Rightness and Leftness: Reflections on the Content of the Socionic Trait with the Most Complex Composition
Attention! This is an archived work. The author subsequently abandoned this hypothesis; more recent and up-to-date conjectures concerning the nature of the dichotomy under consideration can be found, for example, here and here [author’s note, 07.2026].
To begin with, a definition:
Rightness - the inertness of the aristocratic functions Qe and Di; leftness - the inertness of the democratic functions Qi and De
Right functions - ЛН-К (Qe), УС-Д (Di), ВА-Д (anti-Qe), ГР-К (anti-Di)
Left functions - ЛН-Д (De), УС-К (Qi), ВА-К (anti-De), ГР-Д (anti-Qi)
The right/left pair of traits (like any other) can be obtained by multiplying other dichotomies in 7 different ways. In 4 of these cases, one of the factors is another weak pair of traits, also associated with the inertness or contactness of certain functions (constructivism/emotivism, yielding/obstinacy, tactics/strategy, carelessness/farsightedness), so there is no point in considering these variants.
Among the remaining ones:
Right/left = irrationals/rationals * democrats/aristocrats
Here, the poles of rightness and leftness divide into 4 small groups, each containing two dual pairs from orthogonal quadras with the same positioning of the questimic-declatimic functions.
Right/left = extraverts/introverts * questims/declatims
Here, the pole of rightness divides into groups corresponding to the dominant and normalizing roles of a type within its quadra (according to Viktor Gulenko), and the pole of leftness into groups corresponding to the creative and harmonizing roles. All the types in each of the 4 resulting groups are linked into a ring by relations of benefit.
Right/left = statics/dynamics * positivists/negativists
Here, there is a division into 4 groups united by the inertness of one of the questimic-declatimic functions (in one pair of types in the group, it is the strongest in the socion; in the other pair, the weakest). All the types in each of the 4 resulting groups are linked into a ring by relations of supervision. These groups were described by Viktor Gulenko as “types of thinking,” but the author still has substantial doubts about the objectivity of this description (it seems excessively artistic and abstract, which is always bad in science, since it allows scope for arbitrary interpretations and wishful thinking).
Let us now examine this in greater detail.
1. Right/left = irrationals/rationals * democrats/aristocrats
Both rationality and aristocracy are traits responsible for socialization. Rationality is responsible for increasing a person’s predictability to those around them (without which social life is impossible), whereas irrationality is responsible for the sphere of instincts associated with individual survival. Aristocracy is responsible for integrating a person into hierarchical social structures of mutual subordination, whereas democracy is responsible for forming a conception of a person as separate from others and possessing an individual will.
In this situation, the small group of aristocratic rationals (JV) will be characterized by maximal integration into the life of society and the identification of all their needs with it. Indeed, as statistics show, for example, a factor such as religiosity is particularly often elevated in the types belonging to this group. The small group of democratic irrationals (PH), by contrast, proves here to be maximally independent of any external influence and oriented exclusively toward personal biological survival.
What unites these two so markedly opposed “right” groups? The fact that the aristocratic functions Qe and Di are inert, prone to fixation, in all these types. Consequently, it will be more natural for all these types to monitor manifestations of collectivism in the surrounding reality (with JV doing so in order to identify themselves with these principles and promote them further, and PH to detect them in advance and avoid them). However, “right” types will actively create through their contact, democratic functions - that is, it will be more natural for them to seek and find a flexible, individual approach to each person, and to take a more relaxed attitude toward manifestations of freedom and unfreedom in society as a whole (if these do not affect them personally).
What, then, of the “left” groups - aristocratic irrationals (PV) and democratic rationals (JH)? Their democratic functions Qi and De will be inert, so all these types will be more likely to be more fixated on questions of individual will and freedom. Thus, JH will be especially active in defending their own and others’ right to independence, whereas PV, by contrast, will be especially active in rejecting individualism in themselves and combating its manifestations in other people. At the same time, all “left” types will display creativity through their contact, aristocratic functions - that is, it will be much easier for them than for “right” types to reach agreements with other people, forming temporary alliances that entail no obligations; their attitude toward similar alliances between third parties will also be much more relaxed, and at times even permissive and indifferent.
Combining the above, “left” types will be much more inclined than right types to seek to restructure society. Whereas right types are either completely asocial (PH) or completely social (JV), all left types include an element of sociality, but also an element of freedom. On the one hand, this gives left types a motive to achieve something for themselves or for someone personally, while at the same time doing so within the social space and changing it. Right types lack such motivation, being either rigidly integrated into society or completely detached from it.
2. Right/left = extraverts/introverts * questims/declatims
As far as is currently known, the trait of declatimity is associated with striving for a consensus of opinions, reaching agreement, and establishing a social norm. In most cases, this also leads to simplification - since, in the process of “settling things,” everything superfluous, complex, and incomprehensible is usually discarded, leaving only the core to which the majority is prepared to subscribe. The trait of questimity, by contrast, is responsible for the development of original opinions and deviations from the generally accepted norm, as well as the associated proneness to conflict and tendency toward critical disagreement. Questimity far more often leads to an overall increase in the complexity of a situation and in its internal diversity.
The combination of questimity with extraversion (E?) leads the subject to express disagreement with the existing order openly, in the form of protest - that is, we have the figure of a rebel and provocateur. Such a person seeks to eliminate others’ norms and establish their own in their place.
Questimity combined with introversion (I?), by contrast, provides grounds not for rebellion but for critically reflecting on existing norms and thereby engaging in internal restructuring, increasing one’s own complexity, and self-improvement, leading to greater adequacy in relation to the external world.
Declatimity together with extraversion (E!) produces the figure of a seeker of social consensus who creatively plays with norms. Such activity, when not hypertrophied, by no means destroys these norms; on the contrary, it gives them greater flexibility and viability and brings an increasing number of people into the consensus.
Finally, declatimity combined with introversion (I!) leads to conformity: the subject strives to follow the generally accepted norm as fully as possible in order to obtain more social approval and various other “perks” from society for their “correct” behavior.
Let us try to find what they have in common that would allow (E?) and (I!) to be combined into one group (“right” types), and (I?) and (E!) into another (“left” types). The author’s reasoning here is as follows.
Right types use society to advance their individual interests: (E?) dictate these to those around them, while (I!) integrate into society and use its institutions to their own advantage. To obtain what they want, both attempt to identify their own position with the norm and to speak on behalf of society - either the already existing society (I!), or an emerging new one whose leaders they proclaim themselves to be (E?).
Left types, by contrast, are de facto agents of society, accepting its norms and adapting themselves (I?) and other people (E!) to those norms as effectively as possible. In doing so, they act individually, displaying creative flexibility in relation to norms.
In other words, for right types, people’s personal interests and needs (and, first and foremost, their own) are primary, and, to satisfy these needs more fully, a social structure is built with rigid norms tied to these people’s particular characteristics. For left types, by contrast, the social structure is primary, and, to preserve it, the norms it contains are made increasingly flexible and lenient so as to accommodate the entire broad diversity of needs of the people who constitute it.
As a result, we have two different conceptions of society tending specifically toward the “rightness” or “leftness” of political views (in the Western version of this classification - for example, Republicans and Democrats in the USA), so the author regards the name of this trait as far from accidental.
3. Right/left = statics/dynamics * positivists/negativists
Positivism is the inertness of declatimic functions, that is, fixation on simple and comprehensible norms and consensual opinions. In any situation, positivism directs attention first and foremost to its semantic core, and since negative meanings are rapidly filtered out by selection and rarely become part of the norm, this core is also usually positive, and positivists’ style of thinking and image of the world are themselves bright and euphoric.
By contrast, negativists, with their inertness of questimic functions, are usually fixated on possible deviations from the norm. In most cases, these deviations indicate that something is wrong and that the level of adaptation is lower, and therefore they more often give rise to doubts, anxieties, and apprehensions, making the image of the world darker and more depressive.
Here I would also like to emphasize that any norm is, by definition, a locus of concentration of possible alternatives (images, opinions, strategies of action, etc.), that is, an object, a “figure.” By contrast, the space of deviations from the norm is characterized by the sparsity of such alternatives and is perceived as “ground.” Positivists’ fixation on norms leads them to see figures of any kind better, whereas negativists perceive the emptier space of the ground better.
Thus, static positivists (:+) most readily understand the potential contained in figures, and dynamic positivists (;+) the processes occurring within them. Static negativists (:-) specialize in identifying the potentials contained in the ground, and dynamic negativists (;-) in the barely noticeable processes occurring within it.
Bringing (:+) and (;-) together at the pole of rightness, we combine the statics of figures and the dynamics of the ground, whereas at the pole of leftness, (:-) and (;+) are combined - the statics of the ground and the dynamics of figures. What can this abstract supposition offer us in terms of understanding the thinking of right and left types?
In the author’s opinion, what we are dealing with here is nothing other than the choice of the origin of a coordinate system. For right types, this origin is associated with the figure and lies within it, as a result of which the figure itself (that is, the norm) appears stationary, while the ground (the space of possibilities) moves, “flowing around” this figure. For left types, by contrast, the origin lies outside the figure and is anchored to the ground. Left types therefore see figures (norms) as moving and the ground (the space of possibilities) as stationary.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I will immediately note that any situation can be viewed in either of these two ways, and both ways are equally valid. A ship sailing at sea can be perceived both as moving relative to the body of water and as stationary, with water flowing around it (if you are on board).
Summing up this reasoning, I can say that all three ways of deriving the rightness-leftness trait ultimately led to similar results. Combining them, I will venture to give the following definition of this dichotomy.
The right/left trait is associated with the reference point for one’s interests in life: for right types, it is anchored to their own person; for left types, it lies outside it. Right types advance their own position, considering it an immutable norm against the background of an inconstant world; left types form the integral position of society as a ground within which some norms replace others. Whereas right types live, in their own view, “for themselves,” left types invest in the surrounding world, finding pleasure in improving it (naturally, understanding what constitutes “improvement” in accordance with their own subjective tastes).
I will therefore draw a bold conclusion here: it is right types (rather than decisive types, as was previously assumed) who are egocentric; left types (rather than judicious types) are altruistic or, more precisely, “world-centered.”
The egocentrism of democratic irrationals is realized through complete freedom of action, devoid of any principles or restrictions, whereas the egocentrism of aristocratic rationals is closely bound up with a conception of oneself as an elite member of society who strictly observes a certain code and therefore ought to receive the very best of everything from others. The altruism of democratic rationals is associated with conscious activity in defense of other people’s individual rights, and the altruism of aristocratic irrationals with spontaneous personal sacrifices for the benefit of an emerging “we,” the hierarchical system of the collective.
However, the very high correlation (approximately 0.85) between actual rightness/leftness and decisiveness/judiciousness renders the logical constructions proposed above of little value. In reality, the high competitiveness of behavior characteristic of decisive types brings indicators of egocentrism along with it in the overwhelming majority of cases, while the low competitiveness of judicious types brings indicators of altruism.
The very small range of variation specific to rightness/leftness as a separate trait leaves open the question of what determines egocentric behavior in each particular case - the need to compete effectively or the individual’s internal attitudes.
Possibly, the latter is entirely inseparable from the former and follows it rigidly, while the fact that the correlation coefficient between decisiveness and rightness falls somewhat short of unity is explained solely by random factors.
In general, the duplication of certain personality properties by different traits should not be regarded as abnormal. As the experience of the developers of various psychological questionnaires in Russia and other countries shows, the number of independent, primary complexes of psychological properties is unlikely to exceed 6-8. In such a situation, the 15 dimensions in the space of psychological diversity created by the Reinin traits cannot possibly be equivalent in their content. Some of these dimensions, primarily those belonging to the weakest and most deeply secondary traits, will necessarily prove to be substantially collapsed and “drawn toward” one or another of the stronger dimensions (correlated with them). This is, in fact, what we observe.
© Ivan Romanov, Saint Petersburg, April 2018