Socionics and the RF-15 Lexical Personality Model

I. Y. Romanov · December 2024 · source: https://socionavigator.com/vk/125

Русский оригинал этого текста пока недоступен; показан английский перевод.

The 15-factor model of the lexicon of personality traits in the Russian language was created by A.G. Shmelev in the 1980s - 1991.

More details about it can be found, for example, in the book Psychodiagnostics of Personality Traits” (pages 62-65).

The author (I.Yu. Romanov) translated the factors of this model into the language of socionics. To do this, from the list of 1200 questionnaire statements from V.L. Talanov’s questionnaires available in open access, we selected those properties that, in our opinion, are semantically closest to the set of personality properties corresponding to each RF-15 factor.

Five personality factors that, according to Shmelev’s research, are most fully reflected in the semantics of the Russian language:

Factor 1. ALTRUISM (good nature + humaneness + altruism, which is interpreted here in the broad sense of the word - applying to an indefinitely broad circle of people, not only care for close relatives)

1a (-) hard-hearted, heartless, evil, merciless, malicious, soulless, unjust, ill-disposed, cruel fanatic, gloating

1b (+) kind, kind-hearted, warm-hearted, humane, philanthropic, good-natured, altruist, benevolent, responsive, merciful, sensitive

The factor corresponds, in 60% of its socionic variance, to the JUDICIOUSNESS trait, and by another 20% to the Yieldingness trait. The altruistic functions are Ne, Si, and Fi, while Se and Ni oppose them. EII leads in the type profile.

Factor 1. “ALTRUISM” 1b (+) kind, kind-hearted, warm-hearted, humane, philanthropic, good-natured, altruist, benevolent, responsive, merciful, sensitive 1a (-) hard-hearted, heartless, evil, merciless, malicious, soulless, unjust, ill-disposed, cruel fanatic, gloating

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.14	-0.05	-0.14	-0.20	0.12	-0.06	-0.18	0.77	0.22	0.41	0.12	-0.17	0.09	-0.03	0.11

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
0.7	0.7	0.8	1.0	-1.5	-1.4	-0.6	-0.9	-0.9	0.2	-1.2	-0.3	1.1	1.9	0.3	0.2

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-2.2	2.5	1.6	-2.8	-0.8	-0.1	1.5	0.1	0.6	-1.0	-0.3	0.7

The factor was modeled using 21 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.92	YES	Compared with people I know, I am altruistic to a greater degree by character; I am almost always ready to share, try to help, and respect another person’s interests.
0.88	YES	I practically always take the requests and interests of people I barely know into account.
0.87	YES	When making decisions, I always involuntarily think whether they will harm the interests of humanity, society, or other people.
0.87	YES	I recognize and respect the intrinsic worth of every person.
0.74	YES	I readily feel sympathy for people; I often perceive even the problems of a stranger as my own.
0.68	YES	I love children very much.
0.52	YES	My mood is generally dominated by positive emotions coloring the world with feelings of brotherly love.
0.44	YES	I think that, compared with most people in my circle, I am more tolerant of the views and opinions of others and know how to forgive other people for their mistakes and misconceptions.
-0.66	NO	If someone is restricted in some freedom and this does not directly affect me, I do not care about it.
-0.74	NO	For the sake of one’s family, one may take something away from someone else.
-0.74	NO	I do not believe in people’s altruism; every person is a dyed-in-the-wool egoist at heart.
-0.75	NO	I support the death penalty.
-0.79	NO	At times I like to mock certain people.
-0.80	NO	I like bloody stories about the cruelty of barbarians.
-0.81	NO	Sometimes you insult another person - and your mood rises.
-0.82	NO	Many people fully deserve to be treated like shit.
-0.82	NO	I will pursue my goal even if I have to walk over others.
-0.83	NO	Usurpation of power at the first opportunity is more normal and natural than not.
-0.87	NO	Exploiting fools and weaklings is normal and natural.
-0.88	NO	I hate weaklings.
-0.90	NO	Sometimes I like seeing someone else’s fear.

Factor 2. INTELLECT (the intelligence factor itself has only a weak representation in socionics; however, we considered properties indicating that a person has intellectual interests)

2a (-) stupid, empty-headed, ignoramus, fool, brainless, half-wit, dull-witted, untalented, blockhead, witless, superficial, uneducated

2b (+) enlightened, reflective, thoughtful, perceptive, intellectual, profound, intelligent, well-read, educated, developed, comprehending, sharp-minded

In its projection onto socionics, the factor is composite. Among the traits, the greatest contributions are made by INTUITION and LOGIC; Statics, Negativism, Democracy, Process, and Tactics also have strong effects, but no single trait contributes more than 20% of the total variance. Intellectual interests are more typical of the Ti, Qi, and Ne functions and of the LII and ILE types.

Factor 2. “INTELLECT” 2b (+) enlightened, reflective, thoughtful, perceptive, intellectual, profound, intelligent, well-read, educated, developed, comprehending, sharp-minded 2a (-) stupid, empty-headed, ignoramus, fool, brainless, half-wit, dull-witted, untalented, blockhead, witless, superficial, uneducated

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.31	0.08	-0.15	0.38	0.43	0.16	0.23	0.08	0.30	-0.24	-0.20	0.31	0.09	0.32	-0.26

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
1.9	1.9	-1.4	-0.7	-0.2	0.2	-0.7	0.4	-1.0	-1.0	1.2	0.3	-0.2	-0.2	-1.0	0.4

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
0.4	1.7	-1.7	-1.4	2.3	0.5	-1.4	-0.5	1.6	-0.6	-1.1	0.2

The factor was modeled using 26 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.95	YES	I like to think through paradoxes and resolve them by guessing and explaining the roots of contradictions.
0.95	YES	I have a constant strong thirst for knowledge of deep laws and objective root causes.
0.93	YES	The profession of historian-researcher would suit me very well.
0.91	YES	I like searching for and accumulating all kinds of information.
0.89	YES	I have a strong attraction to purely speculative constructions.
0.87	YES	I think my vocation is discoveries and inventions that overturn established ideas.
0.86	YES	I have encyclopedic knowledge; at times I act as a “walking reference book”.
0.86	YES	More than other things, I am occupied by questions about the origin of the universe and life, evolution, historical development, and the further prospects of civilization.
0.85	YES	I like to sift through large volumes of “random” information, searching its “garbage” for valuable finds.
0.85	YES	Until I check something myself, I sometimes question even what is written in a textbook.
0.84	YES	I would not begrudge a couple of days to get to the truth of why a downpour begins specifically after a lightning strike.
0.73	YES	I am more intelligent than most people I know.
0.72	YES	More than the meaning of my own life, I am interested in the meaning of the life of all humanity, the meaning of the emergence of life as such. To understand my own meaning, I first need to understand all this.
0.72	YES	I often think about the shortcomings of legislation and existing rules and arrangements.
0.67	YES	I notice subtle nuances in development trends earlier than others.
-0.34	NO	I give little thought to what will happen tomorrow.
-0.37	NO	I did not do very well at school.
-0.45	NO	I must admit, I am a bit of a “slow thinker”.
-0.50	NO	I do not need the truth if it interferes with my life.
-0.50	NO	When acting as an executor, I ask no unnecessary questions and have no doubts in the course of the work.
-0.53	NO	”Truth-seekers” who say whatever is on their mind seem to me harmful eccentrics.
-0.56	NO	It is true that I do not want to know anything that spoils my mood.
-0.61	NO	What do you strive for more often? 1) Eternal truth. 2) Immediate usefulness.
-0.62	NO	I have a peculiar “arithmetical blindness” - perceiving numbers and operating with them is probably harder for me than for many others.
-0.65	NO	I am always a little short of clarity in understanding something.
-0.77	NO	”The voice of blood” always carries more weight than political disputes.

Factor 3. ACTUAL ENERGY

3a (-) apathetic, downcast, sluggish, inert, slow, sedentary, pessimist, despondent, passive, sleepy, melancholy, phlegmatic

3b (+) energetic, lively, brisk, temperamental, mobile, animated, irrepressible, restless, sprightly, spirited, ringleader, fast

The factor corresponds to socionic EXTRAVERSION, which accounts for about 70% of its variance. Among the functions, the personality’s energy potential is increased by De, Se, Fe, and Te and weakened by Ni and Qi.

Factor 3. “ACTUAL ENERGY” 3b (+) energetic, lively, brisk, temperamental, mobile, animated, irrepressible, restless, sprightly, spirited, ringleader, fast 3a (-) apathetic, downcast, sluggish, inert, slow, sedentary, pessimist, despondent, passive, sleepy, melancholy, phlegmatic

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.10	0.85	-0.18	-0.03	-0.20	-0.24	-0.01	0.02	0.07	0.31	0.16	-0.10	-0.01	0.00	0.06

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
0.6	-1.1	-0.7	1.3	1.1	-0.6	-1.3	0.6	0.8	-0.4	-1.4	1.2	0.8	-0.8	-1.0	1.0

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-1.9	0.1	-0.5	1.2	-0.6	1.0	-0.4	1.1	-1.2	-0.2	-0.3	1.7

The factor was modeled using 18 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.97	YES	I often take initiative.
0.90	YES	An idea of something immediately turns into action, movement, and work for me; I do not need time for an intermediate emotional buildup and getting going.
0.89	YES	I am a restless person, unable to sit still, and at times fussily active.
0.89	YES	I often introduce my friends to people they need.
0.85	YES	Every minute of mine is filled with the seething energy of life and happiness.
0.81	YES	In conversation I sometimes begin gesticulating broadly and waving my arms.
0.78	YES	When on vacation I find it very boring to sit in one place - I prefer all kinds of trips and excursions; the more, the better.
-0.77	NO	I am often in a state of inactive dejection.
-0.77	NO	I am usually relaxed and uncollected; sustained business activity is difficult for me if I have to remain mobile and dynamic for a long time.
-0.80	NO	Without moving, I watch the bustle of the world and philosophize through sleep.
-0.86	NO	My body lacks muscular tone.
-0.86	NO	I am more phlegmatic than excitable.
-0.87	NO	My handshake is rather soft, somewhat limp, and cautious.
-0.90	NO	I tire quickly from intensive communication.
-0.91	NO	I personally begin to act only when there is no one else to do it.
-0.94	NO	I often feel phlegmatic and need “prodding” from others.
-0.95	NO	I am sedentary; at times I can sit for a long time without moving at all.
-0.97	NO	I am very slow and dreamy; it is not easy to stir me into action in reality.

Factor 4. RATIONAL SELF-CONTROL

4a (+) dutiful, trim, punctual, organized, responsible, precise, collected, diligent, assiduous, painstaking, neat, tidy

4b (-) slack, distractible, careless, slacker, negligent, irresponsible, disorganized, uncollected, inconsistent, poor at managing affairs, loose, disorderly

The factor corresponds to socionic RATIONALITY, which accounts for about 70% of its variance. Among the functions, self-control is increased by Te, Ti, Fi, and Di and reduced by Ne, Ni, Si, and Qi. LSI and LSE lead in the type profile, while IEI, ILE, and IEE oppose them.

Factor 4. “RATIONAL SELF-CONTROL” 4a (+) dutiful, trim, punctual, organized, responsible, precise, collected, diligent, assiduous, painstaking, neat, tidy 4b (-) slack, distractible, careless, slacker, negligent, irresponsible, disorganized, uncollected, inconsistent, poor at managing affairs, loose, disorderly

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.12	0.03	-0.82	0.15	-0.24	-0.27	-0.12	-0.19	-0.17	0.18	-0.21	0.10	-0.01	-0.06	-0.06

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
-1.4	0.3	-0.9	0.7	0.2	1.5	-1.4	0.3	-0.6	0.9	-0.6	1.0	-1.3	0.7	-0.8	1.4

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-1.5	-2.4	-1.2	0.2	1.4	1.9	1.2	0.3	-1.2	-0.4	1.4	0.2

The factor was modeled using 29 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.97	YES	I always see everything through to the end, even if almost no interest in the matter remains.
0.96	YES	In the morning I always have clear thoughts about what I will be doing this evening.
0.91	YES	I always take obligations very seriously.
0.90	YES	I am a disciplined person.
0.83	YES	I like activity involving long-term responsibility.
0.82	YES	I am hardworking and like being kept busy with work assigned to me.
0.79	YES	I have a set of strategic goals laid out step by step for several years.
0.77	YES	I make mistakes in my work extremely rarely.
0.74	YES	I constantly perceive time as a crucial resource; I deliberately rationalize and plan its use.
0.70	YES	Every day I carefully make my bed, even when this is not necessary.
0.63	YES	I always feel responsible for other people.
-0.61	NO	I often forget where I put things in my own home.
-0.67	NO	Deep down I have a passion for wandering and vagrancy.
-0.74	NO	Sometimes fools get angry because I was late somewhere or did not show up at all.
-0.76	NO	I like idling.
-0.77	NO	I often act impulsively and, as later events show, without thinking everything through to the end.
-0.82	NO	It often happens that I find it very difficult to tear myself away from a game I have started even though more important matters await.
-0.82	NO	I must admit that I treat both my own and other people’s time very freely.
-0.83	NO	I have to admit that I have a habit of being late.
-0.85	NO	I find it difficult to consciously concentrate my attention on a task - no matter how hard I try, I still involuntarily get distracted by all kinds of interfering external stimuli.
-0.85	NO	If something is not working out and thereby strains me, I can often abandon the work and say: ”…Go to hell!”
-0.87	NO	I like professions in which there is no long-term responsibility: the day is over, the job is done, and that is that.
-0.88	NO	I leave many things unfinished because I want to learn and grasp the main thing, while all kinds of finishing “to proper condition” no longer interest me much.
-0.92	NO	In my activities I need frequent distractions and breaks, otherwise everything quickly becomes boring.
-0.92	NO	The saying “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow” is closer to me than the saying “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today”.
-0.93	NO	I begin to exert myself mainly when things get pressing or I am forced.
-0.93	NO	I am poorly organized and tolerate no control.
-0.95	NO	I usually prepared for exams only during the last day or two beforehand.
-0.98	NO	I do not like forcing myself or confining myself within plans or schedules.

Factor 5. CONFLICT PRONENESS (the name is unsuccessful; this is more about strength of will, a strong-willed personality capable of standing up for and defending one’s rights)

5a (+) fearless, unbending, defiant, strong, strong-willed, hardened, standing one’s ground, unwavering, fighter, intrepid, brave, firm

5b (-) weak-charactered, weak-willed, spineless, pathetic, doormat, characterless, weak, subservient, meek, dependent, faint-hearted, cowardly

In essence, this concerns stereotypical masculinity, a testosterone personality type. The factor is composed of the socionic traits STATICS, EXTRAVERSION, and LOGIC, and, to a lesser extent, Sensing, Decisiveness, Questimity, and Obstinacy. The decisive contribution to the positive pole of the property is made by the Se function. SLE, SEE, ILE, and LSE lead in the type profile; EII, SEI, and IEI are at the opposite pole.

Factor 5. “CONFLICT PRONENESS” (strong-willed personality) 5a (+) fearless, unbending, defiant, strong, strong-willed, hardened, standing one’s ground, unwavering, fighter, intrepid, brave, firm 5b (-) weak-charactered, weak-willed, spineless, pathetic, doormat, characterless, weak, subservient, meek, dependent, faint-hearted, cowardly

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.51	0.54	0.02	0.38	-0.27	0.21	0.03	-0.29	0.05	-0.26	-0.01	-0.01	-0.02	0.12	0.12

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
1.0	-0.4	-1.6	0.1	1.7	0.6	-1.3	0.0	1.2	-0.4	-0.5	0.7	-0.1	-1.7	-0.2	0.9

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-1.0	-0.6	-1.1	2.8	1.2	1.0	-1.3	-1.0	0.7	0.5	-0.8	-0.4

The factor was modeled using 22 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.88	YES	I know how to defend my interests sharply when someone tries to deprive me of something.
0.88	YES	I am a fearless person.
0.86	YES	I express my point of view even if I risk thereby coming into conflict with the majority of my friends.
0.81	YES	It is true that I never question the correctness of my behavior and actions.
0.76	YES	I am always obstinate and persistent in my demands.
0.76	YES	I am more a nonconformist than a conformist - I more often stir up disputes and objections than bring people to agreement.
0.75	YES	I easily make decisions that will lead to a positive result on the condition that I first have to pass through a zone of great resistance.
0.68	YES	I readily take on difficult tasks that pose an emotional challenge, and devote myself to them passionately, forgetting food and rest.
0.66	YES	I am a brave person in striving for success.
0.62	YES	In my words and actions I often go “against the current” - I even like it.
0.61	YES	When defending ideas I believe in, I am not embarrassed to remain misunderstood.
-0.79	NO	It is useful for me when I am controlled.
-0.79	NO	At times I catch myself experiencing paralysis of the will and beginning to ingratiate myself with a person who is superior to me.
-0.80	NO	I am often tormented by doubts about the correctness of my decisions and actions.
-0.81	NO	I find it very difficult to exert volitional pressure on people or persuade someone to do something.
-0.84	NO	In emergency situations I usually become frightened and uneasy.
-0.85	NO	I often feel like a victim of circumstances and feel unable to change anything.
-0.86	NO	I am often prone to timidity, which manifests as a sudden feeling of threat from outside and a desire to freeze immediately in place.
-0.88	NO	I often lack faith in my abilities.
-0.89	NO	My character is such that I often need leadership as well as moral, physical, and material support from others.
-0.91	NO	I lack self-respect.
-0.93	NO	When I need to evaluate some step and make a practical decision, I am usually indecisive and prone to hesitation.

Ten more important factors that, according to Shmelev’s research, also have a substantial representation in the semantics of the Russian language:

Factor 6. POTENTIAL ENERGY (reactive aggression, choleric temperament)

6a (+) unrestrained, psychopathic, irritable, unbalanced, furious, hot-tempered, deranged, possessed, crazed, prickly, combative, hysterical

6b (-) calm, compliant, tolerant, polite, balanced, loyal, accommodating, even-tempered, peaceful, normal, moderate, domestic

The main contributions to the factor are made by Extraversion, Questimity, Constructivism, Cheerfulness, and Decisiveness, each accounting for 10…20% of the variance. Among the functions, Qe, Se, and Fe are on the positive side, while Di, Si, Fi, and De are on the negative side.

The factor separates the EIE and EII types; EIE is joined by types with creative Ti, while EII is joined by the other peripheral introverts.

Factor 6. “POTENTIAL ENERGY” (reactive aggression) 6a (+) unrestrained, psychopathic, irritable, unbalanced, furious, hot-tempered, deranged, possessed, crazed, prickly, combative, hysterical 6b (-) calm, compliant, tolerant, polite, balanced, loyal, accommodating, even-tempered, peaceful, normal, moderate, domestic

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.05	0.56	0.13	-0.02	-0.03	0.42	0.34	-0.27	-0.12	0.12	0.04	0.14	0.42	0.18	-0.23

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
1.4	-1.1	-1.0	0.4	1.5	-0.8	-0.2	1.8	0.8	-0.2	-0.6	-0.2	0.1	-1.5	-1.0	0.5

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
0.3	-0.1	-1.2	1.7	0.3	-0.8	-1.7	1.4	0.4	2.1	-1.4	-1.1

The factor was modeled using 24 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.92	YES	It often happens that, when communicating with people, I speak in raised tones.
0.90	YES	I am often excited and often get irritated, and at the same time I speak so quickly that my interlocutors find it difficult to follow my thought.
0.90	YES	Quite often, on my own initiative, I “fight” and quarrel with relatives.
0.88	YES	I am hot-tempered by nature.
0.87	YES	In case of failure I experience it violently, lashing out at others with accusations, but not for long - by evening I cool down completely.
0.87	YES	More often I end up riling up the people around me than calming them down.
0.86	YES	My character is marked by rebelliousness, a rebellious spirit, and a tendency toward critical disagreement.
0.86	YES	After taking offense, I usually shout and rage until the offender himself bursts, or until some misfortune happens to him - then I immediately calm down.
0.84	YES	I am undiplomatic and easily become indignant.
0.82	YES	At times I insist on my own so persistently that those around me lose patience.
0.81	YES	In childhood my games often ended in scandals and fights.
0.81	YES	At least a couple of times a week, in my relations with people close to me, I have emotional outbursts of fury and malice.
0.80	YES	I have aggressive-impulsive traits.
-0.66	NO	Compared with others, I am a very peace-loving person, alien even to thoughts of violence.
-0.73	NO	I always observe generally accepted norms of behavior.
-0.81	NO	I am always disposed toward exceptionally polite communication, without rudeness or prodding.
-0.82	NO	In practically everything I am a balanced person.
-0.83	NO	It is very difficult to make me lose my temper; I do not even remember the last time it happened.
-0.84	NO	When necessary, I always slow down and stop easily.
-0.84	NO	It would be very difficult to bring me to anger.
-0.86	NO	In childhood I was an obedient and compliant child.
-0.86	NO	I always have a calm, pacifying aura.
-0.88	NO	I very rarely feel a desire to object and argue.
-0.92	NO	It is very difficult to make me lose control and make me swear aloud at relatives and acquaintances.

Factor 7. MATURE PRAGMATISM

7a (-) naive, inexperienced, unsophisticated, rash, romantic, scatterbrain, fantasist, dreamer, gullible, hapless, amusing, dreamy

7b (+) practical, experienced, seasoned, politic, worldly, realistic, battle-tested, hardened, pragmatic, rationalistic, prudent, sophisticated

Approximately 20% of the variance of semantic contribution to the factor is provided by each of Sensing, Seriousness, and Decisiveness; another 5…10% each is added by Logic, Dynamics, and Rationality. In the functional profile, Te and Se on one side oppose Ne and, to a lesser extent, Fe and Qi on the other. In the type profile, members of the ST-Practicals club and Gamma types belong to the “pragmatists”, while Humanitarians (the NF club) and Alpha types belong to the “romantics”.

Factor 7. “MATURE PRAGMATISM” 7b (+) practical, experienced, seasoned, politic, worldly, realistic, battle-tested, hardened, pragmatic, rationalistic, prudent, sophisticated 7a (-) naive, inexperienced, unsophisticated, rash, romantic, scatterbrain, fantasist, dreamer, gullible, hapless, amusing, dreamy

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
-0.26	0.08	-0.26	0.30	-0.51	-0.18	-0.46	-0.46	-0.08	-0.02	-0.06	0.00	-0.18	-0.13	0.00

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
-1.6	-0.9	-0.6	-0.1	0.9	1.3	-1.2	-0.5	0.7	0.7	0.3	1.2	-1.2	-0.9	0.5	1.4

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-0.4	-3.5	0.0	2.3	-0.4	3.0	0.5	-1.6	-1.1	0.1	0.4	0.6

The factor was modeled using 25 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.90	YES	Key words that are very important to me are: pays off or does not pay off, profitable-not profitable, expedient-not expedient.
0.85	YES	The work of a commercial director would suit me better than the work of a freelance artist.
0.81	YES	I am indifferent to theories, strive for practical activity, and prefer immediate concrete goals that bring me real benefit.
0.79	YES	Money is the key to everything.
0.77	YES	Everything in the world has its own price for me, expressed in money.
0.71	YES	Promised remuneration plays a decisive role in my interest in work.
0.70	YES	I often feel an urge to correct another person when I see that they are working uneconomically and ruining equipment.
0.68	YES	The slogans of internationalism are always either deception or sheer stupidity.
0.65	YES	I know well why I live.
0.64	YES	I am proud that I never do anything useless.
0.64	YES	I know how to demand respect for myself, to be and appear significant, and always carry myself with the requisite solidity.
0.63	YES	I can assess the quality of any food product well, explaining in detail what I like or dislike about it.
0.59	YES	I think that in any group I can orient myself and obtain for myself a position that is not conspicuous, but advantageous and “key”.
0.46	YES	Stories about heroism involving self-sacrifice generally disgust me.
0.45	YES	I am always prepared and inwardly ready for possible betrayal by friends.
0.38	YES	At signs of danger one should run first, without relying on other people’s assurances and persuasion.
-0.54	NO	I have often got into trouble because people took advantage of my trustfulness.
-0.64	NO	I often step on the same rake in life.
-0.71	NO	I often daydream about how the world could be improved.
-0.76	NO	Economics and sober calculation in practical affairs are very difficult for me.
-0.84	NO	I can find magic and unusualness in ordinary things.
-0.86	NO	I have many “childish” interests: I still read many children’s books and fairy tales with pleasure if they come to hand.
-0.89	NO	In my thoughts and concerns about the fates of the world, humanity, or a nation, I am more a selfless idealist than a pragmatist.
-0.89	NO	I often occupy myself with some nonsense, even if it has no practical significance, but is amusing.
-0.91	NO	I often get distracted by things in no way connected with today’s real needs.

Factor 8. MORALITY

8a (-) liar, double-dealer, deceitful, liar, duplicitous, hypocritical, venal, deceiver, two-faced, vicious, immoral

8b (+) unsullied, moral, truth-seeker, chaste, sinless, incorruptible, honest, highly moral, pure, truthful

The factor consists of a 30% variance contribution from Statics, with approximately another 15% each contributed by Judiciousness, Rationality, and Constructivism. In the functional profile, Ti and Qi oppose Ni. In the type profile, LII, EII, ESI, ESE, and ILE are on the positive side, while Victim types and types with creative Fi are on the negative side.

Factor 8. “MORALITY” 8b (+) unsullied, moral, truth-seeker, chaste, sinless, incorruptible, honest, highly moral, pure, truthful 8a (-) liar, double-dealer, deceitful, liar, duplicitous, hypocritical, venal, deceiver, two-faced, vicious, immoral

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.55	-0.13	-0.38	0.06	-0.09	0.17	0.15	0.43	0.13	0.28	0.01	-0.10	0.40	0.10	-0.08

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
0.8	1.7	-0.2	0.8	-0.3	0.3	-1.3	-0.6	-1.4	1.3	-1.3	-1.0	-0.7	1.3	0.1	0.5

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-2.6	0.9	0.6	-1.2	1.9	-0.4	0.6	0.1	1.6	-0.6	-0.2	-0.8

The factor was modeled using 22 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.87	YES	My weakness compared with others is that, unlike most people, I am completely unable to lie for some advantage.
0.83	YES	My problem is that I am completely unable to “be false to my conscience”.
0.83	YES	If it were up to me, I would ban all concealed secrets and all untruth in the world.
0.81	YES	It would make me sick to bathe in luxury at other people’s expense without creating anything myself.
0.79	YES	I am a truth-seeker; one can say that searching for truth and defending truth against lies is an important component of my life.
0.78	YES	I am practically incapable of “mimicry” - I am worse than others at changing my opinions to adapt them to new superiors.
0.77	YES	It is true that as a child I never secretly took other people’s toys or sweets.
0.76	YES	I have a clear set of the most important moral rules, which I always remember and invariably follow.
0.75	YES	If I fall in love, it is for life.
0.75	YES	”A slave to honor” describes me.
0.73	YES	If I say that I will do something, I absolutely always keep my promise, even if this is very inconvenient for me.
0.69	YES	What I say aloud always corresponds to my internal principles - regardless of other people’s moods and prevailing opinions.
0.61	YES	I have always fought immorality and will continue to fight it.
-0.67	NO	If I do have to deceive someone, I will never admit the deception.
-0.72	NO	I often deliberately leave the people I communicate with under a misconception.
-0.75	NO	I know how to flatter a person in order to obtain what I need.
-0.76	NO	In the mirror I usually see in myself a gaze containing a squint, slyness, and cunning.
-0.79	NO	Inventing and using traps on people is pleasant and fun.
-0.80	NO	At times I have amused myself by consciously exploiting another person’s kind attitude toward me.
-0.85	NO	If the situation is such that “there is no defense against a crowbar”, I know how to ingratiate myself with whoever is currently strong; for this I can also step over my former views and be insincere, because I consider obstinacy in such a situation not valor but stupidity.
-0.86	NO	Facts are needed only as arguments for achieving a goal, and if necessary they can be slightly manipulated.
-0.89	NO	I know how to lie convincingly to a client if my superior has instructed me to do so.

9a (+) fault-finding, nitpicking, maximalist, fanatical, conservative, grumbling, dogmatic, doctrinaire, literalist, pedantic, unrepentant

9b (-) conformist, labile, yielding, adaptive, conforming, ingratiating, insinuating, yes-man, readily imitative, evasive, cunning

The factor as a whole corresponds to the strength of the socionic Ti function, which is opposed here by both intuitive functions and De. The Rationality trait contributes 40% of the variance to the factor, and the Logic trait contributes another 20%. Overall, LSI, LII, LSE, and ESI are rigid, while all irrational ethical types are labile, especially IEE.

Factor 9. “SOCIAL RIGIDITY” 9a (+) fault-finding, nitpicking, maximalist, fanatical, conservative, grumbling, dogmatic, doctrinaire, literalist, pedantic, unrepentant 9b (-) conformist, labile, yielding, adaptive, conforming, ingratiating, insinuating, yes-man, readily imitative, evasive, cunning

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.26	-0.21	-0.64	0.43	-0.26	0.15	0.16	-0.03	-0.18	0.03	-0.13	0.09	0.23	0.24	-0.11

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
-0.3	1.2	-1.0	0.1	0.3	1.9	-1.1	-0.2	-1.3	0.9	-0.2	-0.1	-1.9	0.1	0.2	1.2

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-1.7	-1.8	-0.3	0.0	3.2	1.3	-0.3	-0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	-1.5

The factor was modeled using 22 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.88	YES	My behavior lacks flexibility.
0.88	YES	More than other people, I tend to “follow protocol”, that is, the accepted rules of any game, conduct, and actions.
0.87	YES	My phrases always have a strict, consistent word order.
0.86	YES	I am usually more zealous than my colleagues about terminological precision - if something is called exactly that, then it must fully correspond to it.
0.85	YES	Perhaps I am sometimes tedious in my exactingness and sense of obligation.
0.85	YES	I usually scrupulously adhere to the planned sequence of necessary actions.
0.84	YES	I like precision in everything, and even when I make a joke, I almost always then explain to the person what I meant.
0.83	YES	I have a very strong drive for quality and perfection in everything that is done.
0.83	YES	In any undertaking I am distinguished by exceptional patience and meticulousness.
0.82	YES	I cannot stand jokes about rules and order; they make me want to punch someone in the face.
0.79	YES	I delve into material and work through it more slowly, but more thoroughly, than other people.
0.79	YES	I like rigid structures that permit no changes within their framework.
0.73	YES	I am scrupulous and uncompromising and am an active, passionate, businesslike, and difficult fighter for order, quality, and strict observance of rules.
0.63	YES	I am demanding and uncompromising, work very hard, and despise idlers.
0.51	YES	I am often tenaciously persistent in conversation - I absolutely have to “dot every i”.
-0.57	NO	I know how to beg persistently - I can choose the best moment to approach a person with a request.
-0.61	NO	I often compliment people.
-0.62	NO	I am diplomatic; I am especially good at reaching agreements with people in an informal, heart-to-heart setting, without any pressure.
-0.70	NO	I know how to “envelop people in words” and penetrate into the very soul of the people I need.
-0.71	NO	I usually determine quickly how and with what one can “approach” a new person.
-0.78	NO	It is easy for me to perceive what I have in common with complete strangers.
-0.82	NO	I am a person who is more internally changeable than internally constant.

Factor 10. PRIDEFULNESS (again, not a completely accurate name for the factor; suppose it would be better to call it “exactingness”, “demandingness regarding quality of life”)

10a (+) spoiled, capricious, pampered, affected, squeamish, conceited, demanding, glamorous, pretentious, fashion-conscious, discerning

10b (-) unassuming, undemanding, unpretentious

This factor is composed mainly of the influence of the socionic traits Dynamics and Questimity, each contributing 30% of its variance; Obstinacy, Ethics, and Strategy also exert some influence. All these traits come together in the EIE type, which leads here by an enormous margin.

This factor illustrates especially well that, in a number of situations, the contribution of the questim-declatim functions simply cannot be ignored - without it the picture will sometimes be not merely incomplete, but entirely incorrect.

Qe and Fe are on the side of exactingness here, while Di and De are on the side of unpretentiousness. The balance between the contributions of Si and Se can also be discussed separately. Thus, the more questions we include that are directly related to pridefulness and the demand for special, better conditions for oneself, the greater the influence of Se becomes; but if attention is focused more on demandingness regarding comfort and safety, then Si comes to the foreground. In the selected list of properties, the contributions of Si and Se turned out to be balanced, with a slight predominance of Si, but how correct this is remains unclear - we had very few questions that fit the constructed image perfectly.

Factor 10. “PRIDEFULNESS” (exactingness) 10a (+) spoiled, capricious, pampered, affected, squeamish, conceited, demanding, glamorous, pretentious, fashion-conscious, discerning 10b (-) unassuming, undemanding, unpretentious

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
-0.56	0.07	-0.12	-0.28	-0.04	0.55	0.11	0.05	-0.10	-0.41	0.09	0.11	-0.04	-0.24	-0.08

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
-0.8	-0.1	0.5	0.9	-1.6	-1.1	0.6	2.4	0.8	0.2	-1.2	-0.8	-0.3	-0.5	0.4	0.6

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
0.0	-0.6	0.6	-0.7	-1.0	-0.4	0.1	2.0	0.7	2.6	-2.0	-1.3

The factor was modeled using 19 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.81	YES	It is very important to me that others like me and that I hear recognition of this.
0.76	YES	I am very sensitive to pain and punishment.
0.62	YES	I attentively follow fashion novelties.
0.61	YES	I often feel unwell and act capriciously because of it.
0.60	YES	I would be ashamed if all my colleagues at work drove newer BMW models while I drove an older model of this car.
0.65	YES	I avoid touching anything dusty or dirty - I am squeamish and afraid of catching something.
0.58	YES	I disdain buying products in cheap stores.
0.56	YES	My movements and gestures are distinguished by a certain smoothness and refined “manneredness”.
0.58	YES	I am rather squeamish and avoid sick people.
0.56	YES	I attach very great importance to the beautiful appearance of people and objects and to the cleanliness of the surrounding environment.
0.52	YES	I like to luxuriate in warm water for a long time.
0.39	YES	I have this trait that often everything is “not right” for me: the potato is too hot and the oranges are too sour.
-0.43	NO	I am very tolerant of other people’s negative emotions.
-0.69	NO	I can easily ignore any unpleasant loss or deprivation of something familiar, as if these deprivations did not exist at all.
-0.69	NO	I can easily postpone pleasure or abandon it altogether if I am called to help with something.
-0.77	NO	If I fall ill, I usually receive treatment without telling anyone about my illness, not publicizing it at all to those close to me; I will briefly say how I feel only if they ask.
-0.83	NO	I can endure unpleasant or painful sensations longer and better than others - perhaps I am simply more indifferent to them.
-0.82	NO	I can live entirely without comfort, and even if I have a very hard time, I will never whine.
-0.86	NO	The feeling of physical disgust is practically unknown to me.

Factor 11. ENTHUSIASM (an unsuccessful name for the cluster; “enthusiasm” need not imply productive work, whereas here the subject is what can briefly be called “innovative activity”)

11a (+) effective, advanced, businesslike, commercially minded, active, enterprising, critical, fighter, busy, creator, progressive, initiative-taking

11b (-) procrastinator, person who avoids hard work, dilatory, formalist, bureaucrat, pettifogger, short-sighted, phrase-monger, incompetent, retrograde, braggart

In our view, the description of this factor somewhat artificially combines two different personality traits. On the one hand, it seems to concern deep engagement in a productive process, but on the other hand, emphasis is also placed on the requirement that the productive process must necessarily proceed as quickly as possible. One way or another, the resulting image is that of an active innovator - an extraverted logical type, more likely a Democrat and Yielding, and preferably also FORESIGHTED in the socionic sense of the word. Moreover, the more we focus on the idea that a person must not merely be active and businesslike, but that their activity and work presuppose some conception of the future not reducible to the already existing state of affairs, the greater the role of Foresight becomes.

In the functional profile, active innovation is primarily associated with Te and De, while the role of Ne is more modest. By its nature, Ne likes discovering the new, but remaking the world in a new way through one’s own labor is no longer what Ne is about. The most conservative functions are Fi and Di. The type profile shows an opposition between extraverted logical types and introverted ethical types.

Factor 11. “ENTHUSIASM” (innovative activity) 11a (+) effective, advanced, businesslike, commercially minded, active, enterprising, critical, fighter, busy, creator, progressive, initiative-taking 11b (-) procrastinator, person who avoids hard work, dilatory, formalist, bureaucrat, pettifogger, short-sighted, phrase-monger, incompetent, retrograde, braggart

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
-0.07	0.65	-0.07	0.44	0.05	-0.10	-0.11	0.02	0.27	0.23	-0.44	-0.04	-0.03	-0.03	0.18

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
1.2	-0.1	-1.4	0.6	1.2	-0.6	-1.2	-0.2	0.4	-1.4	-0.1	1.7	-0.1	-0.9	-0.5	1.4

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-0.6	0.7	-0.8	0.3	0.4	2.5	-1.6	-0.8	-0.2	-0.4	-1.2	1.8

The factor was modeled using 22 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.94	YES	I would make an excellent entrepreneur - I am always on the move, inspire people, make them move and work, take an interest in technical innovations, and see the profitability or unprofitability, prospects or lack of prospects of undertakings better than others.
0.90	YES	Even if I have never flown a helicopter, if necessary I will still manage - if there is an instruction before my eyes.
0.90	YES	I am stronger than most people; I would like and be well suited to work as a coordinator organizing the implementation of innovations.
0.88	YES	I like to tackle complex tasks and problems so that they “lead” me and do not allow me to get bored and relax.
0.85	YES	I always gladly reason about what technology will produce greater effect and what business decision will yield higher profit.
0.82	YES	I more often seek departures from the accepted norm that offer greater gains than strive toward the established state as the most successful one.
0.78	YES	I easily understand complex mechanisms.
0.77	YES	I can do and know how to do practically everything.
0.76	YES	My reasoning always has large-block logic - I am guided by the general meaning and ultimate purpose of arguments and never latch onto situational trifles.
0.74	YES	When mastering new methods of work, I quickly and easily rearrange the sequence of my movements.
0.68	YES	I sense better than others and quickly grasp subtle nuances when comparing things in terms of their profitability.
0.65	YES	I have a very strongly developed research instinct.
-0.58	NO	I am very conservative in the sphere of my interests; it is difficult to awaken in me interest in some innovation unfamiliar to me.
-0.61	NO	It is true that by nature I am more a distrustful conservative than an enthusiast for the new.
-0.66	NO	My favorite roles are observer of fleeting events, wanderer along the river of events.
-0.72	NO	More often I think about how to save strength than about what to apply it to.
-0.74	NO	I am faithful to my habits and do not like any trips or changes of surroundings - for life on business trips I am too sensitive and vulnerable.
-0.78	NO	If I need to make a business phone call, I most often postpone this call as much as possible “for later”.
-0.81	NO	I usually have no difficulty adhering in life to the rule “the boss knows best”.
-0.85	NO	If a task contains some provocative false hint, it usually throws me off track - I readily follow the provocative hint and give the wrong answer.
-0.94	NO	If I am reproached for doing something not as it should be done, I usually simply and immediately shift the blame to the authority who showed me and taught me to do it that way.

12a (+) introverted, unsociable, gloomy, uncommunicative, wary, recluse, withdrawn, distrustful, isolated, lonely, somber

12b (-) uninhibited, relaxed, joker, spontaneous, merrymaker, giggly, reckless, cheerful, joyful, jester, extraverted

This is the second factor in which Extraversion is the “leading violin”, accounting for at least half of the variance contribution to the generalized psychological image. In this case it [the introversion pole - author’s note, 07.2026] is supplemented by Constructivism, Aristocracy, Logic, and Questimity. Ti and Ni are on the side of shyness, while De and Fe are on the side of social ease. Among the types, distancing in one form or another is characteristic of all introverts except SEI; the three ethical extraverts ESE, IEE, and SEE are the most open to communication.

Factor 12. “SHYNESS” 12a (+) introverted, unsociable, gloomy, uncommunicative, wary, recluse, withdrawn, distrustful, isolated, lonely, somber 12b (-) uninhibited, relaxed, joker, spontaneous, merrymaker, giggly, reckless, cheerful, joyful, jester, extraverted

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.12	-0.72	-0.13	0.25	0.08	0.26	-0.10	-0.15	-0.29	0.12	-0.10	0.14	0.37	0.06	-0.13

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
-0.5	1.1	-0.2	-1.5	-0.5	1.1	0.6	-0.5	-1.3	1.0	1.3	-0.8	-1.4	1.0	1.0	-0.3

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
1.1	-1.0	-0.3	-0.6	1.5	0.4	0.6	-1.7	0.7	0.8	0.9	-2.5

The factor was modeled using 25 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.97	YES	I am not very talkative.
0.94	YES	In broad open urban squares I feel uncomfortable; I do not like large open spaces.
0.94	YES	I usually find it difficult to think of how to approach and where to begin if I need to strike up an acquaintance with a new stranger.
0.93	YES	I have often felt constrained among people.
0.93	YES	I am secretive and very rarely share my thoughts.
0.90	YES	It is characteristic of me that I always prefer my old circle of tried and reliable people to new acquaintances.
0.89	YES	My movements are usually somewhat constrained.
0.89	YES	At times I feel embarrassed and joke it off because people often pester me and ask why I look so gloomy.
0.82	YES	I am afraid of appearing ridiculous.
0.82	YES	Instead of dancing and social gatherings, I would prefer to listen to serious classical music.
0.80	YES	I am always distrustful of strangers about whom there is no information.
0.80	YES	It is true that I do not like being touched during conversation - even by friends.
0.73	YES	I am distrustful of compliments.
0.72	YES	Living with someone in the same room has always been unbearable for me.
-0.71	NO	I often experience a strong feeling of uplift, of approaching happiness.
-0.73	NO	I often like to fool around a little, arranging various playful setups and jokes and provoking people to laugh.
-0.80	NO	Sometimes, if I start joking around in company, I do not stop until I am tired.
-0.83	NO	With strangers I easily and quickly switch to the informal “you”.
-0.91	NO	I am talkative and like telling and discussing what I have read and heard.
-0.91	NO	I prefer to have lunch and dinner in company and in conversation at the table rather than alone.
-0.92	NO	I very often visit people and various social gatherings.
-0.93	NO	I am distinguished by liveliness and boldness in approaching new people.
-0.94	NO	In company I tend to joke a lot and make humorous wordplay.
-0.96	NO	I would do well in the role of a toastmaster directing the merriment at a celebration or feast and not letting anyone at the table become bored.
-0.96	NO	In my youth I liked noisy, colorful, stimulating events: discos and the like.

Factor 13. AMBITION (narcissistic traits)

13a (-) unassuming, insignificant

13b (+) fame-seeking, self-regarding, vain, self-confident, constantly saying “I”, egotist, ambitious, elitist, self-assertive, privileged, snob

This is the third factor closely connected with the personality’s energy level, for which Extraversion is responsible. Unlike the preceding “shyness” factor, Questimity here already acts on the side of Extraversion. The third trait increasing ambition is Decisiveness. Se, Fe, and both questim functions increase self-regard and ambition, while Di and Si dampen them. In the type profile, all extraverts are on the positive side, with SEE and EIE standing out especially strongly.

Factor 13. “AMBITION” (narcissistic traits) 13b (+) fame-seeking, self-regarding, vain, self-confident, constantly saying “I”, egotist, ambitious, elitist, self-assertive, privileged, snob 13a (-) unassuming, insignificant

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.16	0.76	0.00	-0.13	-0.11	0.33	0.16	-0.28	0.17	-0.11	0.20	0.07	-0.18	-0.19	0.01

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
0.7	-0.9	-0.7	0.7	0.8	-0.6	-0.6	1.4	1.7	-0.3	-1.4	0.7	0.5	-1.4	-1.2	0.5

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-0.4	-0.2	-1.5	2.1	-0.5	-0.3	-0.7	1.5	0.9	1.1	-2.1	0.1

The factor was modeled using 20 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.93	YES	I feel jealous if, in company, general attention shifts away from me to someone else.
0.93	YES	It is important to me to be the center of attention, with all eyes and ears fixed on me.
0.90	YES	Things with me often involve some excess: the volume of tasks I set, the scale of my movements, and the loudness of my voice.
0.89	YES	In public I am often inclined to “show off”, deliberately demonstrating and slightly exaggerating my successes.
0.88	YES	I love drawing the attention, admiration, and astonishment of others to myself.
0.88	YES	People close to me often reproach me for boasting, whether fairly or not.
0.87	YES	I often have a feeling that everything is within my power and I can do anything.
0.86	YES	I am impatient and easily irritated if I have to wait for something or when people do not react to my words immediately.
0.83	YES	I like to brag a little and show off.
0.81	YES	People around me always know my point of view.
0.78	YES	My self-confidence allows me to win in seemingly hopeless situations.
0.78	YES	If I take a liking to someone or something, I absolutely must possess it.
0.75	YES	I am a very proud and self-confident person - some people say that I am supposedly even arrogant.
0.69	YES	I often look at myself in the mirror.
0.67	YES	I am distinguished by great pride.
-0.69	NO	I do not react at all to sharp remarks directed at me, or I always react exclusively calmly and deliberately.
-0.79	NO	As a rule, my handwriting is small and compact, with small letters.
-0.79	NO	I always speak cautiously, without imposing my opinion, so as under no circumstances to come into contradiction with my interlocutor.
-0.84	NO	Everything comes to those who know how to wait, and I have this flexible talent.
-0.95	NO	I am more often a listener than a talker.

14a (+) musical, feminine, refined, sophisticated, graceful, subtle, aesthete, gallant, elegant, poetic, aesthetic

14b (-) savage, vandal, heavy, rude, hooligan, ill-mannered, boorish, fierce, boor, barbarian, impudent

Unfortunately, in the statistics available to us there were almost no statements related to the concepts of “aestheticism” and “gallantry”, so the socionic profile of this factor can be regarded as preliminary and subject to further refinement. From what was obtained, “good manners”, that is, the presence of internal inhibitions preventing harm to others in a conflict-of-interests situation, correlates sharply negatively with the strength of the Se function and, more specifically, with belonging to the SLE type. In other words, the typical SLE is the born “savage”, accustomed to acting in society as in a wild environment - taking by force what is desired and disregarding the interests of others, who in this case may be either rivals to be wary of or victims.

In addition to Se, Di also correlates negatively with “good manners” because a sense of tact is essentially a perception of other people’s personal boundaries, whereas Di is a collectivist function that denies such boundaries. By contrast, Qi correlates positively with “good manners” - a function closely connected with the concept of social normativity, that is, one that tracks real norms rather than norms imposed from outside. In addition to Qi, both ethical functions, which protect social norms, and, to some extent, Ne, which respects another person’s interest, are also responsible for good manners.

Factor 14. “GOOD MANNERS” 14a (+) musical, feminine, refined, sophisticated, graceful, subtle, aesthete, gallant, elegant, poetic, aesthetic 14b (-) savage, vandal, heavy, rude, hooligan, ill-mannered, boorish, fierce, boor, barbarian, impudent

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
-0.13	-0.25	-0.27	-0.41	0.20	0.23	-0.04	0.53	0.35	0.19	0.15	-0.18	0.12	0.28	0.09

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
0.0	0.9	0.8	0.7	-2.4	-1.1	0.8	0.4	-1.1	1.1	-0.6	-0.6	0.4	1.4	-0.2	-0.4

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
-0.5	1.3	0.7	-3.1	-0.7	-0.8	1.7	1.5	1.9	-0.1	-1.7	0.0

The factor was modeled using 16 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.88	YES	I always take it painfully if, judging by the reactions of those around me, I have done something wrong in public.
0.88	YES	I feel extremely uncomfortable in company if I sense someone’s negative attitude toward me.
0.86	YES	My self-esteem is very vulnerable - I have always been afraid of being rejected.
0.81	YES	I find it very unpleasant to watch television scenes of surgical intervention on the human body, when the body is opened and the internal organs are visible.
0.67	YES	I could work as a musical instrument tuner - I have a very precise and sensitive ear for the pitch of any note or sound.
0.67	YES	At school I liked drawing, and I was good at it.
-0.60	NO	Perhaps I violate traffic rules more often than other drivers or pedestrians.
-0.66	NO	The so-called “hazing” is a normal phenomenon for the army; it should be controlled, but not eliminated.
-0.67	NO	Sex is understandable, but a strange fanatical infatuation with a particular person is hard for me to understand.
-0.70	NO	Since youth I have been a person of “solid” build - my muscles are, I think, more developed than average.
-0.80	NO	An opponent will submit only if I instill fear in them.
-0.80	NO	I believe the problem of contemporary world politics is the dominance of soft and indecisive people capable only of half-measures.
-0.83	NO	As a child I sometimes liked to annoy my peers by deliberately breaking their toys.
-0.87	NO	Even when I behave badly, embarrassment, shame, or guilt are clearly not my feelings.
-0.89	NO	I think that compared with others I am more tolerant of physical pain.
-0.91	NO	In childhood fights I often tried to strike opponents immediately in the stomach and genitals.

Factor 15. ORIGINALITY

15a (+) unusual, inimitable, extraordinary, vivid, captivating, phenomenal, distinctive, incomprehensible, wonderful, rare, notable

15b (-) typical, ordinary, insignificant, commonplace, mediocrity, ordinary, standard, wretched, run-of-the-mill, everyday, puny

The final, fifteenth, factor also includes the influence of many socionic traits, but the leading ones are Intuition, Extraversion, and OBSTINACY. The contribution of Obstinacy becomes greater the more attention we give to the deliberateness with which the subject seduces others, instilling in them, by means of original self-expression, some of their own ideas, desires, and needs.

[Our hypothesis about the essence of this trait is as follows. Socionic Yielding types are characterized by the idea that the real consequences of your activity are the basis of your self-esteem; that is, one must make an effort and strain oneself in order to be duly appreciated. Socionic Obstinate types, by contrast, typically hold the opposite idea: it is foolish to build one’s self-esteem on other people’s evaluations of one’s activity; the intelligent and correct approach is to influence other people so that they regard everything you do as valuable and correct.]

Returning to the originality factor, among the functions it is most strongly associated with the strength of Ne and Ni, which are responsible for original invention, Fe, which is responsible for convincing self-expression, and Qi together with Qe, which are responsible for the desire to manifest oneself and stand out from the crowd. A negative association is found with Si, Te, and Di. EIE, ILE, IEE, and SEE lead in the type profile, while sensing introverts and LSE are the most ordinary and commonplace in their manifestations.

Factor 15. “ORIGINALITY” 15a (+) unusual, inimitable, extraordinary, vivid, captivating, phenomenal, distinctive, incomprehensible, wonderful, rare, notable 15b (-) typical, ordinary, insignificant, commonplace, mediocrity, ordinary, standard, wretched, run-of-the-mill, everyday, puny

Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
0.18	0.43	0.26	-0.20	0.51	0.30	0.29	-0.09	0.15	-0.35	0.04	0.03	-0.11	-0.28	0.01

ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
1.4	0.2	-0.7	-0.1	0.0	-1.4	0.7	1.7	1.0	-1.2	-0.3	0.3	1.3	-0.5	-1.2	-1.0

Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
1.6	2.2	-2.0	-0.2	-0.4	-1.6	-0.9	1.3	1.1	0.7	-1.6	-0.2

The factor was modeled using 22 questionnaire statements (the numbers shown are the correlations of the statement’s socionic profile with the final factor profile).

Correlation	Response	Questionnaire statement
0.82	YES	The thoughts and ideas that come into my head are most often grandiose and large-scale.
0.79	YES	I am characterized by a certain demonstrativeness, a “theatricality” in the emotions I display.
0.77	YES	I like bohemian groups with their risky amusements and the new, unusual sensations they promise.
0.71	YES	In my speech I usually “play” with intonation in an emphatically strong way.
0.69	YES	Sometimes I have jumped up at night to write down some thought that came into my head.
0.64	YES	I am better than others at making an impression and “throwing dust in people’s eyes”.
0.60	YES	I know how to find what is special and unusual in what, at first glance, is most ordinary.
0.60	YES	I sometimes sing songs while bathing.
0.52	YES	I have a gift for charming others and convincing them of some truth by the sheer force of my charm and suggestiveness.
-0.55	NO	The world is built from particulars - therefore I am always very attentive to the small details of this world.
-0.57	NO	I always monitor, control, and compare my behavior with the demands of the situation.
-0.61	NO	Safety is generally more valuable than various freedoms.
-0.72	NO	Practical utility is more important than any degree of perfect motionless beauty.
-0.74	NO	It is true that I do not like breaking established orders.
-0.75	NO	My main tasks in life, apart from family matters, are material well-being and comfort.
-0.76	NO	I readily respond to requests to do something around the home.
-0.76	NO	In a group I like the role of finisher and polisher, completing and refining the work and making it convenient for the user.
-0.79	NO	I would enjoy working as a builder or tiler-mosaicist.
-0.79	NO	I would readily agree to rather monotonous work that puts many people to sleep.
-0.80	NO	I usually answer questions in short sentences and do not like constructing long phrases.
-0.85	NO	When anticipating a win I never get carried away emotionally: a small but reliable win is better.
-0.91	NO	Compared with others, I am more an ordinary person in my manifestations than an original one.

Thus, what are the distinctive features of RF-15, and in what respects is this model good or, conversely, poor if it is considered in terms of correspondence with the socionic model of personality?

First, let us consider Table 1.

Table 1. Values of intercorrelations between RF-15 factors and socionic dichotomies (their trait-poles corresponding to the ILE type)

No.	RF-15 factor	Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
1	altruism	0.14	-0.05	-0.14	-0.20	0.12	-0.06	-0.18	0.77	0.22	0.41	0.12	-0.17	0.09	-0.03	0.11
2	intellect	0.31	0.08	-0.15	0.38	0.43	0.16	0.23	0.08	0.30	-0.24	-0.20	0.31	0.09	0.32	-0.26
3	actual energy	0.10	0.85	-0.18	-0.03	-0.20	-0.24	-0.01	0.02	0.07	0.31	0.16	-0.10	-0.01	0.00	0.06
4	rational self-control	0.12	0.03	-0.82	0.15	-0.24	-0.27	-0.12	-0.19	-0.17	0.18	-0.21	0.10	-0.01	-0.06	-0.06
5	conflict proneness (willpower)	0.51	0.54	0.02	0.38	-0.27	0.21	0.03	-0.29	0.05	-0.26	-0.01	-0.01	-0.02	0.12	0.12
6	potential energy (aggression)	0.05	0.56	0.13	-0.02	-0.03	0.42	0.34	-0.27	-0.12	0.12	0.04	0.14	0.42	0.18	-0.23
7	mature pragmatism	-0.26	0.08	-0.26	0.30	-0.51	-0.18	-0.46	-0.46	-0.08	-0.02	-0.06	0.00	-0.18	-0.13	0.00
8	morality	0.55	-0.13	-0.38	0.06	-0.09	0.17	0.15	0.43	0.13	0.28	0.01	-0.10	0.40	0.10	-0.08
9	social rigidity	0.26	-0.21	-0.64	0.43	-0.26	0.15	0.16	-0.03	-0.18	0.03	-0.13	0.09	0.23	0.24	-0.11
10	pridefulness (fastidiousness)	-0.56	0.07	-0.12	-0.28	-0.04	0.55	0.11	0.05	-0.10	-0.41	0.09	0.11	-0.04	-0.24	-0.08
11	enthusiasm (implementation of innovations)	-0.07	0.65	-0.07	0.44	0.05	-0.10	-0.11	0.02	0.27	0.23	-0.44	-0.04	-0.03	-0.03	0.18
12	shyness	0.12	-0.72	-0.13	0.25	0.08	0.26	-0.10	-0.15	-0.29	0.12	-0.10	0.14	0.37	0.06	-0.13
13	ambition	0.16	0.76	0.00	-0.13	-0.11	0.33	0.16	-0.28	0.17	-0.11	0.20	0.07	-0.18	-0.19	0.01
14	good manners	-0.13	-0.25	-0.27	-0.41	0.20	0.23	-0.04	0.53	0.35	0.19	0.15	-0.18	0.12	0.28	0.09
15	originality	0.18	0.43	0.26	-0.20	0.51	0.30	0.29	-0.09	0.15	-0.35	0.04	0.03	-0.11	-0.28	0.01
	Contribution of the trait to the total variance of personality properties across the 15 factors	8.3%	21.1%	10.3%	7.9%	6.9%	7.3%	4.1%	10.5%	3.8%	6.1%	2.8%	1.7%	4.2%	3.3%	1.6%
	Expected contribution of the trait to the total variance of personality properties	4.0%	17.8%	13.8%	17.9%	16.6%	4.6%	4.3%	8.6%	3.0%	2.6%	2.2%	2.2%	3.1%	2.5%	2.7%
	Overestimation of the trait in RF-15, times	2.09	1.18	0.75	0.44	0.41	1.58	0.95	1.22	1.28	2.35	1.27	0.76	1.37	1.32	0.59

As you can see, not all socionic traits are present to the same extent in the RF-15 model. The Logic-Ethics and Sensing-Intuition traits are clearly underestimated by Shmelev’s linguistic model, by more than a factor of two, when it is compared with socionics. Is this underestimation a consequence of arbitrariness on the part of the author of RF-15 in selecting the factor-forming properties, or does it mean that the traits that actually form the functions are represented less strongly in the language lexicon than the traits of the temperament group? It is difficult to say.

The Positivism-Negativism factor is also strongly underestimated in RF-15, but in this case we are already almost certain that this is due to chance. Shmelev himself identified far more than 15 factors in his research (see the appendices at the end of his book). It is obvious, however, that the list of factors included in a model cannot be extended indefinitely - the model loses its practical value, so something has to be sacrificed and discarded; in this case, Positivism-Negativism was what was discarded.

By contrast, the Statics-Dynamics and Yieldingness-Obstinacy traits are strongly overestimated in RF-15, by more than a factor of two. However, as the coefficient k in Table 3 shows, this attention did not help Yieldingness-Obstinacy very much, and the structural correlation with the reference distribution for this dichotomy still remained low. Statics, on the other hand, is an extremely important trait in RF-15, and, as we later learned, not only in this model; it participates on equal terms in personality formation alongside the Jungian four, Judiciousness, and Questimity. The unique role of Statics is to reflect the level of development of the personality’s moral-volitional qualities, its readiness to resist temptations and defend its rights. In RF-15, Statics is a crucial component in the formation of factors 5 (conflict proneness/willpower), 8 (morality), and, with the opposite sign, 10, where the Dynamics pole contributes to fastidiousness by accounting for its hedonistic motives.

Thus, not all socionic traits receive equal attention in RF-15. What about the types - are there any “favorites” among them?

Table 2. Values of intercorrelations between RF-15 factors and the images of socionic types

No.	RF-15 factor	ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
1	altruism	0.7	0.7	0.8	1.0	-1.5	-1.4	-0.6	-0.9	-0.9	0.2	-1.2	-0.3	1.1	1.9	0.3	0.2
2	intellect	1.9	1.9	-1.4	-0.7	-0.2	0.2	-0.7	0.4	-1.0	-1.0	1.2	0.3	-0.2	-0.2	-1.0	0.4
3	actual energy	0.6	-1.1	-0.7	1.3	1.1	-0.6	-1.3	0.6	0.8	-0.4	-1.4	1.2	0.8	-0.8	-1.0	1.0
4	rational self-control	-1.4	0.3	-0.9	0.7	0.2	1.5	-1.4	0.3	-0.6	0.9	-0.6	1.0	-1.3	0.7	-0.8	1.4
5	conflict proneness (willpower)	1.0	-0.4	-1.6	0.1	1.7	0.6	-1.3	0.0	1.2	-0.4	-0.5	0.7	-0.1	-1.7	-0.2	0.9
6	potential energy (aggression)	1.4	-1.1	-1.0	0.4	1.5	-0.8	-0.2	1.8	0.8	-0.2	-0.6	-0.2	0.1	-1.5	-1.0	0.5
7	mature pragmatism	-1.6	-0.9	-0.6	-0.1	0.9	1.3	-1.2	-0.5	0.7	0.7	0.3	1.2	-1.2	-0.9	0.5	1.4
8	morality	0.8	1.7	-0.2	0.8	-0.3	0.3	-1.3	-0.6	-1.4	1.3	-1.3	-1.0	-0.7	1.3	0.1	0.5
9	social rigidity	-0.3	1.2	-1.0	0.1	0.3	1.9	-1.1	-0.2	-1.3	0.9	-0.2	-0.1	-1.9	0.1	0.2	1.2
10	pridefulness (fastidiousness)	-0.8	-0.1	0.5	0.9	-1.6	-1.1	0.6	2.4	0.8	0.2	-1.2	-0.8	-0.3	-0.5	0.4	0.6
11	enthusiasm (implementation of innovations)	1.2	-0.1	-1.4	0.6	1.2	-0.6	-1.2	-0.2	0.4	-1.4	-0.1	1.7	-0.1	-0.9	-0.5	1.4
12	shyness	-0.5	1.1	-0.2	-1.5	-0.5	1.1	0.6	-0.5	-1.3	1.0	1.3	-0.8	-1.4	1.0	1.0	-0.3
13	ambition	0.7	-0.9	-0.7	0.7	0.8	-0.6	-0.6	1.4	1.7	-0.3	-1.4	0.7	0.5	-1.4	-1.2	0.5
14	good manners	0.0	0.9	0.8	0.7	-2.4	-1.1	0.8	0.4	-1.1	1.1	-0.6	-0.6	0.4	1.4	-0.2	-0.4
15	originality	1.4	0.2	-0.7	-0.1	0.0	-1.4	0.7	1.7	1.0	-1.2	-0.3	0.3	1.3	-0.5	-1.2	-1.0
	Comparative lengths of type vectors constructed on the 15 factors	4.1	3.8	3.6	3.0	4.5	4.2	3.8	4.0	4.1	3.3	3.6	3.3	3.6	4.3	2.9	3.4

As Table 2 shows, the type vectors calculated on the 15 RF-15 factors are not equal and sometimes differ in length by more than one and a half times. Here we recall that equalizing type vectors is an important step in constructing a good, valid questionnaire. If this is not done, the probability that a respondent will ultimately be classified as a representative of a given type is greater the longer that type’s vector is. But why?

By increasing the disproportion in the lengths of the type vectors, we artificially expand, within the space of psychological diversity, those sectors corresponding to types with longer vectors at the expense of those corresponding to types with shorter vectors. As a result, personalities located on the boundary between two types more often begin to fall into the “favorite” type whose vivid manifestations are represented more often and more fully in the structure of the questionnaire items.

Here too we can see that RF-15 gives too much attention to the balance of altruistic and egoistic traits, which is crucial for distinguishing the EII and SLE types. As a result, these types have the longest vectors in RF-15 and will be diagnosed more often among people located on the boundary between them and some other types. By contrast, SLI, ESE, ESI, and LIE have short vectors - their manifestations are represented more weakly in the 15 factors of Shmelev’s model.

It should also be noted that, besides differing in the “fashionability” of types, different models in psychology also differ in the extent to which they distinguish particular types from one another.

To evaluate which type images in the model “stick together” most strongly, let us calculate the intercorrelations between the vectors of these types constructed from the model’s factors (Table 2a).

Table 2a. Values of intercorrelations between vectors of socionic types calculated on the 15 RF-15 factors

	ILE	LII	SEI	ESE	SLE	LSI	IEI	EIE	SEE	ESI	ILI	LIE	IEE	EII	SLI	LSE
ILE	1.00	0.07	-0.33	0.01	0.26	-0.52	-0.01	0.17	0.17	-0.70	-0.04	0.04	0.62	-0.25	-0.57	-0.31
LII	0.07	1.00	0.19	-0.38	-0.56	0.24	0.12	-0.42	-0.87	0.34	0.40	-0.54	-0.30	0.72	0.31	-0.29
SEI	-0.33	0.19	1.00	0.28	-0.86	-0.43	0.55	0.00	-0.33	0.50	-0.34	-0.65	0.22	0.67	0.46	-0.46
ESE	0.01	-0.38	0.28	1.00	-0.07	-0.43	-0.29	0.21	0.26	-0.02	-0.92	0.14	0.42	0.00	-0.29	0.32
SLE	0.26	-0.56	-0.86	-0.07	1.00	0.31	-0.61	0.01	0.56	-0.43	0.06	0.67	-0.11	-0.77	-0.38	0.53
LSI	-0.52	0.24	-0.43	-0.43	0.31	1.00	-0.50	-0.51	-0.34	0.49	0.45	0.15	-0.91	0.03	0.36	0.53
IEI	-0.01	0.12	0.55	-0.29	-0.61	-0.50	1.00	0.49	-0.01	0.02	0.16	-0.57	0.28	0.18	0.14	-0.83
EIE	0.17	-0.42	0.00	0.21	0.01	-0.51	0.49	1.00	0.60	-0.40	-0.30	-0.07	0.39	-0.50	-0.52	-0.27
SEE	0.17	-0.87	-0.33	0.26	0.56	-0.34	-0.01	0.60	1.00	-0.59	-0.34	0.51	0.43	-0.86	-0.46	0.12
ESI	-0.70	0.34	0.50	-0.02	-0.43	0.49	0.02	-0.40	-0.59	1.00	-0.06	-0.54	-0.60	0.61	0.65	0.05
ILI	-0.04	0.40	-0.34	-0.92	0.06	0.45	0.16	-0.30	-0.34	-0.06	1.00	0.05	-0.46	0.02	0.25	-0.11
LIE	0.04	-0.54	-0.65	0.14	0.67	0.15	-0.57	-0.07	0.51	-0.54	0.05	1.00	0.08	-0.56	-0.48	0.57
IEE	0.62	-0.30	0.22	0.42	-0.11	-0.91	0.28	0.39	0.43	-0.60	-0.46	0.08	1.00	-0.12	-0.55	-0.48
EII	-0.25	0.72	0.67	0.00	-0.77	0.03	0.18	-0.50	-0.86	0.61	0.02	-0.56	-0.12	1.00	0.44	-0.32
SLI	-0.57	0.31	0.46	-0.29	-0.38	0.36	0.14	-0.52	-0.46	0.65	0.25	-0.48	-0.55	0.44	1.00	0.04
LSE	-0.31	-0.29	-0.46	0.32	0.53	0.53	-0.83	-0.27	0.12	0.05	-0.11	0.57	-0.48	-0.32	0.04	1.00

Table 1a. Parasitic intercorrelations between vectors of socionic traits calculated on the 15 RF-15 factors

	Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
Statics	1.00	0.03	-0.05	0.37	0.09	-0.09	0.35	0.08	0.14	0.15	-0.07	0.01	0.35	0.42	-0.09
Extraversion	0.03	1.00	0.46	-0.04	-0.09	-0.10	0.25	-0.34	0.32	-0.15	0.13	-0.08	-0.50	-0.32	0.33
Irrationality	-0.05	0.46	1.00	-0.26	0.46	0.49	0.34	-0.13	0.31	-0.38	0.29	0.01	-0.14	-0.26	0.14
Logic	0.37	-0.04	-0.26	1.00	-0.33	-0.36	-0.18	-0.45	-0.27	-0.01	-0.78	0.41	0.10	0.33	-0.15
Intuition	0.09	-0.09	0.46	-0.33	1.00	0.38	0.48	0.42	0.52	-0.20	0.00	0.16	0.12	0.09	-0.15
Questimity	-0.09	-0.10	0.49	-0.36	0.38	1.00	0.67	-0.04	-0.06	-0.59	0.35	0.34	0.26	0.01	-0.38
Cheerfulness	0.35	0.25	0.34	-0.18	0.48	0.67	1.00	-0.01	0.10	-0.39	0.19	0.40	0.32	0.19	-0.48
Judiciousness	0.08	-0.34	-0.13	-0.45	0.42	-0.04	-0.01	1.00	0.54	0.47	0.23	-0.55	0.30	0.26	0.22
Democracy	0.14	0.32	0.31	-0.27	0.52	-0.06	0.10	0.54	1.00	0.08	0.11	-0.40	-0.27	0.13	0.43
Yieldingness	0.15	-0.15	-0.38	-0.01	-0.20	-0.59	-0.39	0.47	0.08	1.00	-0.05	-0.56	0.41	0.28	0.24
Carefreeness	-0.07	0.13	0.29	-0.78	0.00	0.35	0.19	0.23	0.11	-0.05	1.00	-0.37	-0.07	-0.18	0.08
Right	0.01	-0.08	0.01	0.41	0.16	0.34	0.40	-0.55	-0.40	-0.56	-0.37	1.00	0.10	0.11	-0.79
Constructivism	0.35	-0.50	-0.14	0.10	0.12	0.26	0.32	0.30	-0.27	0.41	-0.07	0.10	1.00	0.63	-0.52
Tactics	0.42	-0.32	-0.26	0.33	0.09	0.01	0.19	0.26	0.13	0.28	-0.18	0.11	0.63	1.00	-0.34
Positivism	-0.09	0.33	0.14	-0.15	-0.15	-0.38	-0.48	0.22	0.43	0.24	0.08	-0.79	-0.52	-0.34	1.00

Table 3. Correlations between vectors of socionic types and traits calculated on the 15 RF-15 factors

	Sta.	Ext.	Irr.	Log.	Int.	Que.	Che.	Jud.	Dem.	Yie.	Car.	Rig.	Con.	Tac.	Pos.
ILE	0.51	0.49	0.62	0.01	0.60	0.26	0.64	0.20	0.61	-0.07	0.02	0.05	0.16	0.26	-0.01
LII	0.38	-0.73	-0.39	0.16	0.45	0.09	0.14	0.55	0.15	0.07	-0.30	0.15	0.47	0.50	-0.33
SEI	-0.43	-0.49	-0.06	-0.77	0.17	0.19	-0.22	0.68	0.10	0.25	0.58	-0.50	0.13	-0.15	0.14
ESE	-0.19	0.49	-0.14	-0.49	-0.27	-0.22	-0.02	0.37	0.32	0.33	0.39	-0.60	-0.25	-0.24	0.45
SLE	0.33	0.65	0.19	0.60	-0.43	-0.24	0.08	-0.73	-0.22	-0.06	-0.29	0.24	-0.14	-0.06	0.01
LSI	0.28	-0.40	-0.68	0.74	-0.59	-0.34	-0.30	-0.44	-0.60	0.04	-0.48	0.35	0.16	0.29	-0.30
IEI	-0.44	-0.34	0.44	-0.61	0.61	0.69	0.27	0.16	0.00	-0.35	0.35	0.10	0.11	-0.14	-0.16
EIE	-0.40	0.45	0.44	-0.51	0.27	0.62	0.61	-0.29	-0.03	-0.60	0.36	0.35	-0.24	-0.37	-0.26
SEE	-0.25	0.82	0.59	-0.15	-0.20	0.17	0.13	-0.60	0.02	-0.47	0.27	0.03	-0.62	-0.59	0.29
ESI	-0.02	-0.74	-0.67	-0.11	-0.43	-0.05	-0.34	0.21	-0.45	0.37	0.19	-0.21	0.44	0.24	-0.19
ILI	0.04	-0.46	0.01	0.61	0.25	-0.01	-0.14	-0.31	-0.20	-0.21	-0.61	0.58	0.18	0.34	-0.39
LIE	-0.03	0.66	0.01	0.43	-0.30	-0.64	-0.34	-0.51	0.14	0.01	-0.39	0.01	-0.66	-0.26	0.41
IEE	-0.01	0.56	0.68	-0.63	0.54	0.13	0.28	0.35	0.68	-0.03	0.51	-0.39	-0.32	-0.28	0.41
EII	0.09	-0.76	-0.49	-0.27	0.26	-0.19	-0.24	0.78	0.10	0.53	0.03	-0.34	0.41	0.23	-0.01
SLI	-0.22	-0.74	-0.26	0.15	-0.32	0.05	-0.53	0.19	-0.42	0.15	-0.06	-0.17	0.31	0.07	0.02
LSE	-0.05	0.28	-0.52	0.58	-0.78	-0.55	-0.38	-0.32	-0.24	0.22	-0.43	0.04	-0.19	0.06	0.10
k	0.67	0.96	0.64	0.87	0.79	0.46	0.51	0.72	0.26	0.34	0.22	0.28	0.32	0.25	0.28

k - correlation with the ideal (theoretical) distribution of the trait across the 16 types

As we can see, in RF-15 EII is not only a “fashionable” type, but is also difficult to distinguish from LII and SEI, overlapping with them across half of the variance of personality traits. This is clearly excessive even on such a short list of 15 factors, which once again indicates that the balance of Se and the associated level of altruism and peaceableness may receive excessively great attention in RF-15 compared with other personality qualities.

Some other types are also poorly distinguished in RF-15. More than one third of the variance of personality traits overlaps between SLE and LIE, two central extraverted logical types; SEE and EIE, two central extraverted ethical types; ESI and EII, which have program Fi; ILE and IEE, which have program Ne; and also ESI and SLI, the descending sensing introverts.

In Shmelev’s defense, it should be said that having two socionic types overlap by 30% or even 50% of their variance on such a short list of 15 factors, or cluster properties, is in fact almost inevitable. For example, a similar analysis of Psychosophy performed earlier by V.L. Talanov showed that some socionic types, such as EIE and IEE, are practically completely indistinguishable, overlapping in 90% of their variance, if their images are derived from the profile of the 24 types available in Psychosophy. 15 is less than 24, and nevertheless, in terms of differential diagnostic value, Shmelev’s model is far ahead of Afanasyev’s model - once again confirming who is a professional using highly valid methods and who is merely an enthusiastic amateur, a talented artist but not a scientist.

We examined in the preceding part the fact that the RF-15 model is far from entirely flawless. However, a natural question arises: can it be IMPROVED, preferably with minimal effort?

First of all, let us state what we mean by “improvement”. It means introducing several factors, either in place of existing ones or in addition to them, that fill the semantic lacunae existing in the model in its current state. But how can one determine where such lacunae are present and how large they are?

To determine this, it is necessary to examine tables in which correlations are calculated between socionic factors - types, traits, or functions - whose images have been reconstructed on the basis of the 15 factors of the linguistic model. Unusual disproportions and deviations from the norm in such tables will indicate the problem areas being sought.

For types and traits, we have already presented such tables above [1a, 2a]. However, given that weak socionic traits are in any case very difficult to model well on 15 factors - as can be seen from the bottom row of Table 3, they overlap with their theoretical images by only 5-10% of the variance, which is very little, and this can hardly be improved substantially with a structure of fewer than 30-50 factors - we believe the most appropriate approach here is to consider the table of intercorrelations between the images of socionic FUNCTIONS. Indeed, the functions incorporate all the strong traits; therefore the parasitic correlations between these traits will be plainly visible here, and the images of socionic functions are less abstract and more accessible to the ordinary socionics user than the images of traits.

Table 4a. Values of intercorrelations between vectors of 12 socionic functions calculated on the 15 RF-15 factors

	Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
Ni	1.00	0.07	-0.53	0.11	-0.15	-0.29	-0.39	0.03	0.25	0.51	-0.36	-0.32
Ne	0.07	1.00	0.07	-0.59	-0.22	-0.66	-0.09	0.35	0.63	-0.26	-0.55	0.21
Si	-0.53	0.07	1.00	-0.55	-0.24	-0.02	0.71	-0.01	0.10	-0.19	0.15	-0.06
Se	0.11	-0.59	-0.55	1.00	-0.01	0.40	-0.56	-0.18	-0.53	0.36	0.05	0.09
Ti	-0.15	-0.22	-0.24	-0.01	1.00	0.25	-0.18	-0.51	0.13	-0.23	0.51	-0.40
Te	-0.29	-0.66	-0.02	0.40	0.25	1.00	-0.02	-0.68	-0.73	-0.36	0.58	0.40
Fi	-0.39	-0.09	0.71	-0.56	-0.18	-0.02	1.00	0.03	-0.02	-0.34	0.42	-0.08
Fe	0.03	0.35	-0.01	-0.18	-0.51	-0.68	0.03	1.00	0.21	0.43	-0.63	0.03
Qi	0.25	0.63	0.10	-0.53	0.13	-0.73	-0.02	0.21	1.00	0.09	-0.53	-0.44
Qe	0.51	-0.26	-0.19	0.36	-0.23	-0.36	-0.34	0.43	0.09	1.00	-0.41	-0.57
Di	-0.36	-0.55	0.15	0.05	0.51	0.58	0.42	-0.63	-0.53	-0.41	1.00	-0.13
De	-0.32	0.21	-0.06	0.09	-0.40	0.40	-0.08	0.03	-0.44	-0.57	-0.13	1.00

Table 4. Values of intercorrelations between the images of 12 socionic functions and RF-15 factors

No.	RF-15 factor	Ni	Ne	Si	Se	Ti	Te	Fi	Fe	Qi	Qe	Di	De
1	altruism	-2.2	2.5	1.6	-2.8	-0.8	-0.1	1.5	0.1	0.6	-1.0	-0.3	0.7
2	intellect	0.4	1.7	-1.7	-1.4	2.3	0.5	-1.4	-0.5	1.6	-0.6	-1.1	0.2
3	actual energy	-1.9	0.1	-0.5	1.2	-0.6	1.0	-0.4	1.1	-1.2	-0.2	-0.3	1.7
4	rational self-control	-1.5	-2.4	-1.2	0.2	1.4	1.9	1.2	0.3	-1.2	-0.4	1.4	0.2
5	conflict proneness (willpower)	-1.0	-0.6	-1.1	2.8	1.2	1.0	-1.3	-1.0	0.7	0.5	-0.8	-0.4
6	potential energy (aggression)	0.3	-0.1	-1.2	1.7	0.3	-0.8	-1.7	1.4	0.4	2.1	-1.4	-1.1
7	mature pragmatism	-0.4	-3.5	0.0	2.3	-0.4	3.0	0.5	-1.6	-1.1	0.1	0.4	0.6
8	morality	-2.6	0.9	0.6	-1.2	1.9	-0.4	0.6	0.1	1.6	-0.6	-0.2	-0.8
9	social rigidity	-1.7	-1.8	-0.3	0.0	3.2	1.3	-0.3	-0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	-1.5
10	pridefulness (fastidiousness)	0.0	-0.6	0.6	-0.7	-1.0	-0.4	0.1	2.0	0.7	2.6	-2.0	-1.3
11	enthusiasm (implementation of innovations)	-0.6	0.7	-0.8	0.3	0.4	2.5	-1.6	-0.8	-0.2	-0.4	-1.2	1.8
12	shyness	1.1	-1.0	-0.3	-0.6	1.5	0.4	0.6	-1.7	0.7	0.8	0.9	-2.5
13	ambition	-0.4	-0.2	-1.5	2.1	-0.5	-0.3	-0.7	1.5	0.9	1.1	-2.1	0.1
14	good manners	-0.5	1.3	0.7	-3.1	-0.7	-0.8	1.7	1.5	1.9	-0.1	-1.7	0.0
15	originality	1.6	2.2	-2.0	-0.2	-0.4	-1.6	-0.9	1.3	1.1	0.7	-1.6	-0.2
	Comparative lengths of function vectors constructed on the 15 factors	1.32	1.63	1.09	1.69	1.36	1.34	1.09	1.18	1.07	1.04	1.23	1.13

Table 5. Intercorrelations between RF-15 factors calculated on the profiles of 16 socionic types

Factor	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1 altruism (benevolence)	-0.05	-0.01	-0.10	-0.49	-0.38	-0.54	0.58	-0.15	0.13	-0.18	-0.11	-0.25	0.75	-0.03
2 intellect		-0.02	0.07	0.25	0.14	-0.21	0.23	0.32	-0.33	0.45	0.17	-0.02	-0.08	0.30
3 actual energy			0.24	0.70	0.72	0.25	-0.09	-0.14	0.11	0.75	-0.87	0.88	-0.37	0.38
4 rational self-control				0.23	-0.10	0.64	0.44	0.78	-0.05	0.20	0.14	0.03	-0.10	-0.50
5 conflict proneness (strong-willed personality)					0.69	0.52	-0.12	0.20	-0.22	0.80	-0.46	0.71	-0.79	0.19
6 potential energy (aggression)						0.03	-0.27	-0.22	0.24	0.57	-0.64	0.88	-0.43	0.62
7 mature pragmatism							-0.12	0.52	-0.19	0.33	0.06	0.14	-0.63	-0.56
8 morality								0.64	-0.07	-0.11	0.30	-0.30	0.43	-0.41
9 social rigidity									-0.22	0.08	0.53	-0.29	-0.13	-0.66
10 pridefulness (exactingness)										-0.25	-0.27	0.32	0.45	0.27
11 enthusiasm (innovation)											-0.55	0.61	-0.58	0.31
12 shyness												-0.85	0.18	-0.59
13 ambition													-0.38	0.62
14 good manners														0.02
15 originality

Thus, let us turn to Table 4a.

We circled in it the cells whose figures deviate most strongly from the expected and ideal values, thereby creating distortions in the entire RF-15 structure.

These are the six most critical disproportions we found:

In the RF-15 model, Te correlates excessively strongly and negatively with Ne. As can be seen from Table 4, only in factors 2 (“intellect”) and 11 (“enthusiasm”) do Ne and Te act more or less in concert, deviating from zero in the same direction; even then, in both cases at least one of these functions is close to zero, and factor 11 also has a fairly broad semantic range of interpretation, within which variation in the contributions of Ne and Se is possible. By contrast, many factors place Ne and Te at opposite poles: 7 (mature pragmatism), 4 (rational self-control), 9 (rigidity), and 15 (originality).
Fi correlates excessively positively with Si. Yes, this proximity between the two functions has been noted not only in this model but in many others and apparently is quite real; nevertheless, the fusion of these two functions across half of their variance still appears strongly excessive to us. In the RF-15 structure there is only one factor - 4 (rational self-control) - that separates these functions from each other, which is very little.
Se correlates excessively negatively with Si. Again, yes, this is not accidental. Of all homonymous functions, the sensory functions are the most evolutionarily distant from each other, originally relating as tension during the hunt and relaxation after it ends, while eating and digesting food. But again we see only one factor in which Se and Si work toward the same pole, and it does not even have any direct relation to the sensory function: factor 2, “intellect”.
Fi correlates excessively positively with Ti, which is especially clear by comparison with other antagonist functions. Overall, on this set of factors Fi is more a Judicious function than an ethical one, which is fundamentally incorrect.

5 and 6) The negative correlations between Te and Qi, and between Fe and Di, are excessively strong. Only factors 2, 5, and 11 mitigate this situation, whereas 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15 aggravate it.

Which factors, then, have clearly been omitted by Shmelev’s model for one reason or another - whether by chance in selection or because different personality traits are represented unevenly in the semantics of the language?

A) A cognitive-empathy factor that, in the proposed model, could be called “INSIGHTFULNESS-GUILELESSNESS”. First, this factor strongly separates Fi from Ti, neutralizing disproportion d4 and increasing the variance contribution of the Logic-Ethics trait to the structure of the model. It also further separates Fi from Si (d2). In addition, the property of insightfulness is strongly associated with the Negativism trait, which is also beneficial given that the model currently almost completely ignores this socionic dichotomy.

B) A factor of good coordination of body movements, primarily associated with Sensing. Let us call it “ATHLETIC, AGILE, HANDY, PRACTICAL, COLLECTED, PRECISE” - “CLUMSY, BUNGLER, GAWKER, FLUSTERED, ABSENT-MINDED”. Introducing this factor will make it possible to reduce disproportion d3 and increase the variance contribution of Intuition-Sensing to the structure.

C) A factor whose core is the concept of FANATICISM - blinkeredness, fixation on one thing, intolerance toward alternative ways of thinking and living, and a desire to punish those who deviate from the fanatic’s opinion. In essence, both Te and Ne are simultaneously displaced in this factor, so introducing it into the model will reduce d1 and additionally load the model with the Cheerfulness trait.

D) A COLLECTIVISM factor, with INDIVIDUALIST, EGOIST, SELF-SEEKING, SELF-REGARDING at the other pole.

But wait, someone will probably note here, do we not already have such a factor? It is No. 1, which is actually called “ALTRUISM”.

The point is that there are actually two very different forms of altruism in nature. Perhaps the semantic model is indeed weak at distinguishing them; nevertheless, it makes sense to divide ALTRUISM into altruism-GOOD NATURE and altruism-COLLECTIVISM. Combining these two factors produces a mixture of Judiciousness, Ethics, and Yieldingness. In fact, however, GOOD NATURE - unwillingness to harm anyone, nonviolence, respect for other people’s interests - consists mostly of Judiciousness with the addition of Fi, while Fe is neutral, and Qi. COLLECTIVISM - a sense of participation in the life of one’s group and, as a consequence, a readiness to care for others - consists of Judiciousness only to a small extent; among the rational functions Fe is elevated, while Fi is neutral, and among the questim-declatim functions Di is elevated. Thus, Collectivism is a factor in which the influence of Fe and Di overlaps most strongly, making it possible to neutralize the disproportion indicated above as d5 and d6. In essence, there is no other way to neutralize it: all other personality properties that simultaneously gravitate toward Fe and Di, and are simultaneously antagonistic to Te and Qi, are much less noticeable and are essentially secondary to the Collectivism-Individualism opposition.

E) As can be seen from Table 3, in Shmelev’s model in its current state, types with program Si are excessively rational, while types with vulnerable Si are excessively irrational. The reason is the excessive coupling of Si with Fi and with altruism and its rational motives, namely predictability for the benefit of others. Thus, it probably makes sense to distinguish separately a RELAXATION-HEDONISM-LAZINESS factor, that is, irrational introverted sensing, separating it completely from factor 10, pridefulness-fastidiousness. In addition, Si, like Fi, currently has an insufficiently long vector compared with the other functions; therefore, supplementing the structure with factors strongly loaded on Si and Fi is a priority.

I.Yu. Romanov (socionavigator.com) 12.2024 - 07.2026

Socionics and the RF-15 Lexical Personality Model

Factor 1. ALTRUISM (good nature + humaneness + altruism, which is interpreted here in the broad sense of the word - applying to an indefinitely broad circle of people, not only care for close relatives)

Factor 2. INTELLECT (the intelligence factor itself has only a weak representation in socionics; however, we considered properties indicating that a person has intellectual interests)

Factor 3. ACTUAL ENERGY

Factor 4. RATIONAL SELF-CONTROL

Factor 5. CONFLICT PRONENESS (the name is unsuccessful; this is more about strength of will, a strong-willed personality capable of standing up for and defending one’s rights)

Factor 6. POTENTIAL ENERGY (reactive aggression, choleric temperament)

Factor 7. MATURE PRAGMATISM

Factor 8. MORALITY

Factor 9. SOCIAL RIGIDITY

Factor 10. PRIDEFULNESS (again, not a completely accurate name for the factor; suppose it would be better to call it “exactingness”, “demandingness regarding quality of life”)

Factor 11. ENTHUSIASM (an unsuccessful name for the cluster; “enthusiasm” need not imply productive work, whereas here the subject is what can briefly be called “innovative activity”)

Factor 12. SHYNESS (social distancing)

Factor 13. AMBITION (narcissistic traits)

Factor 14. GOOD MANNERS (the presence of social restraints on behavior, an internal complex culture of communication, the ability to be tactful)

Factor 15. ORIGINALITY

Ещё в этой группе