Socionics vs Psychosophy

This work is based on an analysis of responses in socionic questionnaires and the results of these questionnaires (i.e. socionic profiles) from 2519 anonymous respondents who reported their Psychosophy type (that is, their type according to Afanasyev’s typology).

The sizes of the reported Psychosophy type groups range from 32 (VFEL, “Tvardovsky”) to 273 (LVEF, “Einstein”).

The data were collected from the results of 11 socionic questionnaires that operated online in 2018-19.

For the purposes of the present article, all socionic indicators were calculated starting from direct calculation of trait-based socionic profiles, the diagnostic coefficients for which were first additionally orthogonalized (until complete orthogonality was achieved). Trait profiles were measured directly as Fisher transforms of the linear correlations between respondents’ questionnaire responses, corrected for response-style characteristics and normalized, and a system of 15 trait diagnostic coefficients for the same questions. Type and function profiles were subsequently calculated from the directly measured trait profiles. The mean correspondence of the leading peaks of the type socionic profiles obtained in this way with the reported sociotypes was 0,62.

After all socionic profiles had been obtained, each quantity included in them was individually normalized by division by its own sigma, so as to obtain a unit sample sigma for each socionic indicator (thus, weak socionic traits in the profiles are “stretched” to the width of strong traits, - for type indicators, for all traits, and for all functions, the standard sample spread equals one).

Such universal normalization of all socionic indicators is necessary so that, when the socionic indicators used are subsequently projected onto the reported Psychosophy type groups, it is visually apparent how strongly each socionic indicator is represented in the reported Psychosophy types.

PART 1. STUDY OF THE COMMONALITY BETWEEN SOCIONICS AND PSYCHOSOPHY

Brief summary of Part 1:

1. It is shown that Psychosophy uses exactly the same traits as socionics, but in a different proportion. Extraversion, nality, and judiciousness are represented in Psychosophy types much less than they are in the differentiation of socionic types. By contrast, statics and “yielding” are used more intensively (with greater weight) in the Psychosophy classification than in socionics.
2. People who report their Psychosophy types know their Psychosophy type poorly and often make mistakes. Groups of reported Psychosophy types are much more heavily contaminated by errors than groups of reported socionic types.
3. The averaged socionic profiles differ substantially for all 24 Psychosophy types. Therefore, knowing a person’s complete socionic profile, one can readily reconstruct their Psychosophy type as well (using the coefficients given in Fig. 1).

The results of this first part of the study are presented in Fig. 1.

The last three columns of the table in Figure 1 are the most informative.

Fig. 1. Mean values of socionic indicators, separately normalized to unit sigma, in each Psychosophy type group (groups according to reported Psychosophy types).

© V. L. Talanov 2019

First of all, it is noteworthy that the projections of socionic traits and functions onto groups of reported Psychosophy types are, on average, 2,5 times (if not more) smaller than analogous projections onto groups of sociotypes reported in the same sample. This cannot be explained by supposing that Psychosophy allegedly uses some additional traits to classify its types. First, such traits unaccounted for in socionics simply have nowhere to come from (the set of available personality factors is finite and universal for both typologies, and socionics uses all known personality factors). Second (and this is the main point), projections are two and a half times smaller not only when reported Psychosophy type groups are projected onto socionic indicators, but also when they are projected onto 900 questionnaire items (random in their content and covering all possible psychological value-related and behavioral characteristics). Thus, the observed effect whereby projections of reported Psychosophy type groups are on average two and a half times smaller than those of reported socionic type groups, when the projections are calculated onto the same psychological indicators, can only be interpreted as an effect of contamination of the reported Psychosophy types by a large number of people who in reality have another type. The magnitude of this contamination can be estimated.

Contamination in the reported socionic type groups in the sample used, which was highly competent in socionics (people who knew not only their sociotype but also their Psychosophy type), is no more than 25%. At the same time, the signal-to-noise ratio in the reported Psychosophy type groups is, on average, as can be seen from the table, 2 - 2,5 times worse than in the socionic groups. On the other hand, the signal-to-noise ratio equals the ratio in those groups of the number of people with correctly reported types to the number of people with incorrectly reported types (this is mathematically easy to prove). From these ratios it follows that the proportion X of correctly reported types in Psychosophy type groups is found from the following relation:

0,75/0,25>=2*X/(1-X)

Hence:

X<=1/1,666=0,6

Thus, the proportion of correctly reported Psychosophy types in the sample used does not exceed 60% (in reality it is still lower, since the estimate was deliberately taken on the high side).

The table in Fig. 1 (its last 3 columns) allows the following conclusions to be drawn:

1. The Psychosophy classification into 24 types is based on exactly the same independent traits that socionics uses to classify people into 16 types (into 16 regions of psychological space).
2. Psychosophy types are reported by people with much lower reliability than socionic types are reported (the reasons for this will be discussed separately in more detail later; among these reasons are both the larger number of types in Afanasyev’s psychology and, chiefly, the lack of clarity of the diagnostic markers and descriptions of standard types used in this typology). A consequence of the high degree to which Psychosophy type groups are blurred by incorrectly reported types is the smaller magnitude of the mean values of trait poles in these type groups, compared with the mean values of the same trait poles in groups based on the sociotypes reported by these same respondents.
3. There is a difference in how different socionic traits are used in socionics and Psychosophy. According to the table presented, logic-ethics is used to a greater degree in the Psychosophy classification than in socionics (relative to other traits). Vertness is used to a lesser degree than in socionics. Nality and judiciousness-decisiveness are used very weakly (but are nevertheless used). By contrast, statics-dynamics is used with the maximum possible intensity (as we shall see below, the statics pole is among the important markers of “strong Volition”). The intensity with which a trait such as yielding is used is also increased (it is of little importance in socionics, but in Psychosophy it is among the markers of weak Volition and of “unprincipled” Volition and Emotion).
4. Among socionic functions of the psyche, the logical-ethical functions are used most intensively in Psychosophy to differentiate its types. Intuitive-sensory functions are used less in differentiating Psychosophy types (as a proportion of their use when people differentiate their sociotypes), while the functions of the Questimity-Declatimity block are used least of all (but are nevertheless used, especially Qe, which in Psychosophy is among the markers of strong Emotion).

---------------------—

PART 2. MORE DETAIL ON THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO IN PSYCHOSOPHY AND SOCIONIC TYPE GROUPS CONSTRUCTED FROM REPORTED TYPES

In addition to Figure 1 posted earlier, let us now examine Figure 2. It presents the results of a comparative measurement of the signal-to-noise ratio in type groups constructed from reported socionic and Psychosophy types. This time, respondents’ mean responses (for each type group) were analyzed in two different questionnaires, with the second questionnaire having been specially developed “for Psychosophy”, since half of it consisted of special questions intended specifically to diagnose Psychosophy types (they reflected markers of PY types according to their most popular Internet descriptions). In each questionnaire, exactly the same respondents were used to construct both the socionic and Psychosophy type groups on the basis of reported types (779 people in the first questionnaire and 277 in the second).

Fig. 2. Comparison of the signal-to-noise ratio in socionic and Psychosophy type groups constructed from types reported by the same respondents.

Conclusion: reported Psychosophy types are more contaminated by errors than reported socionic types (the signal-to-noise ratio in Psychosophy type groups is noticeably worse).

The “quality” indicator is the spread of mean response values among 24 type groups for Psychosophy and among 16 type groups for socionics. This indicator was calculated for each individual questionnaire item and then averaged across all 584 items in each questionnaire. Because this spread includes two components, one substantive and the other random (caused by statistical fluctuations of the means in type groups, each represented by a fairly small number of respondents), it is therefore necessary to compare the spread in two cases. The first is when the questionnaire responses were actually given by the participants. The second is when, instead of their responses, we insert purely random numbers (which nevertheless follow the same statistical distribution, i.e. with the same proportion of ones, twos, threes, fours, and fives in the raw responses). The spreads in the actual questionnaires are then corrected for the level of random values.

The results (see Fig. 2) show here as well that the signal-to-noise ratio and useful variance are substantially higher for socionic type groups than for Psychosophy groups. Thus, socionic types are reported with substantially less error than Psychosophy types.

What are the reasons for the lower accuracy of Psychosophy self-diagnosis? In our view, they are obvious:

1. A much greater vagueness and lack of clarity of all diagnostic criteria in Psychosophy compared with socionics (WE CONSIDER THIS THE MAIN REASON). In addition, socionics has a form of “redundancy” in its diagnostic criteria, - type diagnosis is possible both at the level of properties of whole types and, comparatively independently of this, at the level of functions and traits. Psychosophy has no such diagnostic duplication, which naturally reduces the accuracy of type self-diagnosis.
2. Vagueness of wording in the “standard portraits” of Psychosophy types published by different authors (in a number of cases, characteristics given by different authors even contradict one another).
3. The larger number of Psychosophy types compared with socionic types (24 versus 16). It is more difficult for a person to orient themselves among a larger number of available “cells”.

PART 3

The two figures (3-a and 3-b) show the relationship of socionic indicators not with Psychosophy types, as was previously demonstrated in Fig. 1 (see the first post in the thread), but with INTEGRAL Psychosophy indicators.

Recall, using Psychosophy PHYSICS as an example, that the FIRST PHYSICS indicator is defined as the mean value of the six PY types with First Physics (analogously for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Physics).

HIGH PHYSICS is defined as the mean of four values, namely, First and Second PHYSICS with a positive sign, and Third and Fourth with a negative sign.

PRINCIPLED PHYSICS is defined as the mean of four values, - First and Third Physics with a positive sign, and Second and Fourth with a negative sign.

RESULT-ORIENTED PHYSICS is defined as the mean of four values, - First and Fourth Physics with a positive sign, and Second and Third with a negative sign.

Fig. 3-a. Projections of socionic indicators onto Psychosophy indicators (in units of the standard deviation of the corresponding socionic indicators).

Fig. 3-b. Projections of socionic indicators onto Psychosophy indicators (in units of the standard deviation of the corresponding socionic indicators).

----------------------------—

Examination of Figure 3-b shows that among socionic traits and functions, in descending order of projection onto the normalized trait:

• high PHYSICS is associated with sensing, introversion, seriousness, and dynamics; with Si, Se, a deficit of Ne, and a deficit of Ni. Strong Si plays the decisive role.
• high EMOTION is associated with ethics, intuition, merriness, dynamics, and Questimity; with Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Qe, and a sharply expressed deficit of all other functions, above all a deficit of Te and Ti. Strong Fe plays the decisive role.
• high VOLITION is associated with logic, extraversion, statics, and sensing, and to some extent with decisiveness; among the functions, it is associated with strong Te and Se, to some extent Ti and De, and weakness of Fi, Ni, and Fe. Te and Se strengthen VOLITION equally.
• high Psychosophy LOGIC is associated with socionic logic, introversion, and intuition; among the functions, it is associated with strong Ti and, to some extent, Ni, Qi, and Ne. Fe is sharply weakened, while Fi, Se, and Qe are weakened more moderately. Strong Ti plays the decisive role.

---------------------------—

When PRINCIPLED functions are considered, the association of PRINCIPLED VOLITION with high Se is noteworthy, whereas PRINCIPLED EMOTION, by contrast, is associated with low Se. In short, from the standpoint of Psychosophy, Volition in its “principled” positions (1st and 3rd) is uncompromising, which is possible with strong Se, whereas Emotion, by contrast, envelops with “principled” love and peace, which is possible only with suppressed Se.

=====================

PART 4

Now let us examine the intercorrelation matrix of integral Psychosophy indicators (Fig. 4).

We cannot measure correlations between Psychosophy indicators across people (respondents), because in this work we are not studying their complete Psychosophy profiles obtained from questionnaires (where each type is present with some probability expressed numerically, or where the traits of each of the 24 types are represented in a proportion expressed numerically); instead, here we are working with “quantized” Psychosophy types (each respondent is assigned only one type, namely the one they reported).

However, we can calculate the intercorrelation matrix we want on the array of questionnaire items. Although each respondent has only one fixed type and there is no complete Psychosophy profile, each questionnaire item does have a complete Psychosophy profile. It consists of the mean response values to that item in each Psychosophy type group. That is, each question is initially associated with 24 numbers (a complete Psychosophy profile). All other integral Psychosophy indicators are also calculated from this profile.

If, for example, we take 900 questions for which we have a sufficiently large number of respondents who reported their Psychosophy type, then on this array we can measure any intercorrelations between Psychosophy indicators very well, i.e. study the internal relationships within Psychosophy.

Experience with socionics shows that intercorrelation matrices, one obtained from an array of participants and the other from a large array of questionnaire items, are practically identical.

Fig. 4. Intercorrelations of Psychosophy indicators across the array of Psychosophy loadings of 847 questionnaire items (these are, without exception, all questionnaire items having in our experiment a total of more than 600 respondents with reported PY types).

---------------—

Thus, from Fig. 4 it is apparent first of all that:

• EMOTION occupies a special position in Psychosophy (that is, there is no symmetry among the functions). HIGH EMOTION correlates sharply negatively with all three other functions, whereas the other Psychosophy functions correlate strongly negatively only with EMOTION, while having almost zero correlations with one another (that is, three of the four functions do not depend on one another, but all of them are NEGATIVELY DEPENDENT ON EMOTION).

Thus, PSYCHOSOPHY is a very “crooked” typology, and given the very weak representation in it of the factors of nality and judiciousness-decisiveness (whose analogues are the Big Five factor of Conscientiousness and the Big Five factor of Agreeableness), it is also incomplete.

HIGH VOLITION, however, even shows weak positive correlations with PHYSICS and LOGIC (but not with EMOTION). This is probably the basis of the Psychosophy legend that high Volition allegedly “pulls up” the other functions toward itself.

===============================

PART 5. “PHYSICS” IN PY

Questionnaire items (from V. Talanov’s questionnaires) that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FIRST PHYSICS - the 20 items with the highest positive loadings and the 12 items with the largest negative loadings (the list of “negative” items is truncated throughout so that the material will fit in a single post).

At the end of each item, the mean value (within the group) of normalized responses to that item is given, in units of the item’s sigma:

1. If one voice urges me to eat and another voice at the same time calls me to satisfy my curiosity, then as a rule I will eat first. 0,69
2. The physical needs of my body are sacred to me; I always follow them and do not allow other people to infringe upon them. 0,61
3. I am excellent at taking care of myself - I defend my material interests well, and I also never forget to have a tasty meal at the proper time. 0,53
4. I am distinguished by spatial agility and nimbleness. 0,42
5. I know how to rest well, value pleasures and everyday joys, and am excellent at arranging comfort in my immediate surroundings. 0,41
6. My desires and biological needs are sacred to me; I never give them up, always achieve their fulfillment, and, if necessary, overcome the resistance of those around me in order to do so. 0,40
7. In general, I always conserve energy and try to do only what is necessary. 0,38
8. Sensations are very important to me; I can even say that I think not in words and pictures, but as though with the entire surface of my body. 0,38
9. In physical work, I readily get involved and readily, without lengthy deliberation, switch from one operation to another. 0,37
10. In food I can distinguish even faint nuances of taste. 0,37
11. My movements are more often smooth and “flowing”. 0,33
12. My principle is: I need enjoyment and pleasure today, not tomorrow. 0,33
13. My body is generally relaxed, and my movements are almost always calm and smooth. 0,31
14. I can be unyieldingly stubborn about arranging a room and positioning furniture. 0,31
15. I am a person with strong sexuality unburdened by doubts. 0,31
16. In sex I am always much more strongly aroused by real visual and tactile stimuli from a person of the sex that interests me sexually than by fantasies. 0,30
17. I think more often about how to conserve my strength than about what else I could apply it to. 0,30
18. Safety is generally more valuable than various freedoms. 0,30
19. I always alternate work with rest and avoid stressful situations. 0,29
20. I usually lack motivation to do anything. 0,29

--------------------------------------------------—

21. I have a very strongly developed research instinct. -0,33
22. In my thoughts I am often irresistibly carried toward plans for actions amounting almost to active transformation of the entire world. -0,34
23. I cannot and do not know how to enjoy simply being at rest - I will not experience pleasure until I obtain what I want and am striving for. -0,34
24. Compared with others, I more often ignore the demands of my body and my appearance. -0,34
25. I often have so many plans and new ideas that it even interferes with my work. -0,35
26. I have an inquisitive mind. -0,37
27. Sometimes I become so absorbed in thought about something that I wander somewhere other than where I was going. -0,37
28. Because of my idealistic and lofty disposition, I strongly need someone to take care of my food, health, and vital needs in general. -0,38
29. I often do not know what to do with my hands, and in general I am characterized by some awkwardness of posture and movement. -0,39
30. I always have many new and original ideas. -0,39
31. I have a rich imagination. -0,43
32. Hidden possibility, mystery, and novelty interest me more than comfort. -0,44

Questionnaire items having the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting SECOND PHYSICS:

1. Taking care of my body and stomach is a pleasant process. 0,50
2. I can easily direct my attention to every muscle of my body and to any internal organ I choose; I feel them all as a smoothly functioning machine. 0,48
3. I control my body well and have a good sense of the surrounding space, so bumping into objects, stumbling, or striking myself against things is completely unlike me. 0,39
4. I have excellent coordination of movement and an accurate eye. 0,38
5. I can quickly switch my attention among sensations from several parts of my body. 0,36
6. By taste I can always easily tell whether a food is worth eating or not, so that I do not feel unwell afterward. 0,35
7. I am very practical in everyday life. 0,34
8. I am very discriminating about the taste of foods; at least, by taste I more often than others distinguish a fresh product from one that is not very fresh. 0,33
9. I often evaluate things by touch, taste, and smell. 0,32
10. Compared with others, I probably pay more attention to maintaining a constant reserve of resources for myself - so that the necessary tools are always available at home and the refrigerator is not empty. 0,32
11. I like energetic movements and active, mobile work. 0,32
12. The smallest changes in my sensations are noticeable and accessible to me; in general, bodily sensations are very important to me. 0,32
13. By taste I can readily detect even slight bitterness or staleness in foods. 0,31
14. I am very observant of all kinds of small external details. 0,31
15. The physical needs of my body are sacred to me; I always follow them and do not allow other people to infringe upon them. 0,31
16. In food I can distinguish even faint nuances of taste. 0,30
17. My desires and biological needs are sacred to me; I never give them up, always achieve their fulfillment, and, if necessary, overcome the resistance of those around me in order to do so. 0,30
18. I do not tolerate objections. 0,29
19. I can easily thread a needle - the movements of my fingers are always precisely calibrated. 0,29
20. Searching for the most convenient and comfortable place is an activity characteristic of me. 0,28

-----------------------------------------------------------—

21. I often eat commercially prepared bouillon made from concentrates. -0,29
22. In many situations my emotions instantly “wind themselves up” to a high intensity. -0,30
23. I am not very practical and am generally indifferent to everyday household matters. -0,31
24. I like, and at least am accustomed to, living under constant “driving” tension. -0,33
25. Compared with others, I more often ignore the demands of my body and my appearance. -0,33
26. I respect and understand the “cosmic dreamer” Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky - there is a substantial share of his character in me. -0,35
27. My gait is somewhat loose and awkward. -0,36
28. Sometimes my own body seems alien to me. -0,36
29. I am often physically awkward. -0,38
30. Sometimes I lose all interest in comfort for a long time, even losing the ability to distinguish at all whether something is comfortable or uncomfortable for me. -0,43
31. In a short time I can invent a great many different ideas and alternative explanations on a given topic. -0,43
32. I often forget about my body, forget its limbs, forget pain and pleasure, and seem to dissolve into the universe. -0,51

Questionnaire items having the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting THIRD PHYSICS

(NOTE THAT ALL ITEMS RELATED TO HEIGHTENED DISGUST SENSITIVITY, A FEELING OF REVULSION, INTOLERANCE OF TOUCH, AND HEIGHTENED ATTENTION TO UNPLEASANT SENSATIONS FELL SPECIFICALLY INTO THIS GROUP, AND NOT INTO 4F OR ANY OTHER):

1. I have a strongly developed sense of disgust - some things or objects are so unpleasant to touch that it almost makes me physically nauseous. 0,47
2. I find it very unpleasant to watch television scenes of surgery on the human body, when the body is opened and the internal organs can be seen. 0,33
3. If I see a wriggling worm crawling out of unfinished food on a plate that I have just been eating from, I can easily vomit from disgust. 0,30
4. My skin is very sensitive to touch (sometimes even painfully sensitive). 0,29
5. If I accidentally put something wrong or barely edible into my mouth, I usually immediately have a reflexive nausea response. 0,29
6. I often experience an emotion of nauseating disgust. 0,28
7. It is very important to me how I look and how others evaluate me. 0,27
8. I often feel discomfort even though I cannot understand exactly what is wrong, - everything as a whole is simply uncomfortable. 0,27
9. I am often physically awkward. 0,26
10. I can easily “emotionally fire up” an audience around me and make it attend to the way I play my emotions over time, like a musician playing a flute. 0,26
11. I like an atmosphere of tragic passions. 0,26
12. If I accidentally put a large caterpillar into my mouth together with berries and discover it, I immediately develop a nausea response. 0,25
13. I feel quite normal and comfortable in a dense crowd of people during some kind of celebration. 0,25
14. I feel disgust toward some animals and insects. 0,24
15. I have a certain demonstrativeness, a “theatricality” in the experiences I display. 0,23
16. I pay attention much more often to unpleasant bodily sensations of any kind (itching, tingling, numbness, vibration, pain, heaviness, etc.) than to pleasant ones. 0,23
17. I often do not know what to do with my hands, and in general I am characterized by some awkwardness of posture and movement. 0,23
18. At times I get “stuck” observing the gradual change over time in some internal sensation of mine. 0,22
19. At least several times a week I experience a feeling of revulsion toward something. 0,21
20. Even after eating a small amount of food, I sometimes feel that my stomach is overfull, with a feeling of “heaviness” in the pit of my stomach. 0,20

---------------------------------------------—

21. The physical needs of my body are sacred to me; I always follow them and do not allow other people to infringe upon them. -0,23
22. I can easily thread a needle - the movements of my fingers are always precisely calibrated. -0,23
23. In physical work, I readily get involved and readily, without lengthy deliberation, switch from one operation to another. -0,23
24. I have excellent coordination of movement and an accurate eye. -0,23
25. If I become ill, I usually treat myself without telling anyone about my illness and without drawing attention to it in front of those close to me (I will briefly say how I feel only if they ask me themselves). -0,23
26. I can easily and without difficulty walk alone at night through a dark forest or cemetery with complete indifference. -0,25
27. My principle is: I need enjoyment and pleasure today, not tomorrow. -0,25
28. For me, time is more a small interval around the present than a great expanse. -0,25
29. I am excellent at taking care of myself - I defend my material interests well, and I also never forget to have a tasty meal at the proper time. -0,27
30. If one voice urges me to eat and another voice at the same time calls me to satisfy my curiosity, then as a rule I will eat first. -0,28
31. I control my body well and have a good sense of the surrounding space, so bumping into objects, stumbling, or striking myself against things is completely unlike me. -0,29
32. I am distinguished by spatial agility and nimbleness. -0,34

Questionnaire items having the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FOURTH PHYSICS

(NOTE THAT THE CONTENT OF MOST ITEMS IS ASSOCIATED WITH INDIFFERENTLY IGNORING THE DOMAIN OF THE FUNCTION, WITHOUT ANY IRRITABILITY TOWARD UNPLEASANT ASPECTS WITHIN ITS DOMAIN):

1. I often forget about my body, forget its limbs, forget pain and pleasure, and seem to dissolve into the universe. 0,67
2. Compared with others, I more often ignore the demands of my body and my appearance. 0,66
3. Sometimes I lose all interest in comfort for a long time, even losing the ability to distinguish at all whether something is comfortable or uncomfortable for me. 0,60
4. I am not very practical and am generally indifferent to everyday household matters. 0,55
5. Hidden possibility, mystery, and novelty interest me more than comfort. 0,54
6. Compared with others, I more often neglect caring for my body and my comforts. 0,53
7. In a short time I can invent a great many different ideas and alternative explanations on a given topic. 0,51
8. Because of my idealistic and lofty disposition, I strongly need someone to take care of my food, health, and vital needs in general. 0,49
9. “Instead of a hat, while walking he put a frying pan on his head” - that describes me. 0,45
10. I respect and understand the “cosmic dreamer” Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky - there is a substantial share of his character in me. 0,42
11. Sometimes my own body seems alien to me. 0,41
12. My sense of taste is usually dulled - I suspect that it is weaker than that of other people. 0,40
13. I usually do not care how I look, but if people suddenly begin paying attention to me and my appearance, I feel very awkward. 0,39
14. Everything biological and directly instinctive in me is very strongly inhibited; it very rarely breaks through to the surface. 0,38
15. At times I seem to dissolve into the universe, forgetting my body, forgetting pain and pleasure. 0,38
16. I am easily and without irritation distracted from satisfying my needs - sleep, food, etc. 0,38
17. I have a rich imagination. 0,38
18. I can easily perceive the most remote possibilities, having no close or similar examples in the present. 0,37
19. I am characterized by an “inner gaze”, fantasy, and imagination that carry me into imaginary worlds that know no temporal or spatial boundaries. 0,37
20. Food rarely arouses my appetite; it often seems almost tasteless altogether. 0,36

----------------------—

21. I am very discriminating about the taste of foods; at least, by taste I more often than others distinguish a fresh product from one that is not very fresh. -0,48
22. Searching for the most convenient and comfortable place is an activity characteristic of me. -0,48
23. Compared with others, I probably pay more attention to maintaining a constant reserve of resources for myself - so that the necessary tools are always available at home and the refrigerator is not empty. -0,49
24. I am very practical in everyday life. -0,49
25. I can assess the quality of any food product well, explaining in detail what about it suits me or does not suit me. -0,50
26. Wherever I am, the very first substantial efforts I make are directed toward arranging things comfortably for myself. -0,50
27. I know how to rest well, value pleasures and everyday joys, and am excellent at arranging comfort in my immediate surroundings. -0,51
28. I can easily direct my attention to every muscle of my body and to any internal organ I choose; I feel them all as a smoothly functioning machine. -0,53
29. I am excellent at taking care of myself - I defend my material interests well, and I also never forget to have a tasty meal at the proper time. -0,54
30. In food I can distinguish even faint nuances of taste. -0,54
31. My desires and biological needs are sacred to me; I never give them up, always achieve their fulfillment, and, if necessary, overcome the resistance of those around me in order to do so. -0,57
32. The smallest changes in my sensations are noticeable and accessible to me; in general, bodily sensations are very important to me. -0,59
33. The physical needs of my body are sacred to me; I always follow them and do not allow other people to infringe upon them. -0,70

Analyzing the composition of the items (markers for 1F, 2F, 3F, and 4F), one must also conclude that nowhere in the items IS THERE ANY DISCERNIBLE CONSCIOUS ORIENTATION toward using or not using the function (which some authors sometimes like to attribute to Psychosophy, - claiming that it allegedly differs from socionics in reflecting not potential capacities arising from character, but only value orientations consciously established by a person for themselves, CONSCIOUS PRIORITIES). No, there are no “conscious priorities” discernible anywhere here.

What is associated with DEMANDINGNESS in the domain of the function, however, does indeed gravitate either toward 1F or toward 3F (the “principled” positions), but not toward 2F or 4F.

===================

PART 6. “EMOTION” IN PY

Questionnaire items (from V. Talanov’s questionnaires) that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FIRST EMOTION.

At the end of each item, the group mean of normalized responses to that item is given, in units of the item’s sigma:

1. I am lyrical and romantic; my character is marked by sentimental sensitivity and vulnerability. 0,70
2. I am probably more sentimental and worry more often than my friends and acquaintances. 0,67
3. Very often (more often and more strongly than most people I know) I “pour out” my loud positive emotions. 0,66
4. My emotions are characterized by depth, drama, and persistence. 0,64
5. I am a person of deep experiences and feelings. 0,63
6. If I see something very horrifying and frightening, I will be unable to restrain my feelings and will very likely become hysterical. 0,62
7. Feelings of shock, amazement, and surprise are very familiar to me - I have experienced them more than once during the past month. 0,61
8. I am characterized by vivid, straightforward emotionality. 0,60
9. I usually understand a person’s feelings better than their conversations. 0,57
10. In conversation I usually involuntarily “play” with my face - raising my eyebrows, pouting my lips, etc. 0,56
11. I like an emotionally rich life. 0,54
12. I always quickly sense changes in the mood of the person I am speaking with. 0,51
13. In films and books I have read, what I remember most strongly is not their plot details but the overall emotional component (therefore, if I am asked to describe a film or book, I will first try to describe precisely the emotional message contained in it - as I understood it). 0,51
14. I can easily and unmistakably discern when my friend is happy. 0,50
15. I readily feel sympathy for people; I often perceive even a stranger’s problems almost as if they were my own. 0,50
16. The world of my inner ethical feelings and experiences is precisely the field in which decisions are made. 0,50
17. I understand the experiences and moods of people around me well. 0,50
18. Key concepts for me are: imagination, empathy, sympathy, soul, traditions, commandments, duty, tact, self-sacrifice, neatness. 0,49
19. I have a good sense of other people’s intonations, gestures, and looks. 0,47
20. As a rule, I have a kind, radiant gaze and a sincere positive smile. 0,47

-------------------------------------------------—

21. There is probably more indifference and imperturbable disregard in my character than in other people’s. -0,47
22. Knowledge and facts usually occupy me much more than beauty and feelings. -0,47
23. I pay little attention to intonation in another person’s speech, but I grasp the semantic content of phrases instantly. -0,47
24. I do not always understand exactly when people become upset or offended, - when they are sobbing their eyes out, that is understandable. -0,47
25. It is very difficult to surprise me with anything. -0,48
26. By nature I am independent and inclined toward intellectual leadership. -0,49
27. I am usually not very interested in any objections to what I say (if only because objections from other people are rarely intelligent). -0,49
28. I am completely unable to talk about my feelings and the experiences I am going through - even if it were necessary, I could not do it. -0,50
29. I am emotionally “short-sighted” and usually distinguish only very vivid and strong experiences in other people. -0,54
30. I know how to restrain and conceal my emotions. -0,57
31. Emotions do not affect me deeply. -0,57
32. My self-control is clearly above average. -0,58

CONCLUSIONS FROM ANALYSIS OF THE ITEM CONTENT:

First EMOTION is emotion in the form of the heroine of “A Slave of Love”, i.e. “dopaminergic” emotion, with a core of Fe, somewhat less Fi, and a strong admixture of traits of socionic intuition. First EMOTION is straightforward and dominates rather than adapting itself.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting SECOND EMOTION:

1. It is true that I never make mistakes in using my feelings and the external expression of emotions - for me they are a very precise instrument for exerting timely influence on the mass of people around me. 0,62
2. I always notice if someone’s mood nearby has “fallen”, and I can usually easily understand what caused it and how it will develop further. 0,60
3. It is easy for me to adapt emotionally to those around me. 0,55
4. My emotions are an orchestra in which every instrument comes into play at exactly the necessary and preappointed time. 0,54
5. I can usually see when a person is in a cheerful mood. 0,48
6. I usually understand quickly, even before any words have been spoken, that a male or female acquaintance of mine is angry. 0,48
7. I always quickly sense changes in the mood of the person I am speaking with. 0,47
8. I have a certain demonstrativeness, a “theatricality” in the experiences I display. 0,46
9. I often understand how and what a person feels even before they tell me about it. 0,45
10. I am sensitive to other people’s states and know how to smooth over sharp edges in communication. 0,44
11. I can easily and unmistakably discern when my friend is happy. 0,43
12. I like, as it were, to create “emotional vortices” around myself so as to remain at the focus of human emotions and passions. 0,42
13. I can usually tell immediately when my friends are afraid of something. 0,42
14. My talent is that I can enter into a “common rhythm” with another person’s feelings and experiences. 0,42
15. I understand the experiences and moods of people around me well. 0,42
16. I usually understand a person’s feelings better than their conversations. 0,41
17. I usually anticipate other people’s angry outbursts in advance. 0,41
18. I always sense brief declines and rises in another person’s mood from nuances in the voices of the people I am speaking with. 0,41
19. I easily infer other people’s intentions. 0,40
20. I could be applied like a “compress” to another person’s emotional wounds. 0,40

-----------------------------------------------—

21. I most often ignore the current and changing emotions of the people around me if those emotions are not directed at me personally for a prolonged period. -0,36
22. I have a poor understanding of other people’s attitudes toward me, - in such matters I am generally inclined to seek advice. -0,36
23. I control my emotions poorly during arguments and do not know how to express my feelings in public. -0,39
24. I am worse than others at recognizing people’s moods from their faces. -0,39
25. I have “large-block” emotions - when I have to delve into emotional nuances and details, my attention quickly becomes scattered. -0,41
26. I am usually not very sensitive to the moods of those around me. -0,41
27. Quite often, for some reason, people take offense at my words even though I did not mean to offend them at all. -0,41
28. I am very practical in everyday life. -0,42
29. I do not always understand exactly when people become upset or offended, - when they are sobbing their eyes out, that is understandable. -0,42
30. I am emotionally “short-sighted” and usually distinguish only very vivid and strong experiences in other people. -0,43
31. With respect to intrigues around me, I am usually blind, deaf, insensitive, and ingenuous. -0,46
32. I am usually unaware of the feelings of my close acquaintances. -0,47

CONCLUSION: Second EMOTION observes and adapts itself to the human environment.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting THIRD EMOTION:

1. I always prefer even emotions in those around me, without “surges”. 0,44
2. I never talk about my feelings - I simply do not know how. 0,43
3. I have excellent coordination of movement and an accurate eye. 0,42
4. I am very practical in everyday life. 0,40
5. I know from my own experience that intensive work is the best preventive remedy against a bad mood and illness. 0,36
6. I am usually unaware of the feelings of my close acquaintances. 0,36
7. I am proud that I never do anything useless. 0,34
8. I am a very self-sufficient person - I am usually comfortable even by myself and, in any case, I generally need no one’s help or support. 0,33
9. I am always confident in my abilities and competence. 0,33
10. I almost never sympathize with characters in films - after all, it is all make-believe. 0,32
11. Sometimes I resemble a silent, impenetrable wall. 0,32
12. Compared with others, I probably pay more attention to maintaining a constant reserve of resources for myself - so that the necessary tools are always available at home and the refrigerator is not empty. 0,32
13. I like efficient simplicity in everything, without embellishment. 0,32
14. If I become ill, I usually treat myself without telling anyone about my illness and without drawing attention to it in front of those close to me (I will briefly say how I feel only if they ask me themselves). 0,32
15. My speech is usually monotonous and sluggish, with pauses. 0,31
16. It is true that I very much dislike conversation partners or other partners who have “surges of emotion”. 0,31
17. I know how to restrain and conceal my emotions. 0,30
18. Loud laughter and “throwing oneself onto someone’s chest” in tears seem vulgar to me and never arouse sympathy. 0,30
19. I do nothing “for show”. 0,30
20. I become tired very quickly of people who readily display their “emotional vividness”. 0,30

---------------------------—

21. At times I behave with a somewhat high-flown “theatrical” pressure. -0,39
22. I like an atmosphere of tragic passions. -0,40
23. I like an emotionally rich life. -0,41
24. I am lyrical and romantic; my character is marked by sentimental sensitivity and vulnerability. -0,42
25. I have a certain demonstrativeness, a “theatricality” in the experiences I display. -0,42
26. In conversation I usually involuntarily “play” with my face - raising my eyebrows, pouting my lips, etc. -0,43
27. I like, as it were, to create “emotional vortices” around myself so as to remain at the focus of human emotions and passions. -0,44
28. I am skillful, cheerful, and good-natured in dealing with people; I know how to entertain them and, truly, cannot bore them. -0,46
29. It is true that I never make mistakes in using my feelings and the external expression of emotions - for me they are a very precise instrument for exerting timely influence on the mass of people around me. -0,48
30. My emotions are an orchestra in which every instrument comes into play at exactly the necessary and preappointed time. -0,49
31. Very often (more often and more strongly than most people I know) I “pour out” my loud positive emotions. -0,52
32. It is easy for me to adapt emotionally to those around me. -0,58

CONCLUSIONS: Third EMOTION is characterized by intolerance of other people’s vivid emotions, emphasized inattention to other people’s experiences, and a somewhat irritated opposition of one’s own merits and achievements in the sphere of logic and everyday sensory pragmatism to any emotions whatsoever.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FOURTH EMOTION:

1. I am emotionally “short-sighted” and usually distinguish only very vivid and strong experiences in other people. 0,76
2. I pay little attention to intonation in another person’s speech, but I grasp the semantic content of phrases instantly. 0,75
3. Emotions do not affect me deeply. 0,73
4. Knowledge and facts usually occupy me much more than beauty and feelings. 0,67
5. I do not always understand exactly when people become upset or offended, - when they are sobbing their eyes out, that is understandable. 0,63
6. I am worse than others at recognizing people’s moods from their faces. 0,58
7. I have a poor understanding of other people’s attitudes toward me, - in such matters I am generally inclined to seek advice. 0,57
8. I have “large-block” emotions - when I have to delve into emotional nuances and details, my attention quickly becomes scattered. 0,57
9. My logical chains of reasoning are always error-free and precise. 0,55
10. By nature I am independent and inclined toward intellectual leadership. 0,53
11. I do not always understand what exactly offended the person I am speaking with during a conversation. 0,52
12. I am usually unaware of the feelings of my close acquaintances. 0,52
13. If considerations of order, necessity, and utility “flare up” in my mind, then any experiences and thoughts about morality and feelings are quickly displaced for a time. 0,51
14. I am “thick-skinned” with respect to all kinds of negative predictions from others. 0,51
15. I do not like empathizing with others - let them worry about themselves. 0,51
16. The people around me interest me very little. 0,50
17. In a stressful situation I quickly throw all emotions out of my head and almost immediately act coolly, clearly, and logically. 0,50
18. I am completely unable to talk about my feelings and the experiences I am going through - even if it were necessary, I could not do it. 0,50
19. I am not at all shy, but at the same time I am helpless at building relationships with people - in this respect it is easy to catch me on a hook. 0,48
20. There is probably more indifference and imperturbable disregard in my character than in other people’s. 0,48

-----------------------------------------------------—

21. I have a good sense of other people’s intonations, gestures, and looks. -0,62
22. I am lyrical and romantic; my character is marked by sentimental sensitivity and vulnerability. -0,63
23. I notice even subtle nuances in people’s behavior. -0,64
24. I am probably more sentimental and worry more often than my friends and acquaintances. -0,65
25. I can easily and unmistakably discern when my friend is happy. -0,67
26. While listening to the person I am speaking with, I “automatically” register and remember their emotional state and the overall meaning of what they want, including the emotional message of their speech. -0,67
27. I usually understand a person’s feelings better than their conversations. -0,70
28. My emotions are characterized by depth, drama, and persistence. -0,71
29. The world of my inner ethical feelings and experiences is precisely the field in which decisions are made. -0,73
30. I always quickly sense changes in the mood of the person I am speaking with. -0,75
31. I understand the experiences and moods of people around me well. -0,76
32. I am a person of deep experiences and feelings. -0,81

CONCLUSIONS: Fourth EMOTION is characterized by emotional insensitivity and calm indifference to the emotional sphere, without the irritation characteristic of Third EMOTION (which, despite its exhaustibility, is nevertheless more sensitive and notices more than Fourth Emotion, and therefore often becomes irritated because it is unable to ignore things).

=====================

PART 7. “VOLITION” IN PY

Questionnaire items (from V. Talanov’s questionnaires) that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FIRST VOLITION.

At the end of each item, the group mean of normalized responses to that item is given, in units of the item’s sigma:

1. I feel self-confident practically all the time. 0,70
2. I have always acted boldly, without fearing punishment. 0,62
3. In my behavioral style, I am energetic, responsible, and well organized. 0,57
4. If I become fired up by an idea, I cannot be stopped - I will overcome any obstacles. 0,55
5. I state my demands openly and readily enter into quarrels. 0,53
6. I do not tolerate objections. 0,53
7. I am bold in striving for success. 0,52
8. My motivations are always strong and promising, and therefore very absorbing and compelling. 0,51
9. I cannot and do not know how to enjoy simply being at rest - I will not experience pleasure until I obtain what I want and am striving for. 0,50
10. At every particular moment I always know very well what I need and what I want. 0,50
11. I often experience a feeling of inner pride and success. 0,49
12. I like difficult and dangerous practical tasks that require willpower, pressure, logic, decisiveness, and courage. 0,48
13. I can be egocentric in the dominant tendency of my practical reasoning, at times paying little attention to the practical interests of people connected with me simply through inattentiveness. 0,47
14. By one means or another, I know how to make other people do what I need. 0,46
15. I am always confident in my abilities and competence. 0,46
16. In life I have started from zero more than once and achieved success each time. 0,46
17. I always know and feel exactly what I want and what my “heart is set on” at the given moment. 0,44
18. I am usually quite critical of the quality of work and the diligence of my partners. 0,44
19. All else being equal, I could quite well work as an agent for a debt-collection agency “extracting” debts. 0,43
20. If I am treated unfairly in some way at work or by my neighbors, I will very probably file a formal complaint and go to court. 0,42

-------------------------------------—

21. Because of shyness, I have often avoided making contact because I was afraid of being rejected. -0,42
22. I prefer to do any task without rushing and become irritated if I am hurried. -0,43
23. More often than others, I tend to sacrifice my own interests for other people or the common good. -0,44
24. I live by going with the flow and solve problems reluctantly, only when there is no other option. -0,45
25. In general, I always conserve energy and try to do only what is necessary. -0,45
26. I often feel ashamed even when I am not guilty of anything. -0,45
27. I think more often about how to conserve my strength than about what else I could apply it to. -0,47
28. I am easily moved to pity. -0,49
29. I am lyrical and romantic; my character is marked by sentimental sensitivity and vulnerability. -0,49
30. I am probably more sentimental and worry more often than my friends and acquaintances. -0,50
31. I become irritated if someone tries to push me into acting hurriedly. -0,51
32. My problem is that I cannot refuse requests. -0,52
33. I usually lack motivation to do anything. -0,63

CONCLUSIONS: the essence of First VOLITION is self-confidence, pushiness, purposefulness, and a habit of dominating.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting SECOND VOLITION:

1. I like efficient simplicity in everything, without embellishment. 0,27
2. I know from my own experience that intensive work is the best preventive remedy against a bad mood and illness. 0,25
3. I most often ignore the current and changing emotions of the people around me if those emotions are not directed at me personally for a prolonged period. 0,24
4. I pay attention much more often to unpleasant bodily sensations of any kind (itching, tingling, numbness, vibration, pain, heaviness, etc.) than to pleasant ones. 0,24
5. I have a strong need to care for and protect people close to me (it is probably more developed than in others). 0,21
6. I control my emotions poorly during arguments and do not know how to express my feelings in public. 0,20
7. When making decisions, I always carefully consider whether they might harm the interests of humanity, society, and other people. 0,20
8. Very often, in my thoughts, I involuntarily weigh and estimate the efficiency of my expenditures and efforts and consider how they might be optimized. 0,19
9. I make sure that people do not come too close to me during conversation. 0,19
10. I am more patient than others both with other people’s shortcomings and with any other irritating aspects of life. 0,19
11. I am hardworking and like being kept busy with work assigned to me. 0,18
12. With respect to intrigues around me, I am usually blind, deaf, insensitive, and ingenuous. 0,18
13. I like searching for and accumulating all kinds of information. 0,18
14. In conversations I always express myself in a somewhat questioning manner and without pressure, trying not to impose my opinion. 0,18
15. I like difficult and dangerous practical tasks that require willpower, pressure, logic, decisiveness, and courage. 0,18
16. Compared with my peers, I have stronger arms and well-developed body musculature (higher muscle mass). 0,18
17. I can easily draw a floor plan of my apartment from memory. 0,18
18. I try to manage people by appealing to their morality and ethical principles. 0,18
19. As a rule, I am immersed in the sensation of the present moment, in the “here” and “now”, while imagining everything that could be but that I do not currently see before me is difficult for me. 0,18

---------------------------------------—

20. While condemning rude and ill-mannered people, I myself am at times hot-tempered and unrestrained. -0,19
21. I often have so many plans and new ideas that it even interferes with my work. -0,19
22. My emotions are an orchestra in which every instrument comes into play at exactly the necessary and preappointed time. -0,20
23. I enjoy letting my imagination wander pleasantly along the viscous, continuous streams of future events. -0,20
24. I am often restless - I feel a need to keep getting up and sitting down, fidgeting, and moving. -0,20
25. At times I get “stuck” observing the gradual change over time in some internal sensation of mine. -0,21
26. I like, as it were, to create “emotional vortices” around myself so as to remain at the focus of human emotions and passions. -0,22
27. I always notice if someone’s mood nearby has “fallen”, and I can usually easily understand what caused it and how it will develop further. -0,23
28. It is true that I never make mistakes in using my feelings and the external expression of emotions - for me they are a very precise instrument for exerting timely influence on the mass of people around me. -0,24
29. I often get “stuck” on the feeling of a hostile confrontation between myself and the world. -0,25
30. I like an atmosphere of tragic passions. -0,25
31. In my thoughts I am often irresistibly carried toward plans for actions amounting almost to active transformation of the entire world. -0,28

CONCLUSIONS: the essence of SECOND VOLITION is inert, purely pragmatic workaholism, a way of adapting to one’s surroundings through a sense of personal responsibility, as well as through inert personal work (to a considerable extent routine) and ignoring disturbances in the environment.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting THIRD VOLITION:

1. Sometimes for a long time I experience a heavy feeling of guilt accompanied by self-reproach and pangs of conscience. 0,34
2. It is easy for me to adapt emotionally to those around me. 0,30
3. My logical chains of reasoning are always error-free and precise. 0,29
4. I am often troubled by a prolonged feeling of guilt. 0,25
5. I am guided more often by fear of failure or punishment than by hope of triumph. 0,22
6. I often feel ashamed even when I am not guilty of anything. 0,21
7. The capacities of my mind are limitless - I like to reason, display my intellect, and show myself off in some interesting discussion. 0,20
8. From another person’s face I can instantly see that something is disgusting or unpleasant to them. 0,20
9. I am probably more sentimental and worry more often than my friends and acquaintances. 0,20
10. When I am under nervous tension, I sometimes begin stumbling on almost level ground and become awkward in my movements. 0,20
11. I become irritated if someone tries to push me into acting hurriedly. 0,19
12. Sometimes I like feeling like a victim. 0,19
13. I often become sad when I watch sad things on television or in films. 0,19
14. Working as a musical-instrument tuner would suit me - I have absolute pitch for the “height” of a note. 0,18
15. I often act on a feeling of pity. 0,18
16. I have panic attacks (at least once a month or more often). 0,18
17. Sometimes I become so absorbed in thought about something that I wander somewhere other than where I was going. 0,18
18. I am often nervous because I feel vulnerable or dependent. 0,18
19. Current, immediate failures strongly knock me “off course”. 0,18
20. My fantasies are almost always much cruder, more vivid, and larger in scale than my real life. 0,17

------------------------—

21. I know how to restrain and conceal my emotions. -0,22
22. I have always acted boldly, without fearing punishment. -0,22
23. I almost never sympathize with characters in films - after all, it is all make-believe. -0,23
24. I feel self-confident practically all the time. -0,23
25. The initiative to ask questions in a conversation usually belongs to me - this is more natural for me than waiting for someone else’s questions. -0,23
26. I usually carry some means of self-defense with me (pepper spray or something else). -0,23
27. I like intensive work. -0,24
28. I keep a large amount of useful factual data in my head, so my quantitative estimates of objects or phenomena are generally more accurate than those of most other people. -0,25
29. In my behavioral style, I am energetic, responsible, and well organized. -0,27
30. I am resistant to stress; in extreme conditions I mobilize myself and can put up decisive resistance. -0,29
31. I like difficult and dangerous practical tasks that require willpower, pressure, logic, decisiveness, and courage. -0,30
32. At every particular moment I always know very well what I need and what I want. -0,31

CONCLUSIONS: The essence of THIRD VOLITION is lack of self-confidence and self-torment, with notes of constant self-reproach and masochism. Judging from the marker items, THIRD VOLITION shows no demandingness toward other people’s volitional manifestations or irritation at their inappropriateness, but it does show heightened criticism of its own volitional manifestations.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FOURTH VOLITION:

1. I usually lack motivation to do anything. 0,51
2. I am lyrical and romantic; my character is marked by sentimental sensitivity and vulnerability. 0,43
3. I have a good sense of other people’s intonations, gestures, and looks. 0,43
4. I think more often about how to conserve my strength than about what else I could apply it to. 0,43
5. I notice even subtle nuances in people’s behavior. 0,41
6. I live by going with the flow and solve problems reluctantly, only when there is no other option. 0,38
7. I often feel ashamed even when I am not guilty of anything. 0,38
8. I usually understand a person’s feelings better than their conversations. 0,37
9. The world of my inner ethical feelings and experiences is precisely the field in which decisions are made. 0,36
10. My problem is that I cannot refuse requests. 0,36
11. If one voice urges me to eat and another voice at the same time calls me to satisfy my curiosity, then as a rule I will eat first. 0,35
12. I personally begin to act only when there is no one else who can do so. 0,34
13. If I see that someone close to me has become ill or feels unwell (and I practically always notice this immediately), I will almost certainly approach them with an offer of care and with treatment advice - based on how I would act with respect to my own health. 0,33
14. I always tense up internally when I have to run across a road through dense traffic. 0,33
15. I often engage in spiritual “self-flagellation”. 0,32
16. At least once every couple of days I am overcome by uncontrollable sneezing - at least several times in succession. 0,31
17. I am often nervous because I feel vulnerable or dependent. 0,30
18. I understand the experiences and moods of people around me well. 0,30
19. My emotions are characterized by depth, drama, and persistence. 0,30
20. One should live quietly and inconspicuously. 0,30

------------------------------—

21. I do not always understand exactly when people become upset or offended, - when they are sobbing their eyes out, that is understandable. -0,40
22. I do not tolerate any injustice toward me that infringes on me in any way. -0,42
23. By nature I am independent and inclined toward intellectual leadership. -0,42
24. At times I insist on having my way so much that those around me lose patience. -0,43
25. I am bold in striving for success. -0,43
26. I am usually quite critical of the quality of work and the diligence of my partners. -0,43
27. I pay little attention to intonation in another person’s speech, but I grasp the semantic content of phrases instantly. -0,44
28. In my behavioral style, I am energetic, responsible, and well organized. -0,46
29. If I become fired up by an idea, I cannot be stopped - I will overcome any obstacles. -0,46
30. My motivations are always strong and promising, and therefore very absorbing and compelling. -0,46
31. I need no leaders or chiefs; I am on my own. -0,54
32. I feel self-confident practically all the time. -0,55

CONCLUSIONS: the essence of FOURTH VOLITION is principled laziness and principled followerhood, consumer-oriented attitudes, the absence of “long-range goals”, and weakness of motivation and life ambitions (mostly without any distress about this).

================

PART 8. “LOGIC” IN PY

Questionnaire items (from V. Talanov’s questionnaires) that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FIRST LOGIC.

At the end of each item, the group mean of normalized responses to that item is given, in units of the item’s sigma:

1. One should live quietly and inconspicuously. 0,42
2. With respect to intrigues around me, I am usually blind, deaf, insensitive, and ingenuous. 0,41
3. I am a gloomy type who always sits in a corner and stares into eternity. 0,40
4. It is very difficult to make me lose my temper; I cannot even remember the last time it happened. 0,40
5. I do nothing “for show”. 0,38
6. I usually speak to people quietly, in a low voice - they will hear everything if they are not making noise. 0,36
7. The people around me interest me very little. 0,36
8. My movements are usually somewhat “constrained”. 0,35
9. I usually answer questions in short sentences and do not like constructing long phrases. 0,35
10. Emotions do not affect me deeply. 0,34
11. Instead of dancing and social gatherings, I would prefer to listen to serious classical music. 0,34
12. I am worse than others at recognizing people’s moods from their faces. 0,34
13. Knowledge and facts usually occupy me much more than beauty and feelings. 0,33
14. My self-control is clearly above average. 0,33
15. By nature I am independent and inclined toward intellectual leadership. 0,32
16. It is difficult for me to make decisions in a hurry; I absolutely need time to weigh everything. But afterward I cannot be stopped. 0,32
17. Sometimes I catch myself feeling nothing when I hear an acquaintance on the telephone - and I want to “give birth” within myself to some emotional attitude toward the conversation, but cannot. 0,32
18. I become irritated if someone tries to push me into acting hurriedly. 0,31
19. I never talk about my feelings - I simply do not know how. 0,31
20. I pay little attention to intonation in another person’s speech, but I grasp the semantic content of phrases instantly. 0,31

--------------------------—

21. Cheerfulness that readily turns into irritability is common for me. -0,36
22. It is true that I never make mistakes in using my feelings and the external expression of emotions - for me they are a very precise instrument for exerting timely influence on the mass of people around me. -0,36
23. It is easier for me to talk for half a day than to write several pages. -0,38
24. Very often (more often and more strongly than most people I know) I “pour out” my loud positive emotions. -0,38
25. I like, as it were, to create “emotional vortices” around myself so as to remain at the focus of human emotions and passions. -0,38
26. My speech often uses words expressing the superlative degree of something. For example: outstanding, brilliant, awesome, great, enormous, fastest, tireless, etc. -0,41
27. The initiative to ask questions in a conversation usually belongs to me - this is more natural for me than waiting for someone else’s questions. -0,42
28. In conversation I usually involuntarily “play” with my face - raising my eyebrows, pouting my lips, etc. -0,42
29. I am skillful, cheerful, and good-natured in dealing with people; I know how to entertain them and, truly, cannot bore them. -0,43
30. I am characterized by vivid, straightforward emotionality. -0,44
31. I have booming laughter, and almost every day there are occasions for my “Ha-ha-ha!..” to ring out. -0,45
32. I bring noise and bustle with me into any gathering. -0,47

CONCLUSIONS: the essence of FIRST LOGIC is deep introversion with a complete absence of external emotional expressiveness, accompanied by unceasing “mental rumination”, a constant, unhurried, perfectionistic mental analysis of the logical meanings in the surrounding world.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting SECOND LOGIC:

1. The capacities of my mind are limitless - I like to reason, display my intellect, and show myself off in some interesting discussion. 0,45
2. I have a very strongly developed research instinct. 0,38
3. Sometimes I catch myself feeling nothing - as though the whole world temporarily becomes flat and gray, devoid of any emotional meaning whatsoever. 0,36
4. I have a strong attraction to purely speculative constructions. 0,36
5. I have always been interested in regularities in historical social development. 0,35
6. In a short time I can invent a great many different ideas and alternative explanations on a given topic. 0,33
7. I have a constantly strong thirst for knowledge of deep laws and objective root causes. 0,32
8. I like setting myself tasks that are very complex in logical and organizational terms. 0,31
9. My logical chains of reasoning are always error-free and precise. 0,29
10. I often forget about my body, forget its limbs, forget pain and pleasure, and seem to dissolve into the universe. 0,29
11. I easily and frequently generate hypotheses and general assumptions on the basis of particular observations. 0,28
12. I always like to look at every phenomenon from many different angles and devise several different explanations for what is happening. 0,28
13. I remember poorly and have difficulty recognizing the faces of people I have already met several times. 0,28
14. My imagination constantly strips away from the objects and phenomena I mentally examine everything except a single trait common to all these phenomena, and it is from this commonality that new ideas, hypotheses, and discoveries then arise for me. 0,27
15. I like being asked questions during my presentations and reports. 0,27
16. In relations with people I often lack sensitivity and delicacy. 0,27
17. I like inventing difficult tasks for myself that require comparing many facts. 0,27
18. I am usually unaware of the feelings of my close acquaintances. 0,27
19. By nature I am independent and inclined toward intellectual leadership. 0,26
20. I believe that I think more quickly than others. 0,25

------------------------—

21. I am very observant of all kinds of small external details. -0,28
22. I always quickly sense changes in the mood of the person I am speaking with. -0,28
23. I can easily direct my attention to every muscle of my body and to any internal organ I choose; I feel them all as a smoothly functioning machine. -0,28
24. I often notice changes in the relationships among my acquaintances. -0,29
25. I can usually see when a person is in a cheerful mood. -0,29
26. I find it difficult to understand proofs on the fly, but I also feel awkward admitting that I need time to think in order to justify a refusal, and so I often formulate my refusal as: “Because it is not allowed, period.” -0,30
27. I quickly notice signs of dissatisfaction in a person’s behavior. -0,32
28. I am sensitive to other people’s states and know how to smooth over sharp edges in communication. -0,32
29. I usually understand a person’s feelings better than their conversations. -0,33
30. I always have a good sense of the distribution of forces, the balance between my friends and enemies, and I pay more attention to ill-wishers, trying not to let them get close to me. -0,33
31. I usually understand quickly, even before any words have been spoken, that a male or female acquaintance of mine is angry. -0,36
32. I often understand how and what a person feels even before they tell me about it. -0,36

CONCLUSIONS: the essence of SECOND LOGIC is, against a background of one’s own generally rather extraverted disposition, inattention to details of other people’s behavior. It is a tendency, on any occasion, to advance hypotheses, invent many alternative explanations of what is happening, constantly investigate something, and solve emerging problems through logical analysis. The sociotype that most ideally matches the description of SECOND LOGIC is ILE.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting THIRD LOGIC:

1. I always have a good sense of the distribution of forces, the balance between my friends and enemies, and I pay more attention to ill-wishers, trying not to let them get close to me. 0,37
2. When I enter a new group, I quickly notice the informal social hierarchy that has formed in it and very quickly learn how much each employee “weighs” within it. 0,34
3. Very often (more often and more strongly than most people I know) I “pour out” my loud positive emotions. 0,32
4. In conversation I usually involuntarily “play” with my face - raising my eyebrows, pouting my lips, etc. 0,29
5. I am proud of my agility and nimbleness. 0,29
6. Every minute of my life is filled with seething energy and happiness. 0,27
7. In the matters I think about most often, I am always ready for bold experiments. 0,27
8. I can do practically anything and know how to do everything. 0,27
9. By one means or another, I know how to make other people do what I need. 0,26
10. My emotions are an orchestra in which every instrument comes into play at exactly the necessary and preappointed time. 0,26
11. In books and films I prefer not emotional half-tones, but strong and whole feelings. 0,25
12. My principle is: I need enjoyment and pleasure today, not tomorrow. 0,25
13. I have a sufficiently resonant voice, without any problems. 0,25
14. I know that I am better than many others at complex alternating movements with both legs (in dancing, or football feints on the field, etc.). 0,25
15. Evaluations of the past and thoughts about the future occupy me little; I mainly live in the present moment and the current day. 0,25
16. If I see something very horrifying and frightening, I will be unable to restrain my feelings and will very likely become hysterical. 0,25
17. If I do not do something immediately, right now, while I have the desire, then I will never do it later. 0,25
18. I prefer situations in which passions rise in intensity to those in which enthusiasm and passion are mocked and brought down. 0,24
19. Almost every day there are occasions on which I laugh loudly - “ha-ha-ha!..”, with a light chuckling quality. 0,24
20. I am skillful, cheerful, and good-natured in dealing with people; I know how to entertain them and, truly, cannot bore them. 0,24

------------------------—

21. Before beginning a task, I first repeatedly “jump in thought” through all of its forthcoming stages. -0,25
22. At times I get “stuck” observing the gradual change over time in some internal sensation of mine. -0,25
23. My logical chains of reasoning are always error-free and precise. -0,26
24. My movements are usually somewhat “constrained”. -0,27
25. I live by the principle: I owe nothing to anyone, and no one owes anything to me. -0,27
26. I can explain the essence of any phenomenon clearly in a few phrases. -0,27
27. Sometimes I catch myself feeling nothing - as though the whole world temporarily becomes flat and gray, devoid of any emotional meaning whatsoever. -0,27
28. I become irritated if someone tries to push me into acting hurriedly. -0,28
29. With respect to intrigues around me, I am usually blind, deaf, insensitive, and ingenuous. -0,29
30. I always prefer even emotions in those around me, without “surges”. -0,29
31. I know from my own experience that intensive work is the best preventive remedy against a bad mood and illness. -0,29
32. I am a gloomy type who always sits in a corner and stares into eternity. -0,32

CONCLUSIONS: the essence of THIRD LOGIC is impulsive immediacy in behavior with a pronounced extraverted coloring, every minute being saturated with surrounding impressions and intensive emotional interaction with the external world, together with high but superficial observation of other people’s characters and actions, rapidity and nimbleness in behavior, and a complete absence of any reflection or mental rumination. No elements of irritation at other people’s Ti manifestations were found among the markers of THIRD LOGIC.

Questionnaire items that obtained the highest projections onto the group of respondents reporting FOURTH LOGIC:

1. I can easily and unmistakably discern when my friend is happy. 0,53
2. While listening to the person I am speaking with, I “automatically” register and remember their emotional state and the overall meaning of what they want, including the emotional message of their speech. 0,50
3. I always quickly sense changes in the mood of the person I am speaking with. 0,50
4. I have a strong need for regular communication and relationships with other people. 0,49
5. I am sensitive to other people’s states and know how to smooth over sharp edges in communication. 0,47
6. I understand the experiences and moods of people around me well. 0,46
7. I quickly notice signs of dissatisfaction in a person’s behavior. 0,44
8. It is true that I never make mistakes in using my feelings and the external expression of emotions - for me they are a very precise instrument for exerting timely influence on the mass of people around me. 0,43
9. I usually understand a person’s feelings better than their conversations. 0,41
10. I always quickly sense when a person has become bored with the conversation with me and is trying to leave. 0,41
11. I often pay attention to changes in the relationships among people I know. 0,40
12. I am sensitive and observant to sudden small shifts toward a more negative and “cold”, minor-key, or dissatisfied mood in my partner or interlocutor. 0,40
13. In many situations my emotions instantly “wind themselves up” to a high intensity. 0,40
14. I notice even subtle nuances in people’s behavior. 0,40
15. I attach very great importance to the attractive appearance of people and objects and to cleanliness in the surrounding environment. 0,37
16. I have a certain demonstrativeness, a “theatricality” in the experiences I display. 0,37
17. The world of my inner ethical feelings and experiences is precisely the field in which decisions are made. 0,37
18. It is easier for me to talk for half a day than to write several pages. 0,36
19. I always notice if someone’s mood nearby has “fallen”, and I can usually easily understand what caused it and how it will develop further. 0,36
20. I am skillful, cheerful, and good-natured in dealing with people; I know how to entertain them and, truly, cannot bore them. 0,35

----------------------—

21. I have a very strongly developed research instinct. -0,40
22. I often forget about my body, forget its limbs, forget pain and pleasure, and seem to dissolve into the universe. -0,40
23. Sometimes I catch myself feeling nothing - as though the whole world temporarily becomes flat and gray, devoid of any emotional meaning whatsoever. -0,40
24. By nature I am independent and inclined toward intellectual leadership. -0,41
25. Until I have checked something myself, I sometimes question even what is written in textbooks. -0,42
26. The people around me interest me very little. -0,42
27. I have a poor understanding of other people’s attitudes toward me, - in such matters I am generally inclined to seek advice. -0,43
28. I am emotionally “short-sighted” and usually distinguish only very vivid and strong experiences in other people. -0,43
29. I am usually unaware of the feelings of my close acquaintances. -0,43
30. I like inventing difficult tasks for myself that require comparing many facts. -0,45
31. The capacities of my mind are limitless - I like to reason, display my intellect, and show myself off in some interesting discussion. -0,54
32. I have a constantly strong thirst for knowledge of deep laws and objective root causes. -0,56

CONCLUSIONS: Fourth Logic is focused on observing other people’s feelings and exchanging its own feelings with them; unlike THIRD LOGIC, it is also less egocentric, less impulsive, and less extraverted. If THIRD LOGIC ignores and rejects any introverted and unhurried logical analysis of what is happening, then FOURTH LOGIC rejects for itself any abstract intellectual (“scientistic”) subject matter as such, replacing it with observation of other people’s feelings and intensive “emotional metabolism” - that is, exchange of feelings with other people.

Judging from the marker items, Fourth LOGIC is more rational than Third Logic (but exclusively because of more developed ethical socionic functions).

================

PART 9

COMPARISON (by the proportion of actual sociotypes) OF THE PSYCHOSOPHY AUDIENCE WITH THE SOCIONICS AUDIENCE

Statistics of knowledge of one’s probable socionic and Psychosophy type by diagnosed sociotype groups (material from 11 sociodiagnostic questionnaires by V. Talanov, 2018-2019, total 4551 respondents).

Judging from the statistics on respondents reporting (or, conversely, not reporting) their presumed Psychosophy types (see the attached table), interest in Psychosophy is elevated among respondents whose actual sociotypes are SLE, LIE, and EIE. To a lesser extent, it is also elevated among ILE, LII, LSI, and IEI. But whereas among the latter four sociotypes interest in Psychosophy (and, accordingly, the probability that they know their presumed type in this typology) is elevated simultaneously with their interest in socionics and their knowledge of their socionic type, among the first three sociotypes (that is, SLE, EIE, and LIE) interest in Psychosophy clearly outweighs analogous interest in socionics. How can all this be explained?

In the case of ILE and LII, which show the highest indicators of knowledge of their own sociotype and, simultaneously, of knowledge of their PY type, the explanation is evidently their scientific curiosity. In the case of LSI and IEI, the figures for interest in socionics and Psychosophy are likewise simultaneously elevated, although slightly less so. Here it is more a matter of a specific curiosity, directed exclusively toward oneself, namely toward classifying oneself within the system of the surrounding world.

But in the case of the EIE, LIE, and especially SLE sociotypes, their mean indicators of interest in Psychosophy are substantially higher than those for socionics. This may be explained by the exclusively positive attitude of Psychosophy’s theoretical interpretations and type descriptions toward the socionic functions Te and Se, and more generally toward extraverted “decisive” values, which in Psychosophy are associated not with their specific manifestations in the form of egoism and violence, but only with perceptually positive “strong Volition”.

Overall, the second socionic quadra leads in interest in Psychosophy. Probably, this is partly connected not only with the tempting “positive” interpretation for Beta types of Se as “strong Volition” in Psychosophy, but also with the well-known tendency of Beta values toward various convoluted, mystical, and conspiratorial teachings. It is noteworthy in this respect that the generally strictly pragmatic SEE sociotype, which likewise has both strong Se and fairly strong “VOLITION”, shows no elevated interest in Psychosophy whatsoever (on the contrary, among SEE interest in it is below average).

Thus, Psychosophy has a predominantly Beta audience, albeit “diluted” by the addition of three scientists, LIE, ILE, and LII. Most judicious ethical types, however, are not interested in Psychosophy, or are interested in it extremely rarely and weakly. At the same time, their interest in Psychosophy is on average significantly lower than their own interest in socionics.

==================================

PART 10

MEAN VALUES OF SOCIONIC PROFILE INDICATORS (NORMALIZED TO UNIT SIGMA) IN GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS WITH REPORTED DESIGNATIONS OF THE 16 PSYCHOSOPHY FUNCTIONS (1F, 2F, 3F, etc.)

The results are presented in Figures 5-a - 5-d.

1) WHICH PY FUNCTIONS HAVE THE GREATEST AFFINITY WITH SPECIFIC SOCIOTYPES? (Fig. 5-a)

ILE - 4F, 2L
LII - 1L, 4F
SEI - 4V, 1F, 4L
ESE - 4L, 1E
SLE - 1V, 4E
LSI - 4E, 1L
IEI - 4V, 1E, 2E
EIE - 1E, 2E, 4F
SEE - 4L, 1V
ESI - 4L, 1F
ILI - 1L, 3E, 2L
LIE - 1V, 4F
IEE - 1E, 4F (IEE and EIE differ hardly at all in their distribution across PY functions; Psychosophy practically does not distinguish these sociotypes)
EII - 1E, 4V
SLI - 4E, 1F, 3E
LSE - 4E, 1V, 2F

Fig. 5-a. Mean values of socionic profile indicators (normalized to unit sigma) in groups of respondents reporting 1F, 2F, etc.

2) INTERCORRELATIONS OF SOCIOTYPES ACROSS THE ARRAY OF THEIR LOADINGS (PROJECTIONS) ONTO PSYCHOSOPHY FUNCTIONS (Fig. 5-b)

The largest intercorrelation (mean =0,86) is observed between quasi-identical sociotypes; between IEE and EIE it reaches as high as +0,97, while between IEI and EII it equals +0,94. Thus, quasi-identical sociotypes differ extremely weakly in Psychosophy, and Psychosophy almost does not distinguish IEE from EIE at all.

There is also a high positive correlation between sociotypes of complete opposition (that is, for example, ILE and ILI). On average it equals 0,51 (however, between LSI and LSE it reaches as high as 0, 89, whereas between SEI and SEE it falls, conversely, to the level of 0,15). The high average correlation between types of complete opposition (measured across the array of Psychosophy projections of sociotypes) is connected with the fact that vertness is also weakly recognized in Psychosophy (although still better than nality).

The deepest negative correlation is observed between conflicting sociotypes (just as in socionics, across the array of its indicators). Across the array of projections onto Psychosophy functions, it is on average equal to -0,95.

The correlation between duals is not far behind - on average -0,88, and between IEE and SLI it is even -0,98 (deeper than between IEE and LSI).

Fig. 5-b. Intercorrelations of sociotypes across the array of their loadings (projections) onto Psychosophy functions.

3) IN WHICH PY FUNCTIONS ARE THE POLES OF SOCIONIC TRAITS REFLECTED MOST STRONGLY? (Fig. 5-v)

Extraversion - 1V, by a large margin over the other PY functions.
Introversion - 1L, 4V, 1F.
Vertness has opposite signs in its projection onto the 1st and 4th PY function of any designation.

Irrationality - like rationality, it is reflected very weakly in PY functions. It projects somewhat more strongly than the others onto 3L and 1F.
Rationality - projects somewhat more strongly onto 2V, 3F, and 1L.
Nality is substantially opposite in sign between 1st and 3rd Physics, 1st and 3rd Logic, and 2nd and 4th Volition. By contrast, nality practically does not differ among the various positions of Psychosophy Emotion and equals the mean ambivert zero in all positions of Emotion. Strong (“high”) Psychosophy PHYSICS is a rather irrational function, VOLITION is rational, while strong EMOTION and LOGIC have no nality loading at all.

Statics and dynamics have substantially more weighty projections onto PY functions than nality. Statics is characteristic of 1st Volition and 1st Logic, as well as 4th Physics and 4th Emotion. By contrast, dynamics is associated with 1F, 1E, 4V, and 4L. Thus, PHYSICS and EMOTION are dynamic functions in Psychosophy, whereas VOLITION and LOGIC are static.

Strong intuition is associated above all with 1E and 4F, while sensing is associated with 4E and 2F. High PHYSICS is markedly sensory, high EMOTION markedly intuitive, high VOLITION moderately sensory, and high LOGIC moderately intuitive.

Judiciousness-decisiveness is weakly associated with Psychosophy functions. Judiciousness is expressed most strongly in 1E, and decisiveness in 1V. Strong (high) Physics and Emotion are rather judicious (but only at the level of a tendency), high Volition is rather decisive, while Logic is not associated with this trait at all.

Socionic logic has its largest loadings on high Logic and low Emotion (ethics is the reverse).

Merriness-seriousness shows an appreciable projection onto PY functions, but almost exclusively through Psychosophy EMOTION. 1E is strongly loaded with the “merry” pole, while 3E is loaded with the “serious” pole.

Fig. 5-v. Mean values of socionic profile indicators (normalized to unit sigma) in groups of respondents reporting 1F, 2F, etc.

4) SOCIONIC FUNCTIONS PROJECTED ONTO PSYCHOSOPHY FUNCTIONS (Fig. 5-g)

Ni is associated with the fourth positions of PHYSICS and VOLITION and with strong (high) positions of EMOTION and LOGIC (especially with the second position of these functions).
Ne is associated almost exclusively with 1E and 4F.
Si is associated with 1F, 2F, and 4E.
Se is associated with 1V and 4E.
Ti - 4E, and to a much lesser extent 1L.
Te - also most strongly with 4E, but the next-largest projection is onto 1V.
Fi projects almost equally strongly onto 1E, 2E, 4V, and 4L.
Fe is most strongly associated with 1E, with projections onto 2E and 4L following at a considerable distance.
Qi is associated with 1L, Qe with 1E, Di again with 1L, and De with 1V.

Fig. 5-g. Mean values of socionic profile indicators (normalized to unit sigma) in groups of respondents reporting 1F, 2F, etc.

5) PROJECTIONS OF A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL UNIVERSAL INDICATORS OF SOCIONIC QUESTIONNAIRES (normalized to unit sigma) ONTO PSYCHOSOPHY FUNCTIONS (Fig. 5-d)

MEAN RAW RESPONSE VALUE. This indicator reflects the individual tendency to agree with any statements proposed for evaluation (especially when a person is uncertain whether to agree or reject them). It is a stable personality characteristic (questionnaire responses are partially corrected for it) and is associated with socionic extraversion, intuition, and decisiveness, being most pronounced, on average, in EIE. Among Psychosophy functions it is moderately associated with 1E.

SIGMA OF RAW RESPONSES. This indicator characterizes a preference for extreme, radical values in raw questionnaire responses (ratings of 1 or 5). Raw responses in V. Talanov’s socionic questionnaires are likewise corrected for it. This indicator is partially socionically determined and is highest in the SLE sociotype. Among Psychosophy functions it is associated with 1V.

SOCIAL DISSIMULATION (level of self-assessed competence in diverse domains). This is another correction indicator in socionic questionnaires. It is incorrect to associate it with social conformism and dishonesty; rather, it characterizes the level of self-esteem and personal optimism and self-confidence, being associated with black Declatimity. On average, it is highest in the LIE sociotype, although it also depends on many nontemperamental, nonsocionic factors (including the cultivated level of personal ambition). Among Psychosophy functions it is again associated with 1V.

SIGMA OF THE RAW TYPE PROFILE. This indicator shows either the true degree of differentiation of the functions of the psyche by magnitude (in this case, the more personality properties of ambivert magnitude a person has, the lower this indicator is), or it simply characterizes the final quality of questionnaire completion, depending on social experience, mental health and level of intelligence, and elementary thoroughness in working through the questionnaire. Thus, this indicator also has a personality component. Nevertheless, it is weakly associated with socionic and Psychosophy functions. Its association with intelligence is stronger.

FISHER TRANSFORM of the “K” indicator (correlation between the results of the two halves of the test). This indicator is correlated with the previous one and is also weakly associated with Psychosophy functions. Both it and the previous indicator are lowest in 2E.

FISHER TRANSFORM OF THE CORRELATION of raw responses with population-mean responses (personality normativity). This is not a correction indicator, but it is one of the important control indicators of socionic questionnaires. It makes it possible to confidently reject all questionnaires completed “at random” using simply random numbers, or questionnaires completed as a joke “by doing the opposite” - putting 1 instead of 5, 5 instead of 1, etc. It also has a personality component. It is highest in rational types and types with program Fi, and lowest in SLE and, to some extent, ILE. Among Psychosophy functions, as can be seen from Fig. 5-d, it is weakly positively associated with 1L and weakly negatively associated with 1V and 4E.

Fig. 5-d. Mean values of a number of additional universal indicators of socionic questionnaires (normalized to unit sigma) in groups of respondents reporting 1F, 2F, etc.

===============================

PART 11

How can socionic profiles be converted into Psychosophy profiles? For this purpose, the coefficients given in the table in Fig. 6 can be used. Each Psychosophy type is characterized by a particular profile of normalized indicators obtained using socionic questionnaires. The simplest way to assign a respondent in a socionic questionnaire to one or another PY type is to calculate 24 correlations between the profile of socionic indicators of this particular person and the analogous profiles characteristic, on average, of each of the 24 Psychosophy types. The PY type for which the maximum correlation is obtained will, with the highest probability, be the person’s PY type being sought.

Fig. 6. Coefficients for converting socionic indicators (by calculating correlations) into a Psychosophy type profile. Projections of normalized socionic indicators onto reported PY types, corrected for differing initial noise levels of the reported type groups and finally centered.

NOTE: All socionic profiles in this work were obtained from the trait profile, which was measured primarily on the basis of correlations between respondents’ responses and an ORTHOGONALIZED SYSTEM of trait coefficients.

To convert socionic indicators into a Psychosophy profile, it is sufficient to use indicators 1-4 and 6-22 (21 indicators in total). To avoid the effect of a nonzero mean distorting the correlations, all correlations must be calculated over a doubled set of 42 indicators (where the positive values of the 21 indicators are supplemented by their negative values, i.e. the same values taken with the opposite sign).

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

1. It is shown that Psychosophy uses exactly the same traits as socionics, but in a different proportion. Extraversion, nality, and judiciousness are represented in Psychosophy types less than they are in differentiating socionic types. By contrast, logic, statics, and “yielding” are used more intensively (with greater weight) in the Psychosophy classification than in socionics.

2. Among socionic functions of the psyche, logical-ethical functions are used most intensively in Psychosophy when differentiating its types. Intuitive-sensory functions are used less in differentiating Psychosophy types (as a proportion of their use when people differentiate their sociotypes), while the functions of the Questimity-Declatimity block are used least of all (but are nevertheless used, especially Qe, which in Psychosophy is among the markers of strong Emotion).

3. People who report their Psychosophy types know their Psychosophy type poorly and often make mistakes. Groups of reported Psychosophy types are considerably more heavily contaminated by errors than groups of reported socionic types. A consequence of the high degree to which Psychosophy type groups are blurred by incorrectly reported types is the smaller magnitude of the mean values of socionic trait poles in these type groups, compared with the mean values of the same trait poles in groups based on the sociotypes reported by these same respondents.

Reasons for the lower accuracy of Psychosophy self-diagnosis:

• A much greater vagueness and lack of clarity of all diagnostic criteria in Psychosophy compared with socionics. In addition, socionics has a form of “redundancy” in its diagnostic criteria - type diagnosis is possible both at the level of properties of whole types and, comparatively independently of this, at the level of functions and traits. Psychosophy has no such diagnostic duplication, which naturally reduces the accuracy of type self-diagnosis.
• Vagueness of wording in the “standard portraits” of Psychosophy types published by different authors (in a number of cases, characteristics given by different authors even contradict one another).
• The larger number of Psychosophy types compared with socionic types (24 versus 16). It is more difficult for a person to orient themselves among a larger number of available “cells”.

4. The averaged socionic profiles differ substantially for all 24 Psychosophy types. Therefore, knowing a person’s complete socionic profile, one can reconstruct their Psychosophy type as well (using the coefficients given in Fig. 6).

5. Psychosophy indicators such as principledness-unprincipledness and result-orientation-process-orientation of Psychosophy functions have low variance, close to random. Content analysis of the questionnaire items most strongly correlated with these indicators (based on respondents’ reported Psychosophy types) reveals that result-orientation-process-orientation does not reveal any substantive content at all, while principledness has limited substantive content. It is mainly revealed only for Physics, and to a lesser extent for Emotion and Volition. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that principledness (in the sense of “demandingness”) of the first and third functions manifests itself in completely different ways - in the case of the first function, more as “I want”, and in the case of the 3rd function as “I do not want, I do not allow”; therefore, when the first and third functions are combined into a single cluster, the substantive content of principledness disappears, is canceled out.

6. The Psychosophy classification is strictly asymmetrical. Emotion occupies a special position among the four Psychosophy functions - it is sharply negatively correlated with all three other functions. The other three functions, however, are correlated with one another at approximately the zero level, that is, they are practically independent of one another in magnitude.

7. According to the results of content analysis of items correlated with Psychosophy functions, no signs are found of any special status of the Psychosophy classification as allegedly relying to a greater extent on a person’s value orientations than socionics does. Thus, Psychosophy’s special connection with the person’s value sphere is a myth. The only thing on which this myth has evidently rested until now is that, as a percentage of the variance of all psychological properties taken into account within it, Psychosophy uses the logic-ethics trait much more intensively than socionics, and, compared with socionics, uses the intuition-sensing trait somewhat more intensively. This occurs, however, by no means through Psychosophy’s use and consideration of some special human value orientations unknown to socionics, but exclusively through Psychosophy’s neglect of such socionic traits as vertness and nality. At the same time, another undoubtedly value-related socionic trait, judiciousness-decisiveness, is also largely ignored in Psychosophy (although not completely - Psychosophy does not completely ignore any socionic trait).

8. Psychosophy shows no advantages over socionics, nor does it rely on any personality factors that are not used in socionics. Overall, Psychosophy can be characterized as a strongly truncated, simplified, and sharply deformed version of socionics (and nothing more).

9. Supplementing sociotypes with characteristics borrowed from Psychosophy provides no benefit. To characterize the deviation of a particular person from one or another standard sociotype, it is much more effective, correct, and understandable to give an additional characterization in the form of strengthening of particular socionic functions of the psyche, or to indicate additional type peaks in the complete type profile on which additional emphases beyond the type norm fall. This is much more informative and certainly more serious and scientific than eclectic characterizations such as “LII with First Emotion”, and still more so than such manifestly absurd phrases that demagogically permit the combination of things known to be incompatible, such as “SLE with Fourth Volition”.

Complete article in Word format: http://otkroysebya.ru/socionika_vs_psychosophy.docx
Additional material for specialists (tables for the article in EXCEL format): http://otkroysebya.ru/socionika_vs_psychosophy-tablicy.xlsx

Copyleft V. L. Talanov 2019
The author permits free reproduction of the materials of the present article provided that authorship is indicated and a hyperlink to the author’s original source is included: