Type Profiles for Auxiliary Indicators Obtained in Socionic Questionnaires

These are the auxiliary indicators produced by each questionnaire:

1. MEAN VALUE OF RAW RESPONSES GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT TO ALL QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS. A high value characterizes the respondent’s tendency to automatically agree with most of the statements presented for evaluation. The indicator is stable within the individual and is a stable personality characteristic. The indicator is used in socionic questionnaires as a corrective indicator (all of a person’s raw responses are adjusted for their correlation with this indicator).

2. SIGMA OF RAW RESPONSES. This is the width of the spread of raw ratings given by a particular individual. Some people prefer “radical” ratings, 1 or 5, and have a large sigma. Others prefer cautious ratings, 2 or 4, and have a small sigma. All raw responses in the questionnaires are also corrected for this individual sigma.

3. SOCIAL DISSIMULATION. In fact, this is rather a person’s level of self-esteem, a tendency to attribute to oneself every conceivable positive trait. People with a high value tend to characterize themselves as “I can do everything and know how to do everything, and in general everything is wonderful for me.” People with a low value, by contrast, complain about life, their shortcomings, and their maladjustment. Respondents’ answers are again necessarily corrected in the questionnaires for their correlation with this indicator.

4. SIGMA OF THE RESPONDENT’S RESULTING RAW TYPE PROFILE. This indicator characterizes the reliability of the results obtained from the questionnaire; it is closely correlated (R=0,75) with another reliability indicator – the correlation between type profiles obtained from two independent halves of the test

5. FISHER TRANSFORM OF “K”. “K” is the second indicator of test reliability; it is equal to the linear correlation between type profiles independently obtained from the two halves of the test. The Fisher transformation is a function of this correlation coefficient that brings its statistical distribution to a normal (Gaussian) form.

6. FISHER TRANSFORM OF THE CORRELATION between the respondent’s raw responses and the population-average raw responses (the so-called “personality normativity”). In fact, the population-average raw responses used here are the average of the raw responses given in all 16 type groups (with the responses in each group also first averaged in turn). A high value characterizes a person’s tendency to answer “like everyone else,” that is, in the way most people answer. In the questionnaires, this indicator is used as a control indicator. A sharp drop of this indicator to zero (normally it lies in the range from 0,15 to 0,5) indicates that the questionnaire has either been filled in with random numbers or the person is otherwise “playing tricks” with their responses.

To illustrate the second of these indicators, the sigma (spread) of the raw ratings given by the respondent in the questionnaire, we present a list of questionnaire items that correlate with the magnitude of this indicator (a positive correlation characterizes those who prefer to give “extreme” ratings, 1 and 5, while a negative one characterizes those who in most cases give “cautious” ratings, 2 and 3):

SIGMA OF RAW RESPONSES (tendency, with a large sigma, to give ratings of 1 and 5 in one’s responses, or 2 and 4 with a low sigma)

Approximate list of questionnaire items correlated with this indicator (the first part of the list, with a positive correlation of the items with sigma, consists of items with which people who give extreme ratings, 1 and 5, agree more often; the second part of the list, consisting of items having a negative correlation with sigma, characterizes people who prefer cautious ratings of 2, 3, and 4 in their responses):

1. If I am reproached for something, I feel neither shame nor remorse; I feel only resentment in return and a desire to insist on having my way. 0,32
2. In response to someone’s questions, I sometimes experience instantaneous flashes of irritable anger. 0,28
3. In my strong passions, as a rule I ignore how they may affect other people’s feelings. 0,27
4. To my taste, most people have too much that is primitively animal and too little that is spiritual and genuinely human. 0,26
5. A situation in which I do not get what I want is unbearable to me. 0,26
6. I prefer to be treated immediately with “strong” doses of medication. 0,25
7. When under nervous tension, I become noticeably more aggressive. 0,25
8. I am usually very stubborn in my intentions. 0,25
9. I am more exacting in monitoring my logic than my ethical-emotional expressions (I more often allow the latter to proceed however they happen to). 0,25
10. I do not have particularly deep attachments - my partners probably change more often than other people’s. 0,25
11. I like to classify events and objects by comparing them with one another according to some attribute. 0,25
12. I outpace others in completing tasks where one has to move forward by trial and error, constantly comparing in one’s mind with some standard of the desired final result. 0,24
13. I am easily thrown off when people interfere and distract me from the task. 0,24
14. I have aggressive-impulsive traits. 0,24
15. I insist that relatives who want to enter my room ask permission. 0,23
16. I cannot tolerate idle pastime, which is why I do not relax even while resting. 0,23
17. I like tragic films. 0,23
18. I sometimes have states of strong arousal and fidgety restlessness, when my body is hot, it is difficult to concentrate my thoughts, my heart beats faster, and my mouth is dry. 0,23
19. It happens fairly often that I suddenly and sharply experience a feeling of rejection and irritated protest. 0,23
20. I am so certain of the sole correctness of my way of thinking and my values in life that, whenever possible, I always try to impose them on others. 0,22
21. Most often, I am dissatisfied with or disappointed by the attitude of the people around me toward me. 0,22

22. I am almost always confident that my superiors are right. -0,35
23. I more often play and manipulate with what I supposedly believe or do not believe, but the rigor of logical conclusions is sacred to me; I do not tolerate logical manipulations in disputes. -0,34
24. When choosing a course of action, I am more often guided not by a possible reward, but by a possible punishment. -0,30
25. I can write using different handwriting styles without any problem. -0,30
26. I like learning various card tricks that require manual dexterity. -0,30
27. I am sometimes inclined to greatly exaggerate the severity of my illnesses, mistakenly assuming the worst. -0,29
28. I quickly become bored when I am left at home alone. -0,28
29. If I start having daydreams or fantasies, they are usually long, continuing without interruption for about fifteen minutes or longer. -0,27
30. I would like to work as a stable hand, caring for horses. -0,27
31. I like trying and learning various new manual manipulations - for example, solving a Rubik’s Cube blindfolded, learning to juggle objects, “sleight-of-hand” tricks, etc. -0,27
32. My sensations can be intrusive and often interfere with me. -0,27
33. As a rule, I am irritated by frequent changes of people in my surroundings. -0,27
34. I am careless and relatively insensitive with regard to my own time. -0,27
35. I often deliberately imagine various situations solely in order to derive pleasure from these thoughts. -0,26
36. I always notice keenly when something needed for success is lacking in a situation. -0,26
37. It is true that I am not inclined to extremes and prefer a very gradual development of events and gradual resolution of problems. -0,26
38. I more often hold someone back than spur them to do something. -0,26
39. I have a problem with desires and drives - I often feel a lack of them. -0,26

This indicator has its highest value in SLE and LSI (they answer “1” or “5” more often than anyone else), and its lowest in EII, SEI, and ESE, who give “cautious” responses with the smallest spread.

The attached figures show the type profiles of all six auxiliary questionnaire indicators, obtained in two different ways, namely:

1. By averaging the indicators in each type group formed on the basis of the questionnaire diagnosis results
2. By averaging the indicators in each type group formed on the basis of the types self-reported by the respondents.

Fig. 1. DELTAS (IN FRACTIONS OF THE POPULATION SIGMA) BY DIAGNOSED TYPE GROUPS - CENTERED (WITH AN INTERTYPE ZERO)

Fig. 2. DELTAS (IN FRACTIONS OF THE POPULATION SIGMA) BY SELF-REPORTED TYPE GROUPS - CENTERED (WITH AN INTERTYPE ZERO)

Fig. 3. FISHER TRANSFORMS OF CORRELATIONS WITH THE 16 COLUMNS OF INDIVIDUAL RAW TYPE PROFILES, MULTIPLIED BY A COEFFICIENT OF 2.5