16 personality types in socionics

Socionics identifies 16 personality types and all these types are divided into 4 dichotomies:

Logic - ethics;
Intuition - sensory;
Rationality - irrationality;
Extroversion - introversion.

With the help of these dichotomies, distinct characteristics of people are determined. The presented dichotomies are distributed across quadrants. Each quadra has its own atmosphere. For example, gullibility, a sense of humor and sexuality. Well, now, let's take a closer look at each personality type.

Socionics and other typologies

Gaben

1. Sensory subtype: Decorator.

Appearance: Modest and undemonstrative, reserved and polite, stubborn and uncompromising in defending his interests. Argues his position with logic and facts, and not with far-fetched reasons. At times he is thoughtful, withdraws into himself, distances himself from others, immersing himself in his own problems. He is somewhat constrained in communication, taciturn, but sometimes tries to smile favorably if he feels that tension is arising in the conversation. He dresses with taste, loves original, high-quality, but modest things, and takes care of his health, figure, and appearance. An esthete who loves handwork. Thorough, patient and persistent. If he is passionate about something, he tirelessly improves his products - material or intellectual. Sometimes he needs to change his activities, but tries to complete everything. Usually has gracefully lazy gestures, smooth and at the same time confident and accurate movements. The gait is somewhat relaxed and springy. Doesn't like to rush, but isn't slow either. Seems a little arrogant.

Character: An original personality with a pronounced individuality, but due to modesty and indecisiveness, he often remains in the shadows. Combines sober realism and practicality with a desire for self-development. Quite mobile, values inner comfort and freedom of action. If he finds his calling, he can do this for a long time. Over time, he achieves high mastery in it, since he is never satisfied with what he has done and constantly improves it, giving the content the best form. He is inquisitive, at the same time interested in other ways of demonstrating his abilities, tries himself in different directions. However, he does not see the prospects for things in the future well, which is why he may miss an important chance. Often sad about lost opportunities.

He is uncompromising in issues that are fundamental to him, does not like to give up positions once won, although he knows how to take into account the norms and rules of his environment. He has a penchant for a prosperous life and this stimulates him to work. Does not like abstract conversations, prefers action. Most of all, he loves hand-made creative work, be it playing musical instruments, knitting, embroidering or making crafts.

It is difficult to tolerate routine, monotony and boredom. He falls into apathy if he has to do one thing for a long time. Cannot do paperwork or purely intellectual work for a long time. Needs specific, practical activities, active recreation and frequent changes of impressions. He will not take on useless work, but if he is passionate about the work, he develops a tremendous capacity for work. He prefers to prepare for business in advance, thinking through the details of the upcoming work, so that later he can work smoothly, clearly and quickly. He is thorough and conscientious in his work. Does everything efficiently. He knows his worth and is proud of the results of his work.

Skillfully solves everyday problems. Sometimes he gets distracted by other activities and creates an artistic mess at home or at work, but then he mobilizes and quickly puts things in order. Doesn't like to obey someone's will or schedule. May be slow to make decisions and needs support and inspiration. If the choice is made, despite the apparent inertia and relaxation, he shows enviable persistence in achieving the goal. He doesn’t let anyone in on the process of his work. His results are always a surprise to others.

Restrained in communication and in showing emotions. He is skeptical about strong feelings, but is very sensitive to compliments. At times he seems unapproachable and official, although he tries to create an atmosphere of simplicity and ease. Internally emotional and vulnerable, but knows how to avoid conflicts, showing prudence and diplomacy. He is critical and mocking, but tries to spare the feelings of others, so he usually speaks about shortcomings only at the appropriate time and in an inoffensive form. He is not interested in the personal lives of others and is reluctant to talk about his own. Loyal in relationships and always keeps his promises.

Has a sense of humor with a touch of irony. He notices everything down to the smallest detail. Very impressionable. Intolerant of rudeness and rudeness, bad taste and vulgarity. Does not like pathos, demonstrative appeals, as well as arrogance and conceit. Suffers from mood swings that affect his performance. He doesn't like to put any effort on himself. If those around him rudely violate his inner comfort or limit his independence, he may flare up, which he later regrets very much. In other cases, he tries to be self-possessed and loyal.

This is a person with heightened sensitivity: he reacts poorly to stuffiness, unpleasant odors, uncomfortable clothes and shoes, and the unaesthetic appearance of people or food. Can't stand drunkenness, dirt, bad manners. It is difficult to perceive the slightest discomfort, both external and internal. He is afraid of illness and old age, so he takes care of himself. He takes good care of his health and cares deeply about his loved ones.

An esthete, he loves comfort, coziness, nature, willingly travels and then shares his impressions and feelings from the world around him with people close to him or sympathetic to him. He values originality and originality in clothing and interior design, does not like standards, and places great emphasis on quality. Tries to dress elegantly and tastefully. Conducts himself confidently, with calm dignity.

He tends to arrange everything in a way that suits him, although he tries to take into account the interests of others.

Sometimes it is interesting for him to test himself in difficult situations, to overcome difficulties, which contributes to his self-affirmation. However, he does not like unnecessary risks and recklessness in actions. He is impressed by brave, sincere, friendly and open people who instill faith in success and lift his spirits. A partner who is unpredictable and independent by nature makes him feel curious and wants to keep him.

2. Logical subtype: Rationalizer.

Appearance: The logical subtype keeps a distance, is closed, sometimes harsh and straightforward. He is very independent and proud, he does what is convenient for him. In conversation he is prickly and ironic, but becomes friendly and interested if he feels sympathy and respect for his interlocutor. Noticing that he has offended a person, he regrets it, softens, turns everything into a joke, or begins to apologize and reassure. Behind the external inaccessibility lies vulnerability and impressionability. Impatient and active, loves constant changes and new experiences. Active, efficient and very caring. Does not like discomfort in any form. Therefore, he tries to fix everything, repair and adapt it for convenience. Obligatory, reliable and punctual. Demanding of himself and others. He behaves with cold dignity, but can also be emotional. Behavior is unpredictable: unexpected transitions from cold contemplation to active action. Gestures are impulsive and decisive. The gait is fast and measured.

Character: Creative person, with a practical bent. Technological, rational and savvy in business. Cannot stand templates and primitivism in ways of working. Looking for new methods to improve work. Skeptical and distrustful of new ideas, determined to achieve quick, concrete results. Cannot put up with old approaches and risks testing non-standard solutions in practice.

Having convinced himself of the effectiveness of new methods, he develops and improves them, showing resourcefulness and perseverance. He knows how to squeeze everything out of an idea. He is hardworking and energetic, but does not tolerate wasting time and effort. Likes to work with full dedication, quickly and efficiently, with high productivity. He values comfort and good working conditions very much.

This is an individualist who finds it difficult to impose anything. He prefers to solve his problems independently, using the means at his disposal. Doesn't like asking for help or borrowing anything. He prefers to have everything he needs at his disposal so as not to depend on anyone. Everything needed for the business is purchased in advance. Tries to have all the equipment for rational work and good active rest.

He keeps the equipment and tools for his work in perfect order, which saves time in work when they are needed. He gets very worried if he forgets to put something in its place and then has to look for a long time. He does not like paperwork and finds ways to reduce it to a minimum. Keeps all documentation in order to avoid wasting time in the future.

Usually he achieves high mastery in his field, but is somewhat unsure of himself, prone to doubts and hesitations. Needs moral and material incentives. Not demonstrative, but very sensitive to the assessment of his abilities and is offended if what he has done is not noticed or praised. At the same time, he does not like undeserved compliments. Respects capable and talented people; whenever possible, tries to create all conditions for the development of their abilities.

Contrasting in his behavior: sometimes relaxed and calmly contemplative, sometimes active and mobile. Cannot stay in one place or do one thing for a long time. He is impatient and does not like it when the same topic is developed for a long time. He himself is usually silent and laconic. He distributes his activities well: if there is time, he does not rush things, but, feeling that the time has come to act, he becomes very mobile, urging himself and others on. Usually meets deadlines, despite the fact that he is often distracted by other activities. He is very efficient in everyday and economic matters. Willingly engages in physical labor, repairing things, premises and equipment. He can do a lot of things with his own hands.

Strives to be erudite in various fields of knowledge. He is very inquisitive and reads a lot. Has varied interests and easily learns new things. He is a good lecturer because he knows how to explain complex things simply and clearly. Does not tolerate criticism or advice in matters in which he considers himself competent. In conversation he convinces with logic and facts. It is difficult to convince him in an argument. In what he believes to be true, he is persistent to the point of stubbornness: he does not compromise even in the most critical situations. Proving that he is right, he gets excited, is impulsive and unrestrained.

Very secretive and distrustful, does not like to be the center of attention. It is difficult for him to fit into an unusual society. Reluctant to make contact with strangers, prefers to communicate with like-minded people. Does not accept familiarity, knows how to put a person in his place with a look or gesture. He has a keen sense of hostility, pretense and falsehood. He cannot bring himself to communicate with the people he needs, but does not like. Having quarreled with someone, he is not the first to reconcile, even if he realizes that he is wrong.

If he is not understood, he withdraws into himself, becomes cold, harsh, unapproachable. He does not know how to eliminate tension in communication, prefers to leave or isolate himself from his interlocutor with a wall of silence. Responsive only to kindness and sincerity. Can't stand hypocrisy. He is honest in relationships, conscientious, obligatory and punctual. You can always rely on him: reliable in friendship, love and business. Willingly comes to help at the first call, sympathizes with the grief of others. However, he may forever turn away from a person who has lost his trust and respect.

He gets tired of monotony and routine, willingly travels, communication with nature calms him down. New activities and hobbies raise his vitality and help him overcome apathy. He loves sports and is passionate about competitions. Don't mind experiencing the thrill, but without risking life and health. Treats all living things with care and caution: people, nature, animals, even insects. Doesn't play with his own or anyone else's life. He does not accept violence and does not know how to put pressure on others. It is extremely difficult for him to hit anyone. But he is very independent. Therefore, he does not always take into account the interests of others if they do not coincide with his own. When someone tries to restrict his freedom, he may even break off the relationship.

It is difficult to endure physical and mental discomfort and tries to do everything possible to eliminate it. For the same reason, he avoids bad habits. He carefully monitors his health and appearance. He values beauty and harmony in everything, although internal balance is difficult for him. Very impressionable, prone to depression even over minor issues. A fatalist at heart, he believes in inevitability, without trying to forcefully change the course of events. He often lacks determination.

Suspicious and proud. Afraid of showing inappropriate emotions or seeming intrusive, he hides his problems from strangers, preferring to experience them alone. It is difficult for him to express his feelings in words, and he does not like to show them in front of strangers. Tries to talk about love in a humorous manner, risking being misunderstood. He is not sentimental; manifestations of tenderness are difficult for him. He proves his love with deeds, not words. Very attentive, caring and devoted. If misunderstandings occur, he does not like to make excuses. Feels internally lonely if there is no sensitive, tactful person nearby who can understand everything without unnecessary words and encourage him in periods of pessimism and melancholy.

This personality type is quite rare, and we have noticed that for this reason it produces the largest number of typing errors not only among ours, but also among foreign specialists. Most often, this personality type is confused when testing with the Leader type (due to the latter’s secrecy and distrust, falsely taken for introversion), and the Critic, who often overestimates his practicality and considers himself a realist due to his analytical mind and developed business logic), and also with other types.

The theory of type accents that we have developed, which describes the visual and characterological manifestations of the relative strengthening of any of the 12 characteristics of a type within each personality type, or rather subtype, will help to avoid many mistakes during testing.

New articles:

Meged V.V., Ovcharov A.A., 1989-2002 The concept of energy exchange in model “A” and the construction of two main vertical subtypes. Subtype prophoria...
">The concept of vertical subtypes
Subtype Compatibility
On the creation of the author's concept of variability of personality types
Subtypes: experiential portraits

Introduction

In the narrowest and most applied sense, socionics is a direction in psychology that studies the relationships between psychological types.
It is based on a modified system of psychological types proposed by the Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung in a series of works under the general title “Psychological Types” (1916, 1920, etc.) and in his “Tavistock Lectures” (1935). The author of socionics is the Lithuanian sociologist and economist Ausra Augustinavichiute (pseudonym – Augusta). You probably already know another typology based on Jung’s types - this is the Myers and Briggs typology (hereinafter referred to as TMB), also known as “typewatching ®”. The basis of this typology is the Myers and Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI ®) questionnaire. This system is well known in the USA, and has recently become widespread in European countries.

TMB is often confused with socionics, although there are a number of key differences between them. Briefly they are as follows:

Various methods of defining types . TMB relies almost entirely on questionnaires, while socionics from the very beginning was based on alternative methods - determining type through interviews, observation, etc. Verbal testing (questionnaires) is considered in socionics an auxiliary, and not the main method, since it does not say anything about nature socionic types. This does not mean that tests in socionics are unknown. In particular, we, the authors of the course, have developed a socionic multifactor questionnaire (known under the abbreviated name MT), which we will consider below. In recent years, the problem of biological parameters of types has been raised in socionics.
Differences in terminology and/or content . According to the TMB, type is defined as 4 main choices: extraversion (E) or introversion (I), sensing (S) or intuition (N), thinking (T) or feeling (F), judging (J) or perceiving ( P). Socionics uses the terms logic/ethics instead of thinking/feeling, and rationality/irrationality instead of judgment/perception. There are some differences in the understanding of these terms. Differences also exist in a number of other key terms - such as mental functions and their content, type model, etc.
Intertype relationships . Although some TMB supporters have expressed their thoughts about the compatibility between Myers-Briggs types, in this typology there is no detailed theory of intertype relations, much less recognized by the majority of TMB supporters. On the contrary, socionics was created from the very beginning as a theory that describes and explains certain patterns of relationships between people through their types.

On the other hand, there is much in common between socionics and TMB. For example, the main areas of their practical application are common: family counseling, business consulting, coaching, education, etc. When the first publications mentioning TMB appeared in the former USSR (a very brief review material was published in 1984, and then only ten years later, several popular books were translated), socionicists found a lot of interesting things in them for themselves. We believe that fruitful collaboration between the two strands of Jung's typology is quite possible; differences cannot be ignored, but we are confident that they can be resolved.

Origin of C. G. Jung's typology

Even those who have never heard of Jung are familiar with the terms “extrovert” and “introvert.” The problem, however, is that Jung has been refining and rethinking the content of these terms and ideas about the nature of these phenomena for many years. The only thing he was sure of from the very beginning was that the differences between extroverts and introverts (more precisely, between people with an extroverted or introverted attitude) were closely related to the predisposition of various people to various mental illnesses.

The typology was based on several principles.

1. Jung studied, as a rule, mentally ill people - after all, he was primarily a psychiatrist. However, from his practice he came to the conclusion that even completely mentally healthy people have a predisposition to certain mental illnesses, and different people to different diseases. In particular, he initially viewed introversion as a tendency towards schizophrenia. It should be noted that predisposition itself does not mean a disease at all - it can “sleep” in the psyche and never wake up; To awaken it, certain incentives are needed.

2. Type criteria are not “objectively positive” or “objectively negative.” Almost any human quality can be described in both positive and negative terms.

3. There are mutually exclusive parameters of the psyche: the development of one of them is possible only by weakening the other. Jung left open the question of whether it is possible not to belong to either pole, although examples of discrete characteristics for which intermediate options are impossible or abnormal are known in nature (for example, sex).

Initially, Jung viewed extraversion and introversion as such a pair of mutually exclusive characteristics. However, his initial definition of this criterion was too vague: as the focus of the psyche on the “outer world” (extraversion) or on the “inner world” (introversion). At first, Jung even tried to fit all the diversity of human differences into these two terms. For example, he initially thought of introverts as “thinkers” and extroverts as “feelers.” Later, however, he continued to identify other pairs of mutually displacing psychological qualities. As a result, in 1920 he published his seminal work entitled Psychological Types, in which he redefined extraversion and introversion. Now he considered them not as types, but as attitudes of 4 psychological types. He called two types (Thinking and Feeling) Rational (Judging, Evaluating), and two more (Sensory and Intuitive) he called Irrational (Perceiving). Each of these types, in turn, could be extroverted or introverted.

Thus, in this work we were talking about 8 types and, accordingly, 8 mental functions that dominated in the psyche of these types:

extroverted and introverted intuition,
extroverted and introverted sensory (sensation),
extroverted and introverted thinking,
extroverted and introverted feeling.

Over the next 15 years, Jung expanded and improved his typology. He noticed that some rational properties can be observed in irrational types, and vice versa. Therefore, he proposed to consider that each rational (thinking or feeling) type, in addition to the dominant rational (thinking or feeling) mental function, also has an auxiliary, less “strong” or “less differentiated” secondary function (sensory or intuitive), and vice versa. This led to the conclusion that the types in his typology could be analyzed from the point of view of bipolar criteria (dichotomies), which represented the basis of his typology. The Tavistock Lectures describe 4 criteria for psychological types:

rationality (judgment, J) or irrationality (perception, P)
thinking (T) or feeling (F);
sensory (sensation) (S) or intuition (N);
extraversion (E) or introversion (I).

Note Letter symbols – J/P, T/F, etc. – were not invented by Jung, they were proposed by Isabel B. Myers and are used in TMB. Other notation systems are less known - for example, in the Gray-Wheewright test, intuition is denoted as U.

Based on these binary criteria, a system of 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16 types can be formed. Please note that for Jung (unlike his followers), these criteria were unequal and played, in principle, a different role . So, for example, if Jung wrote about the “sensory” type, then he meant only and exclusively the type with dominant sensory functions, but not with auxiliary ones. Moreover, Jung did not write about “extroverts” or “introverts,” but about types whose dominant function has an extroverted and an introverted attitude.

At the same time, the practice of applying the typology by Jung and his students was far from theoretical rigor, and in this practice the seeds of contradictions between the “functional” and “feature” approaches were already sown, which later manifested themselves in the typology of Myers and Briggs (TMB) and partly in socionics. For example, the person being typed could be said to be “an intuitive introvert with an auxiliary feeling, or a feeling introvert with an auxiliary intuition” - such an approach did not make sense from the point of view of the theory set out in “Psychological Types”, but it made sense from the point of view of breaking the type into separate components signs.

In subsequent years, Jung very rarely addressed his theory of types in new works and letters. As can be seen from his Tavistock Lectures, Jung was well aware that his definitions of these 4 dichotomies were vague and, in principle, open to multiple interpretations. Moreover, in his time there was simply no way to improve or clarify these definitions! But this was impossible due to the then insufficient knowledge about human nature, about the nature of many functions of higher nervous activity. Hence Jung’s negative attitude towards those who wanted to popularize and disseminate his typology, and even more so, create tests based on it - Jung considered this premature.

Jung left a number of important statements about his typology.

1. Although “typical” characteristics were well manifested in consciousness, Jung did not consider types to be merely consciously developed patterns of behavior. Conscious manifestations of the type were compensated by unconscious manifestations that the person could not control. Jung did not consider consciousness to be a manifestation of free will - on the contrary, a person’s consciousness was largely predetermined by his dominant function. However, according to Jung, the products of a person’s dominant mental function are more often embodied in his actions, statements, decisions, etc.

2. Apparently, Jung believed that types are innate and relatively stable, since he wrote about a person’s “natural predisposition” to one or another type (for example, introverted), and the “unnatural” mask of another type for him (in this case - extroverted). Using the example of his patients, Jung argued that if a person plays a different type of role that is “unnatural” for him, this inevitably leads to neuroses. At the same time, however, Jung believed that excessive development of only the dominant function to the detriment of all others is also abnormal.

3. In “Psychological Types” there is the germ of a hypothesis about intertype relationships. In particular, Jung writes about the “special charm” of the so-called subordinate function, which compensates for the dominant one (for example, for a person with dominant extraverted intuition, the subordinate function will be introverted sensing).

4. In the same work, as well as in the Tavistock Lectures, there is a sketch of a functional model of a type that describes the relationship (balance) of various functions in the psyche. Alas, it was just a sketch, since various followers interpreted his model in their own way. The model consisted of 4 functions:

1) dominant,

2) auxiliary (if the 1st is thinking or feeling, then the 2nd is sensory or intuition, and vice versa)

3) tertiary (Jung wrote almost nothing about it, considered it almost equal to the 2nd; theoretically, it compensates for the 2nd),

4) subordinate (compensates for the 1st, dominant).

Example for the “intuitive extrovert with accessory thinking” type:

1) dominant: extroverted intuition

2) auxiliary: introverted (?) thinking

3) tertiary: extroverted (?) feeling

4) subordinate: introverted sensory.

Notes on the table . In Jung's works, only the 1st and 4th functions have “verticality”. The “verticality” of the 2nd and 3rd functions appears only in the works of his followers, and for some reason they unanimously consider the 2nd function to have a different “verticality” than the 1st, and regarding the “verticality” of the 3rd between there are differences between them. Apparently, for Jung the “verticality” of the 2nd and 3rd functions did not matter much.

Please note that the model is not without logical flaws. For example, where do 4 more functions go in this case - after all, there are 8 in total?

What type was Jung himself? According to some Jungians (M.L. von Franz, J. Hillman) - to an intuitive, introverted, thinking type (contradictory points of view were expressed regarding what was dominant - intuition or thinking). Jung did not write directly about this anywhere.

It should also be noted that the terms “extrovert” and “introvert” have gained popularity and taken on an independent life. For example, in the classification of accentuated (i.e. mentally abnormal) types by K. Leonhard, popular among psychiatrists, these terms are used in a sense close to Jung’s very early works (introvert - thinking, stubborn, self-confident, pedantic, suspicious; extrovert - sensitive, weak-willed, suggestible, superficial, gullible). In G.Yu. Eysenck’s typology of mentally normal people, these terms are identified in content with “sociability” and “isolation.” Regarding what Jung himself thought about these terms, we refer the reader to the review article by Elyashevich and Lytov, and in this work we will return to them more than once.

Literature for the section

Augustinavichiute A. Commentary on Jung's typology and introduction to information metabolism (1982) // SMiPL, 1995, No. 2, repeated: Augustinavichiute A. Socionics: Introduction. – St. Petersburg, Terra Fantastica, 1998, p. 25 – 32.
Augustinavichiute A. On the dual nature of man (1983) // SMiPL, 1996, No. 1-3; also under the title “The Dual Nature of Man” the work was published in: Augustinavichyute A. Socionics: Introduction. – St. Petersburg, Terra Fantastica, 1998, p. 103 – 193.
Elyashevich A.M., Lytov D.A. The evolution of Jung’s views on typology - 2004 // 1) (old version of the article) in the collection “Sign, Symbol, Archetype”, St. Petersburg, 2004, p. 212 – 237; 2) “Socionics, mentology and personality psychology”, 2005, No. 3; 3) (new, revised version) “Psychology at the University”, 2006, No. 1, p. 98 – 126.
Kretschmer E. Body structure and character - M., L., 1924.
Lazursky A.F. Classification of personalities. – Petrograd, 1921. – (read fragment).
Leongard K. Accented personalities - K., “Vishcha School”, 1981. – 390 p.
Filippov L. Comments (on “socionics” by A. Augustinavichiute) // Augustinavichiute A. Socionics: Introduction. Comp. L. Filippov. – St. Petersburg: Terra Fantastica, 1998. – p. 423 – 439.
Jung K. G. Psychological types. Chapter X. 1920.
Jung K. G. Tavistock lectures. 1935.

New articles:

Typology: books by O. Kreger and J.M. Tewson
Different paths to the same goal. Comparison of socionics with American type theory
Socionics and typology: extroverted and introverted ways of developing the theory of C. G. Jung

Old articles:

“>Jung’s foreign typology today: the unknown about the known

Which type is suitable? Typology of personality in family counseling
A hypothesis about the place of localization in the cerebral cortex of psychological functions, or socionic functions of information…
“>Physiological basis for analytical psychology K.G. Jung and socionics A. Augustinavichute
Psychological types: results of 32 years of research
Development of socionics in the West
Mom poisoned our guest! (excerpts from the book)
The article was first published in the Kiev journal “Socionics, mentology and personality psychology”, 2003, No. 3. The article was published in the newspaper with ...
“>Socionics and MBTI: colleagues or competitors?
Once again about the Myers-Briggs type determinant of Jung