Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Portrait of a Modern Socionist
¶
Portrait of a Modern Socionist
was a study undertaken by
Dmitriy Lytov
among Russian speaking socionists and enthusiasts in
February-March 2007 and published in May. 49 people (24 men and 25
women, average age 31 years) took part by filling out a rather long
questionnaire. All but 3 resided in Russia or Ukraine.
Summary and discussion of results at
www.Socioniko.net
(machine translation)
Findings
¶
Most of the findings (the most informative) have been included in this
section.
63% had known about socionics for at least 3 years (11 people had
known about it for 3-5 years, 9 from 5 to 10 years, and 11 for more
than 10 years).
59% learned about socionics by studying books and Internet articles
on their own. Nearly a quarter had studied with well-known
socionists. 30% of respondents teach or write about socionics.
Respondents’ types, by dominant pole of dichotomy: extratims - 54%,
irrationals - 58%, logicals - 61%, and intuiters - 65%. Alpha quadra
types were most common.
47% had been typed by professional socionists, 45% had typed
themselves, 29% used tests, 18% were typed at training seminars, and
10% had been typed on socionics forums.
41% had changed their opinion of their type at least once.
Those who were most sure of their types (i.e. had changed their
opinion least) had discovered their types at trainings and on forums.
The other methods mentioned above tended to result in more
re-typings.
41 out of 49 respondents said they diagnosed types.
Participants were asked to express their opinions on various questions
using a 5-point scale, where 5 meant complete trust and 1 meant a
complete lack of trust.
Reliability of typing methods:
Live interview method: “mostly reliable”
Structured question method (when specific questions are asked and the
answers analyzed): “somewhat reliable”
Observation of nonverbal reactions: “somewhat reliable”
Multi-factor questionnaires: right between “reliable” and
“unreliable”
Speech content analysis: “more unreliable than reliable”
Diagnosis by appearance: “quite unreliable”
Simple questionnaires with a few dozen questions: “very unreliable”
Bioenergy diagnosis using chakras: “very unreliable”
Reliability of diagnosis criteria:
Jungian foundation
: “more reliable than
unreliable”
Identification of base and creative functions: “somewhat reliable”
Identification of each function of
Model A
: “somewhat
reliable”
Identification of “overall type image”: “a little bit reliable”
Reinin dichotomies
and
quadra values
: “more unreliable than reliable”
Level of trust towards specific socionic concepts or hypotheses (from
1 to 5, with 5 being the highest):
IM elements
,
Model A
, and
Jungian foundation
: 4.05, 4.09, and 4.32
Theory of
intertype relations
: 3.81
Signs (
plus and minus
) of socionic functions:
3.0
Dimensionality
of functions: 2.93
Reinin dichotomies
: 2.87
Integral types
of nations and large groups: 2.52
Opinions on less mainstream socionic ideas:
Gulenko
’s four
subtypes
(
dominant,
regulating, creative, and harmonizing
): 2.63
“Masks” and type “accents” of Meged and Ovcharov: 2.33
Shulman’s Periodic system of the socion: 2.20 (only 20 out of 49 answered)
Theory of
quadra succession
: 2.07
Hypothesis of perinatal matrices of the quadras (author A.
Bukalov
): 1.93
Level of agreement with various statements:
Only certain types can be successful in public life (popular in
Gulenko
’s school and works of
Meged and Ovcharov
): 1.73
Types can be assigned not only to people, but to non-living things:
1.41
Type is inborn, genetically determined, and gradually “unfolds” over
the course of life: 3.38
There is a correlation (not necessarily 100%) between a person’s type
and the types of his parents: 2.74
One’s type can change over one’s life: 1.59
Astrological factors contribute to forming one’s type: 1.74
The types of famous people can be identified relatively accurately
without knowing them personally: 2.89
Temperament (choleric, sanguine, etc.) correlates more with type than
with subtype or non-type factors: 2.60 (very high range of opinions)
Masks are visible than types upon first acquaintance: 2.48
One’s type has big effect on one’s handwriting: 2.17
With a good knowledge of socionics, even
conflicters
can have a happy marriage: 1.91
A renowned scientist who is sensing and ethical is an impossibility:
1.61
A non-dualized typer should not be trusted: 1.45
Only an ethical type can accurately diagnose ethics, a logical type 鈥?
logic, etc.: 1.42
Some types are more capable of typing than others: 2.49 (very high
range of responses)
Intertype relations
can be related with
types (duality is a “SEI-relationship,” etc.; this approach was
termed
introverted socionics
): 1.76
A harmoniously developed individual can move from his own type to
others: 1.49
Mentally ill people don’t have types, but only “shards” of types:
1.88
Type determines a propensity towards certain mental illnesses: 2.95
Myers-Briggs Typology
is way behind
socionics: 3.40
It is unethical to publish studies of the types of people alive
today: 1.83
How respondents rate the contribution of various socionists to
socionics, on a scale of 1 to 4 (4 being the highest):
Gulenko: 3.33
Reinin: 2.86
Bukalov, Karpenko, and Chikirisova: 2.63
Sedykh: 2.63
Stratievskaya: 2.59
Yermak: 2.58
Meged and Ovcharov: 2.31
Shulman: 2.31
Slinko: 2.00
(
the rest were below 2
)
What is socionics? (number of people who agreed with each statement,
out of 49):
A discipline within psychology adjacent to a number of other
disciplines: 29
An interesting hypothesis that hasn’t yet grown into a science: 24
An emerging, comprehensive, multi-disciplinary science: 21
Not science, but a highly important field of knowledge: 14
A fun and interesting game: 12
A psychological technique (like NLP, Gestalt Therapy, etc.): 9
A distortion of the ideas of Carl Jung: 3
An esoteric cult camouflaged as science: 2
A discipline closer to mathematics than to the humanities: 1
A pseudoscience based on obviously erroneous postulates: 0