V. Gulenko's temperament lectures.
SHS - The Influence of Rationality/Irrationality on Temperament
V.G. Let's talk about how irrationality affects the temperament. What does irrationality impart to behavior?
V.G. That's correct, an irrational is flexible. Imagine you have a solid obstacle in the way and two people - one rational and one irrational. The rational will proceed directly, while the irrational will go around, bypass the obstacle. How does this affect their susceptibility to stress? Who is less vulnerable to stress, the rational or the irrational?
Audience: The irrational.
V.G. That's correct, it's the irrational. Stress is harmful not only due to a sudden load or obstacle, but what comes after it. Once it's over there is a need to detach from it, to switch to something else, to not think about it any more, to not fixate on it, but for the rational this is difficult - by inertia, proceeding linearly, he will continue. Meanwhile, the irrational notices something different, and hop - he has switched to something else already and this other thing is more important to him now. He has already pushed out unpleasant thoughts and emotional tribulations from his mind. Thus it turns out that the irrational is less susceptible to stress.
SHS - Incompatibilies of Temperaments
V.G. Let's talk about four different scenarios. The worse one of these scenarios is interaction between two linear-assertive types (Ej x Ej). There is constant competition here, two verbal flows/outpours directed at each other. If they are sorting out their relations they will never sort anything out. If two people of linear-assertive types end up together, by virtue of their heightened activity levels and inflexibility it's very difficult for them to reach a compromise. Thus this interaction turns into continuous competition between them.
Two flexible-maneuvering types (Ep x Ep) - this interaction is easier, they can reach an agreement, but neither of them abides by it. It's a temporary, short-lived compromise. Such agreements are upheld by a receptive-adaptive type (Ip) but this is not the case here. So they are constantly talking things over, negotiating, trying to settle things, and it never ends because no one actually abides by the agreements reached in these negotiations. So this is an unstable compromise.
Third scenario: two balanced-stable types (Ij x Ij). This interaction ranks third in viability. In the course of their interaction, they start to ignore each other. They try to tell [define?] each other: "I'm an introvert, and you're an extravert. You go out and be active - you should go there, do this and that, talk to them, negotiate, or you should try to push and activate me." But I don't have sufficient energy to be pushing someone else. So this is what they keep telling to each other, but that's it.
Audience: So both are next to each other and it is as if the other is not there?
V.G. Yes. It turns out that they can't shake each other up and grow tired of each other. This prompts them to begin ignoring each other. They may be next to each other and not even notice the other. This eventually disrupts the psychological bonds between them - "ignoration" talks hold.
The most comfortable scenario is two receptive-adaptive types (Ip x Ip) who will be trying to readapt to one another. Which is good, that they are both trying to adjust to each other ...
Audience: Hahahaha, but they will not be able to do this.
V.G. Yes, they won't be able to do this. They're looking for someone more "static", a solid pillar that they can lean upon. But here there is no such support here, so they keep slipping and slipping. Thus both won't feel satisfied, since their mutual readaptation doesn't lead to anything, it never stabilizes anywhere.
To summarize, if two types of the same temperament interact, what we have here is a closed circle, that is, these scenarios keep moving along the same circular paths even though we have talked about four different scenarios. This is similar to a stuck record that keeps playing the same lines over and over again. This is why same temperament interactions are not recommended, but for psychological compatibility linear-assertive with balanced-stable (Ej x Ij) or flexible-maneuvering with receptive-adaptive (Ep x Ip) are recommended. Though subtypes have to be taken into consideration here, because subtypes can ruin the balance of these compatible interactions.
SHS - The Influence of Extroversion on Temperament
V.G. How does extroversion show itself in a temperament?
Audience: Quick actions.
V.G. Yes, rapidity, or to put it shortly - speed. Extrovert's reactions are quicker, he thinks and speaks faster, responds and moves himself quicker than the introvert. And the introvert? The introvert is slower. He needs to be pushed and incited, while the extrovert needs to be restrained, slowed down. This is reflected in their relative speed. On reactions that we can observe, it turns out that the introvert is slower relative to the extrovert. This is why when an introvert and an extrovert are working together, they need to be placed differently. Who should assume the first place and who should take up the second one, in your opinion?
Audience: It depends on what they are doing.
V.G. That's correct. If we take an average, however, then it is usually the extrovert who is placed first. Especially in societies of Western type that are based on activity, liveliness, sociability, communicability it's the extrovert, while the introverts work on developing extroverted qualities in themselves, because Western society is considered to be an open and extroverted type of society. The Eastern type of society is on the opposite an introverted type of society. There even the extroverts have to abide by social norms adopted, restrain themselves, not be as prompt, not say everything that comes to their mind, not react as quickly, but be more serious measured and thoughtful, in any case - more introverted. Extroversion - introversion as you remember is the quality of openness vs closed-offness. Thus an open society is an extroverted one - a closed-off society is an introverted one. This is true on both the social level and the psychological level.
SHS - Temperaments on Social Level
V.G. The linear-assertive types (Ej) on the social level assume the role of "Initiators". It is very important to them that their priority is recognized, that they were the first ones, the first to have said anything, to first to make a statement or an announcement. Thus, in a social group, EJ types play the role of initiators. For example if several people get together for socializing often it is the ESE who will suggest "Let's go there or there." He's the first one to extend the offer, to make the suggestion, to initiate.
The flexible-maneuvering temperament (Ep) assumes the role of "Infiltrators - Introducers". It's important for them to get in somewhere first. For example, type IEE - I was first one to get into some group of people, the first one to get acquainted with them, the first one to have been with them. Not just say it or suggest it, but to actually be there first. To get in there first - this is what's important to them - and then be the first one to introduce some idea and/or introduce themselves to the new environment.
[translator's notes: Here the difference in Ne/Se as first "program" function vs. Ne/Se as hidden agenda of EJ types becomes clear. For EPs it is important to be first, for EJs - to notice first.]
For balanced-stable types (Ij) the important thing is restraint. For example - others were provoking, harassing, goading me, doing such things, but I was able to resist, to restrain myself, to endure, and to stand my own ground. I kept my stability and did not fall to these provocations. Their role is that of "Stabilizers-Restrainers".
The role of receptive-adaptive types is that of "Indicators-Gauges". They are the measuring instruments, the barometers of the socion. They measure the "temperature" of the group - the psychological state, the pragmatic orientation. But they don't speak up about it. They assume this will get noticed and reacted to appropriately.