi-duality | Benefactor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extraversion | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 |
| Irrationality | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 |
| Static | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| Intuition | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
| Judicious (peripheral) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Tactical | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
| Carefree | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
| Logic | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| Merry (ascending) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Constructivist | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 |
| Yielding | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 |
| Questimity | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
| Democratic (egalitarian) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| Positivist | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
| Process (right) | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
Statistics of dominant intertype relations in opposite-sex romantic pairs (N=440 pairs).
In percentages.
| Relation of the second to the first | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken “as is” (according to its actual questionnaire correlation with the diagnostic vectors) Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, without taking its numerical weight into account | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken “as is” (according to its actual questionnaire correlation with the diagnostic vectors) Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, taking its numerical weight into account | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken into account according to its optimal contribution to the TIM, in accordance with generally accepted socionic practice Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, without taking its numerical weight into account | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken into account according to its optimal contribution to the TIM, in accordance with generally accepted socionic practice Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, taking its numerical weight into account |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | 8.4 | 7.1 | 8.9 | 8.4 |
| Mirror | 5.5 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 3.9 |
| Duality | 20.2 | 25.4 | 20.0 | 27.0 |
| Activation | 8.6 | 10.7 | 7.7 | 9.0 |
| Business | 4.5 | 4.2 | 5.5 | 5.1 |
| Supervisee | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 4.2 |
| Mirage | 5.1 | 5.0 | 6.7 | 5.8 |
| Beneficiary | 5.6 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Super-Ego | 4.8 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 3.1 |
| Conflict | 7.0 | 7.8 | 6.1 | 6.7 |
| Extinguishment | 1.6 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 1.5 |
| Quasi-identity | 5.2 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| Kindred | 3.6 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 2.6 |
| Supervisor | 4.3 | 3.3 | 5.2 | 3.8 |
| Semi-duality | 6.3 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 7.0 |
| Benefactor | 4.2 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 3.7 |
| TOTAL | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Statistics of dominant intertype relations in same-sex friendship pairs (N=260 pairs).
In percentages.
| Relation of the second to the first | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken “as is” (according to its actual questionnaire correlation with the diagnostic vectors) Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, without taking its numerical weight into account | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken “as is” (according to its actual questionnaire correlation with the diagnostic vectors) Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, taking its numerical weight into account | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken into account according to its optimal contribution to the TIM, in accordance with generally accepted socionic practice Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, without taking its numerical weight into account | When calculating relation strength, the magnitude of each Reinin trait is taken into account according to its optimal contribution to the TIM, in accordance with generally accepted socionic practice Calculation by the maximally dominant relation in the pair, taking its numerical weight into account |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | 11.5 | 10.2 | 10.8 | 10.0 |
| Mirror | 4.6 | 5.7 | 4.2 | 4.7 |
| Duality | 9.2 | 10.8 | 10.0 | 12.0 |
| Activation | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.5 |
| Business | 7.5 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 5.9 |
| Supervisee | 5.8 | 5.4 | 6.0 | 5.2 |
| Mirage | 5.4 | 6.2 | 5.0 | 6.2 |
| Beneficiary | 6.0 | 5.8 | 6.5 | 6.0 |
| Super-Ego | 6.2 | 6.0 | 4.6 | 4.9 |
| Conflict | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 7.6 |
| Extinguishment | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.3 |
| Quasi-identity | 3.1 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 3.5 |
| Kindred | 5.2 | 4.0 | 6.5 | 4.5 |
| Supervisor | 5.4 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.1 |
| Semi-duality | 6.5 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 7.9 |
| Benefactor | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 6.6 |
| TOTAL | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
copyleft V. L. Talanov 2022 (reproduction is permitted with citation)