Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Statistics of Intertype Relationships in Married Couples (Bukalov)

  1. #1
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Statistics of Intertype Relationships in Married Couples (Bukalov)

    Wanted to link this here.

    http://socionic.info/pdf/couples.pdf

    Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Chykyrysova G.V.

    Statistics of intertype relationships in married couples


    The study of socionic type allocation in casually selected married couples confirmed the main
    rules of the theory of intertype relations in socionics. So, the dual relations (full addition) make
    45 % and the intraquadral relations make 64 % of investigated couples.

    During consultation of business collectives and various socionic studies, including definition of socionic type
    of the person, we casually met married couples. The obtained sample was investigated by socionic methods.
    We have processed data on 119 married couples and the received results are of significant interest for checking
    of socionic postulates and models [7, 8].

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I call bullshit because Table 3. People were either typed wrong or it's not a fair representation of the general population.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  3. #3
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I call bullshit because Table 3. People were either typed wrong or it's not a fair representation of the general population.
    I was wondering about that too. For people who dont know socionics (even those that do), wouldn't there be some degree of bias in typing couples duals? Additionally, in a non-dual couple that's been married for a while, people can adjust themselves over time to become more like duals (at some cost to their psyches of course) but that would make typing trickier.

    Also, sample size is tiny for 16 different intertypes.

  4. #4
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fascinating stuff.

    I'm rather shocked by the extreme lack (7 couples total) of semi-duality and mirage relations. Don't most socionists considered these relations to be favorable?

    I also noticed that the obstinate dyad had fewer dual marriages than the yielding dyad within every quadra.

  5. #5
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    Fascinating stuff.

    I'm rather shocked by the extreme lack (7 couples total) of semi-duality and mirage relations. Don't most socionists considered these relations to be favorable?

    I also noticed that the obstinate dyad had fewer dual marriages than the yielding dyad within every quadra.
    its b/c sample size is too small.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    9w1
    Posts
    2,774
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think that there should be a socionics reality show where ppl will be swinging spouses and children :}}}}

    :}
    unholy water sanguine addiction

  7. #7
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    its b/c sample size is too small.
    I think the bigger problem with this study is the way in which they recruited subjects. It seems as if all the subjects were casual acquaintances of the researchers. Even if their sample size was big enough and their typings were impeccable and not influenced by bias, they could still have been biased towards recruiting dual couples in their first place, which would skew the results of the study.

    Overall this is a good exploratory study but not quite conclusive.

  8. #8
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    I think the bigger problem with this study is the way in which they recruited subjects. It seems as if all the subjects were casual acquaintances of the researchers. Even if their sample size was big enough and their typings were impeccable and not influenced by bias, they could still have been biased towards recruiting dual couples in their first place, which would skew the results of the study.

    Overall this is a good exploratory study but not quite conclusive.
    Absolutely. And I would not call it a good study, for all these reasons. Too much bias, not enough subjects.
    Since socionics is such a soft "science" to begin with, it's gotta be super-rigorous in all other ways to really make a point.

  9. #9
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it's a good study, it's a study. Social science studies have major issues in general. It's better to try to address these sort of things via more studies than criticizing the study, just posting results.

    I'm working on a Filatova translation with a similar study but the results are quite different and there s a big gap in the results. However, people are making these studies and the answer probably lies somewhere in between. It's important to catalog what is available and provide the information for repeating the experiment or conducting newly designed experiment.

  10. #10
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    I don't think it's a good study, it's a study. Social science studies have major issues in general. It's better to try to address these sort of things via more studies than criticizing the study, just posting results.
    Absolutely, I agree with this sentiment. I'm grateful to the researchers who put time into this to show us their results. I'm sure they would do more comprehensive studies if they had the funding.

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Were one or both of the people in the couple Socionics hobbyists, I wonder? I think knowing Socionics can cause confirmation bias in typing yourself and your loved ones. Even the researchers knowing who's married to who may affect typings, though I imagine that information could be useful at some point in the typing process in case people had learned to edit themselves for their partners over the years.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    "During consultation of business collectives and various socionic studies, including definition of socionic type
    of the person, we casually met married couples."

    I'm posting Filatova results here, there's some differences but that doesn't really change the results that much if you analyze it from a statistical perspective. Bulalov's results and Filatova results are more similar than different despite the differences in range of values. What is interesting is some of the rarer relations which sometimes are inquadra. I am going to assume typing problems in these studies, but both studies do show Dual relations as having a significant advantage.

    Sotsionicheskaya statistics for 299 men, women and their children

    E.S.Filatova , 1999.

    Posted by: "Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology" , 2000, № 6.

    A statistical study of 105 representatives of the families, which includes 299 people. Covers all four major sotsionicheskikh dichotomy illustrates the uneven distribution of them, including, and by gender. The distribution of couples by intertype relations, as well as the relationship of children to their parents. Identified some priorities in the appearance of certain psycho children associated with psycho parents.Key words: socionics, personality types, the relationship in married couples, the distribution of types, statistics psycho children towards their parents.The present work was originally conceived as a study of the dependence of the psycho psycho children of their parents. For this purpose, I have collected and stored data of many years of my work, which touched on this topic, including information about those who turned to me for help to resolve conflicts with the children (or their parents). Therefore, the information presented here does not relate to a specific professional orientation of the people, and are completely random - there is also data on relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.In this regard, it seemed appropriate to also use them for other sotsionicheskikh research that can be carried out on a sufficiently representative random sample of 299 people, and thus, this paper contains two parts. First - research distribution psycho and dichotomies, and the second - intertype relations in the family (wife), as well as dependence on psycho psycho children of their parents.The first 71 numbers list at the end of the article - the data of my many years of work, and the rest - I was kindly provided E. Maly, Filimonov, G. Shulman, for which I am sincerely grateful to them.Partial data of the present work concerns the same research was carried out in the Bukalova, Karpenko and Chykyrysova (1), a comparison of them. At the end of this article for a complete list of the data on which the analysis is made.Part 1: General sotsionicheskie study.

    The data presented in the appendix to this paper allow us to draw some conclusions.The total number of people surveyed (parents and children) - 299 people, among them representatives of the female - 161 males - 138.The list shows the 27 single-parent families. In this case, 24 of them unknown father, and 3 - the mother. Since they naturally exist in nature, then by adding these numbers to the total number of the fairer sex (3) and to the total number of representatives of the strong sex (24), we obtain a nearly equal amount of both 164 and 162, the number almost equal. This is consistent with the known statistics on the distribution of men and women, especially when you consider that part of the list structure - children.Examine the above list of 299 people by psycho, thus, be stated separately for women and men. Also shows the percentage of availability of psycho relative to the total number of 299.Table 1: Summary statistics.
    Practice:
    F M Total %
    FEL 8 11 19 6.35
    LSI 9 10 19 6.35
    SLE 9 4 13 4.35
    SFI 5 5 10 3.34
    Total 31 30 61 20.40
    Socialists:
    F M Total %
    ESI 11 2 13 4.35
    ESE 9 1 10 3.34
    SEE 16 2 18 6.02
    SEI 7 11 18 6.02
    Total 43 16 59 19.73
    Researchers:
    F M Total %
    LIE 9 12 21 7.02
    LII 14 13 27 9.03
    ILE 6 9 15 5.02
    OR 14 19 33 11.04
    Total 43 53 96 32.11
    Humanitarians
    F M Total %
    EII 6 3 9 3.01
    EIE 16 22 38 2.71
    IEA 7 6 13 4.35
    IEI 15 8 23 7.69
    Total 44 39 83 27.76
    Quite unexpectedly, a general inequality in the distribution of psycho, most turned EE and OR (38 and 33), and the least numerous - EII, ESE and SSI (9, 10 and 10).Practitioners and socials met significantly less (40.13%) than researchers and humanities (59.87%), namely, 61 + 59 = 120 versus 96 + 83 = 179.These data differ significantly from the data of (1) in which we observed approximately uniform distribution, namely:Table 2: Comparative statistics of the various studies.
    Our data,% Bukalov, Karpenko, Chykyrysova (1)%
    Practice (sensory + logic) 20.40% 26.5
    Researchers (intuition + logic) 32.11% 25.2
    Socialists (sensory + ethics) 19.73% 23.9
    Humanitarians (intuition + ethics) 27.76% 24.40%
    Of course, we can assume that the maximum number of researchers compared to other clubs due to the fact that the social circle of scientific intelligentsia, which belong to all those who provided data, the closest thing to the researchers, however, the children, the number of which is about half the total list, not all defined by their professional interests. Also noteworthy is that the second-highest number - the club and the humanities, the largest number of observed psycho belongs to the representative of the humanities - EE. And this is no way to explain the preferred social circle.Evaluation of confidence probability using Student's statistics (t- criterion) that is received is not a random variable, as follows:Table 3: Estimation of the probability statistics.
    Practice Researchers Socialists Humanitarians
    0.15 FEL 0.95 LIE 0.95 ESI 0.98 EII
    0.15 LSI 0.99 LII 0.98 ESE 0.99 EIE
    0.95 SLE 0.85 ILE 0.20 SEE 0.95 IEA
    0,985 SFI 0.99 OR 0.20 SEI 0.97 IEI
    Thus, a sufficiently high degree of probability of the uneven distribution of the psycho in most cases.The data obtained may reflect the observation that, when a large number of inventions and scientific discoveries, the power of philosophical thought (researchers), an extremely high level of artistic works of art, spirituality (the humanities), our country has never been notable ability to make practical use of the existing potential (Practice ), and social services are always provided in last place (social). Of course, you can confidently draw conclusions at a different level statistics, now only possible arguments about the consistency of the data.Distribution by quadras also uneven:Table 4: Distribution on Blocks.
    Quadra Our data Our data,% Bukalov, Karpenko, Chykyrysova (1)
    1 70 23.41% 23%
    2 93 31.10% 29%
    3 85 28.43% 26%
    4 51 17.06% 22%
    The fourth is the smallest squares, while the second - almost double the number of more than a quarter. Such a trend, however, expressed more weakly, is given in Bukalova et al. (1), however, there were studied exclusively couples.Now let's see what is the distribution of psycho on the Jungian dichotomies. Below these data also considering gender.Table 5 criteria of rationality - irrationality.
    Irrational
    Rational
    F M Total F M Total
    IEI 15 8 23 EIE 16 22 38
    OR 14 19 33 ESE 9 1 10
    SEI 7 11 18 LIE 9 12 21
    SFI 5 5 10 FEL 8 11 19
    IEA 7 6 13 EII 6 23 9
    SEE 16 2 18 ESI 11 2 13
    ILE 6 9 15 LII 14 13 27
    SLE 9 4 13 LSI 9 10 19
    Total 79 64 143 Total 82 74 156
    There turned out, almost equal distribution. Given that the total number of women in the list of 21 more women than men, we can assume women are not less rational than men. Indeed,For women :79/161 = 0.4907, 49.7% of the irrational and 8/161 = 0.5093, 50.93% - rational .For men :64/138 = 0.4638, 46.38% irrational and 74/138 = 0.5362, 53.62% - rationalTable 6: Criterion extraversion - introversion.
    Extroverts
    Introverts
    F M Total F M Total
    FEL 8 11 19 IEI 15 8 23
    LIE 9 12 21 SEI 7 11 18
    ESE 9 1 10 OR 14 19 33
    EIE 16 22 38 SFI 5 5 10
    IEA 7 6 13 EII 6 3 9
    SEE 16 2 18 ESI 11 2 13
    ILE 6 9 15 LII 14 13 27
    SLE 9 4 13 LSI 9 10 19
    Total 80 67 147 Total 81 71 152
    Data on extraversion / introversion in nature similar to the data on the rationality / irrationality. Just as in the previous case, the number is comparable to the number of extroverts introverts, and taking into account a larger number of women (21) can be considered as the distribution of extraversion / introversion by gender is almost the same.For women :80/161 = 0.4969, 49.69% - extroverted and 81/161 = 0.5031, 50.31% - introvertedFor men :67/138 = 0.4855, 48.55% extrovert and 71/138 = 0.5145, 51.45% - introverted .Table 7: Criterion logic - ethics.
    Logic
    Ethics
    F M Total F M Total
    FEL 8 11 19 IEI 15 8 23
    LIE 9 12 21 SEI 7 11 18
    SLE 9 4 13 EII 6 3 9
    ILE 6 9 15 ESI 11 2 13
    LSI 9 10 19 IEA 7 6 13
    LII 14 13 27 SEE 16 2 18
    SFI 5 5 10 EIE 16 22 38
    OR 14 19 33 ESE 9 1 10
    Total 74 83 157 Total 87 55 142
    Here we see that the relative amount of logic - men are clearly more than logicians - women, while the relationship is reversed for ethicists. The total value of logicians and ethics, approximately the same (157 - 142). This result is within the margin of error associated with a limited sample of 299 people, with better statistics, perhaps these data to compare and contrast, diverge more, there is nothing more certain in this regard can be said.Based on the fact that the total number of women in our case 161, and men - 138, we find that the percentage of logicians / Ethics of both sexes.For women:74/161 = 0.4596 - about 46% of logicians, the rest 54% - EthicsFor men :83/138 = 0.6014 - about 60% of the logicians, the rest 40% - Ethics .An interesting fact is that the "fork" logic-ethics in women (0,46-0,54) is significantly lower than that of men (0.40-0.60). However, it should be made clear that the possible spread of 8% makes the result "fork" for women little reliable, but confident enough - for men.These data are also markedly different from the data of (1), where the results for women and men, respectively:68% of women - ethics, 71% of men - logic.Table 8: Criterion sensation - intuition.
    Sensory
    Intuit
    F M Total F M Total
    FEL 8 11 19 LIE 9 12 21
    ESE 9 1 10 EIE 16 22 38
    SLE 9 4 13 ILE 6 9 15
    SEE 16 2 18 IEA 7 6 13
    LSI 9 10 19 LII 14 13 27
    ESI 11 2 13 EII 6 3 9
    SFI 5 5 10 OR 14 19 33
    SEI 7 11 18 IEI 15 8 23
    Total 74 46 120 Total 87 92 179
    The last dichotomy is an overall significant shift towards more intuitive (179-120) and it is can not be attributed to a lack of statistics.Statistics Student gives the number of more than 0.7 for a confidence level of sensation, and for intuitov.A sex distribution is as a percentage as follows:For women:74/161 = 0.4596; - About 46% - sensory and 54% - intuitivesFor men:46/138 = 0.3333; - About 33% - sensory and 6 of 7% - intuitives,- This result seems somewhat surprising.Here, just as in the dichotomy of "the logic of ethics", "fork" differences for women (0,46-0,54) lies within the statistical error (8%). For men, this difference is quite sure.Thus, there is a relative equality of distribution dichotomies rationality / irrationality and extraversion / introversion, including, and by gender. Dichotomy logic / ethics and sensing / intuition are quite pronounced unevenness, the first of which refers only to gender, while the second - applies to both sexes. These data indicate that the nature of care, mainly on the presence of all the poles of dichotomies - confident enough in our case can be seen only in a general shift dichotomy sensing / intuition intuitive region. But the distribution of psycho turns out to be extremely uneven (range EE - 38, and IEI - 9), so that not everyone, even in theory, can be found duala!Part 2: Investigation of psycho families and their relationships.

    Now let's examine the parameters of families, and above all, we analyze the distribution of couples by intertype relations. The result is shown below:Table 9: Distribution of married couples in intertype relations.
    Our data Bukalov, Karpenko, Chykyrysova (1)%
    Total two-parent families 77 100%
    Among them:
    Dual 12 15.6% 45%
    Activation 12 15.6% 8%
    Poludualnye 9 11.7%
    Mirror 8 10.4% 5%
    Quasi-identity 7 9.1%
    Order 6 7.8% 10%
    Revision 5 6.5% 5%
    The complete opposite 4 5.2%
    Conflict 4 5.2%
    Business 3 3.9%
    Superego 3 3.9%
    Mirage 2 2.6%
    Related 1 1.3%
    Identity 1 1.3% 6%
    Note. According to our information, two of reviznye families disintegrated shortly after birthOur data is quite at odds with the data A.V.Bukalova et al. (1) in the graph duality: 45% (1) 15.6% against us. The remaining data can be considered qualitatively appropriate, given the smallness of the sample.The following seems to be a very interesting result is the distribution of relations psycho psycho children to their parents. Below is a table separately relationship to the mother and the child to the father:Table 10: The ratio of children to psycho psycho parents.
    Dual n Dual- Mirage MIRROR P-against Conflict Revision
    Mother 36 6 6 5 15 7 11
    Father 5 6 8 10 3 6 5
    Identity Kinship Business C-ego Quasi Activation Order
    Mother 11 6 6 2 7 7 12
    Father 31 9 8 3 5 5 3
    Immediately attract the attention of two sharp variations in the type of relationship: the duality of children mothers and fathers identity strongly prevails over all other types of relationships. Indeed, in the total number of children is equal to 142, it was possible to trace at 136 - related to maternal and 108 - the relation to the father.35/136 = 0.257, 25.7% - the child is dual to the mother;31/108 = 0.287 28.7% - the child is identical to his father.This strong deviation can hardly be regarded as accidental. Confidence probability of these results on the Student's account for more than 0.7 as is, and in the other cases. At the same time, the identity of the children's mothers and fathers duality does not particularly stand out among other types of relationships. (Note that the sum of number relationships to their mothers and fathers are not the same as, in some families, it was not possible to establish psycho one of the parents).This strong deviation may be due to various reasons, in particular, children often seek to play the role of parents (boys imitate their fathers, and girls - mothers), which increases the possibility of error in the determination psychotype. But, in our case, we have only the identity of the fathers and very weak - the identity of the mothers. For mothers, in contrast, is characterized by having, according to our data, which is not identical, and the duality of the child. Further, of 31 children, identical fathers turned 11 girls and 20 boys. You can, of course, to assume that any part of the boys really turned on this list only on role basis, because boys - 9 more than girls. Even if you subtract that number 9 from a total of 31, the figure is 22 - the same number of children of both sexes, identical fathers, still strongly stands out of the picture.If, however, the principle role in this case was not decisive, it does not rule out the possibility that the inheritance of the identity psychotype unevenly by gender - often inherit their fathers psycho boys. Of course, all this is still only be considered as qualitative picture, just wanted to draw the attention of colleagues to this interesting fact and invite them to take part in this kind of research.Also a few stand out the exact opposite relationship of children with their mothers, while in relation to the fathers, this figure is likely an underestimate. Is relatively high and the proportion of children reviznye relationships with their mothers. Here, however, I would like to share some observations: in three of these families, which I know is close enough, there is the most tender friendship, I would say, some excessive attachment between a pair of parent-child relationships which bind reviznye. Apparently, this affects a different level of development, when a parent or particularly cares for the vulnerable function child if he auditor, or excessively admires his child of that if he podrevizny child.It is considered that the rationality-irrationality, given the same this feature parents passed on to children. It turned out that this is not so: 25 pairs of the above list, this rule is really enforced. But both rational parents can appear irrational children, and vice versa - irrational parents give birth to a child management - and it is observed in 10 cases, the above list of families, that is not so rare. Since 25 + 10 = 35 - the total number of families on the basis of the identity of parents, we get:25/35 = 0.71, i.e.in 71% of cases the child repeats the rationality / irrationality of parents, and in 29% of cases - has this feature, parental opposition. For other dichotomies sotsionicheskikh this question never even discussed, because it does not preserve all the other signs of obvious enough.But that's what seems to be repeatable - the emergence of the same psycho in the same family for several generations. Unfortunately, the data are limited, as the difficulty in determining psycho already arise in the study of three generations, for obvious reasons, but still pay attention to this fact makes sense.Enumerate the "related" family. Everywhere in the top of the list - the older generation, lower - the younger.• Families numbered 1-3. It is curious that rational parents, but the son of EE and daughters of the same type, suddenly appeared irrational daughter IEI (family 1). The same situation was repeated in a family of 2, in which the mother of EE (1 daughter in the family) gave birth to a daughter also IEI.• Families 20-21. At 21, a grandson of the same type of EIS that his grandfather.• Families 24-25. Polls - LSI, the grandson of the same type as the grandmother.• Families 32-33. SEE grandson of the same type as that of his grandmother.• Families 52-54. Frequent recurrence of OR, including 54 in the son or repeats his grandfather's family type 53.• Families 83-85. Here grandfather FEL - 1 family, and his granddaughter FEL - 3.• Families 71-74. Children and families 72 LII IEI with their families (73 and 74) repeated types LIE and IEI.• Families 95-96. Laws is not noticeable.• Families 99-100. The family appeared grandson LIE 100 of the same type as that of his grandfather.In all of these families were able to determine psycho-grandson 21, of which 8 - repeated psycho someone from their ancestors. But here were able to trace only one vertical line. However, each grandchild has two grandmothers and two grandfathers, therefore, the likelihood of recurrence of their psycho increased twice more, as a result, confidence level of more than 0.99.Thus, we see that the most common situation where psycho psycho repeats grandchildren grandparents, is not that the reason for the exceptional tender affection for his grandchildren, the elderly? At the very least, even such a small statistics reveals a trend quite confident.Another frequent opinion in socionics for the fact that the dual parents appear as dual to them or, respectively, identical children. This view is also confirmed: in the dual families we find really 10 children who are Dual Wield one and identical types of the other parent, but the 5 children of other types, not identical and not dual parent, that is, often enough, this assumption is not supported.The above data, namely, the appearance of the children, their mothers and dual identity fathers types with probability greater than 25%, as well as the frequent repetition of the same psycho in a generation, says, seems to be of genetic origin psycho .Indeed, hardly a fertilized egg already carries a certain genetic information, which will continue in the normal development of the fetus does not change persists after birth.The assumption about the genetic nature of the formation of psycho-in my opinion, is also confirmed by a strong external resemblance subtypes in style. This is particularly evident in those cases where the investigator has sufficient relevant data. I am currently located photocurrent, numbering several thousand photographs of not less than a thousand representatives of different psychological types (for each person made three or more camera angles). In cases where large amounts of data for representatives of the same type (for example, more than 100 people, OR), very well marked group looks very similar faces, sometimes giving the impression of well-known counterparts. Photos or in my photo library naturally grouped about a dozen such clusters, eight pairs of which can be found in (2).In this regard, I would like to remind the reader of a very interesting, from my point of view the work D.A.Ivanova (3), which found that identical twins have the same psycho, very similar in appearance and have a completely other similar physiological parameters. In this case, obviously their genetic similarity. Also remember the private communication director of the St. Petersburg Institute of Psychoanalysis MM Reshetnikov that he met 10-15 years ago the work of someone from physicians, where a study was conducted medical parameters of twins, and these parameters were identical. Unfortunately, Mikhail could not remember any coordinate this work.Apparently, in socionics, watching a group of almost identical externally and physiological manifestations of people, we come close to the "elementary", so to speak, psycho, whose properties can be described as a certain genetic code, and thus, the question of total number of such "elementary" psycho may soon be resolved. Already, it seems obvious that the traditional socionic number 16 - it is also a kind of intermediate stage of classifying people into psycho. Each of the 16 psychological types naturally breaks even on a certain number of elementary groups already (in my photo library for different types of this number varies from 14 to 16), the exact value of which will be determined after the creation of a sufficiently large statistics. At the moment, it seems to me, the most important question is the reason for this division.In conclusion, I want to sincerely thank A.M.Elyashevicha who took the trouble to present the material of the present work on the socionics conference in September 1999, and with a high degree of understanding of the work, answered numerous questions from the audience.Appendix.

    Each family is assigned a serial number in the following line contains the psycho mother, father and their inter-type relations, then psycho children and their inter-type relations with each parent. In this case, the letter "c" and "d" means the gender of the child (son or daughter), and column relations of children with parents of the letter "m" and "o" - characterize the relationship with his mother and father respectively.The names of all the families recorded in my file cabinet according to their serial numbers, however, as there were numerous requests not to publish them, families are excluded from the list below by a number.I consider it useful to complete a detailed set of data, and not just the end result, because colleagues may want to extract additional information that may be of interest to them.Table 11: Summary of intertype relations for 299 families.
    Number Mother Father Rel. Children Relationship children
    The mother With his father
    1 Mack Gum D With Gum, d-Din, Dr. Ec A, A, Ak T, T, Zehr
    2 Gum Rob PD D-Dos, Dr. Ec PP, Sp Affairs, Zach
    3 Dost Ball Zack with piece- D-m RPP-on
    4 Off a-Ball D-m.
    5 Ball Dr. Off D-m
    6 Dries Dr. Jack D-m.
    7 Jack Dr. Off Ak-m
    8 Gamla with Gum T m
    9 Mack Gamla D with Gum, with the Hugo- D-m, Ro-m T, Po-o
    10 Don Dr. Du D-m
    11 Beetles Dr. Ec D-m
    12 Yesenin Jack P Dr. Beetle D-m Zach-o
    13 Hugo Max TD with Gum Affairs of th L-o
    14 Off Etc. Zehr with Gum, with Ba D-m, m-Zach Metastatic GC-O, Ak-o
    15 Mack Ec A a-ha D-m Zer-O
    16 Max a-ha D-m
    17 Hugo Rob D c-Kyu, Dr. Rob D-m, T m, T-oh-oh D
    18 Off with Ba D-m
    19 Beetle Pieces KW with EU-d-Beetle D-m, T m K-on, on-kW
    20 Gum Du P Dr. Don, Zack-m L-o
    21 Don Pieces Zack with Du, d-GB D-m-m front RPP-oh-oh kW
    22 GB with Du Pd-on
    23 Ec with Don MF-m
    24 Mack Dr. Mack T m
    25 Mack with Mak T m
    26 Rob c-Kyu L-o
    27 Rob Gum TD Dr. Rob, Dr. Kyu D-m, T m, , Front-on, on Rhode
    28 Jack Off A with Rob- Pp-m K-O
    29 Ec Du Affairs with-Rob, with Du USC-m-m Affairs A-O-on T
    30 Kyu Mack TD Dr. Beetle, with the EU- Zack-m, m-EEO Zer-O, Ak-o
    31 Ba Dr. Gum EEO-m
    32 Off Ba D Dr. Beetle, with Huck- Rhode m, Del-m, FRONT-oh-oh Mp
    33 Beetle Gab Pp with Don, with Off- Del-m, Rhode m, FRONT-oh-oh Mp
    34 Off Dr. Ba, Dr. Rob D-m, K-m
    35 Jack Gamla Affairs with Gamla Del-m, T-o
    36 Jack Ba Zehr c-Ball, with the EU- Zer-m, RPP-m, T o, of Rhode
    37 Jack Dr. Ec RPP-m
    38 Hugo c-Shtirlits, Dr. Dr. Del-m, Pp-m
    39 Rob Dumas A with Ba Kilowatt-m, Se-on
    40 Pc-p Pieces T a-piece, d-piece T m, T m, T o, T on
    41 Gab Pieces W with Huck- D-m A-O
    42 Huck Gum KW Dr. Ec Pp-m, Zer-O
    43 Gum with Gum T-o
    44 Gum Mack D Dr. Huck Kilowatt-m, K-O
    45 Beetle Dr. Ball FRONT-m
    46 Off Dr. Ba D-m
    47 Jack Gum Affairs with Jack T m Cases-on
    48 Ba with Gum EEO-m
    49 Dost Beetle To with Mak Se-m Grains of
    50 Hugo Gum Rhode with Gum Rhode m T-o
    51 Dost with piece- D-m
    52 Gamla Pieces Se with Ba, Dr. Rob EEO-m-m front EEO-oh-oh Mp
    53 Beetle Ba TD d-On Rhode m L-o
    54 Off Ba D with Ba, Ba-d L-m, m-A T o, T on
    55 Ba Du Se Dr. Du Se-m T-o
    56 Ec Beetle D with Beetle D-m T-o
    57 Dumas Rob A Dr. Rob Ak-m T-o
    58 Off Ba D Dr. Dr., with Ba, C-Rob D-m, K m, Zer-m, T-oh-oh kW, Ak-o
    59 Gab Gum To with Huck- D-m Kilowatt-on
    60 Ball Don Pp with Don Pp-m T-o
    61 Ball Jack Zehr Dr. Jack Zer-m T-o
    62 Off Dries Zehr Dr. Dr. Zer-m T-o
    63 Shtirl Don Zack with Don USC-m T-o
    64 Dries Ba A with Ba, d-Kyu Ak-m, Pp-m T o, K-on
    65 Ec Ma A Dr. Rob, with Huck- USC-m, Pp-m Rhode about K-on
    66 Don Rob Zehr Dr. Du, with Ba D-m, Pp-m, Ak-oh-oh kW
    67 Gum Dos Pp Dr. Dr., Metastatic GC-m, Rhode about
    68 Gab Ma KW Dr. Rob Zack-m Rhode about
    69 Don Dumas D with Du, with piece- D-m, m-Zach T-oh-oh EEO
    70 Gum Beetle A Dr. GB K-m, Pp-on
    71 Ec Huck Pp with Huck- Pp-m T-o
    72 Etc. Gamla World Dr. J. D-m Cases-on
    73 Jack Du To with-Rob, with the EU- Pp-m, RPP-m, And-oh-oh Affairs
    74 Hugo Rob D Dr. Ec Pp-m, Zach-o
    75 Etc. Ec Zack Dr. Ec, with-J D-m, m-USC, T-oh-oh EEO
    76 Shtirl Dr. J, Dr. Dos D-m, Rhode m
    77 Don with Du, D-m
    78 Ec Rob Zack to-dos, d-piece Kilowatt-m K-m Del-oh-oh metastatic GC
    79 Ba Dr. Ha, Dr. Ha D-m R-m
    80 On Dos EEO with Ba, Dr. Ma L-m, p-m, Zach Oh, Se-on
    81 Dos Ec KW with EU-d-Ga Kilowatt-m, Pp-m T-oh-oh Zehr
    82 On J. Act d-piece, with the Ma- USC-m, P m Relatives about, metastatic GC-on
    83 Pieces Ha Se Dr. Rob, with Ma, Dr. Rob Metastatic GC-m, m-metastatic GC, Pp-m TD-on, front-on, E-on
    84 Rob Ba KW c-Gab, USC-m Cases-on
    85 Rob Gab Zack d-piece Metastatic GC-m, Zer-O
    86 Du Rob Act Dr. Off Pp-m, K-O
    87 Ba with Ba T m
    88 Ha Dr. Beetle Act of th
    89 Beetle Ba TD Dr. Rob Prvz-m, Kilowatt-on
    90 Rob Ba KW with-J Pp-m Zer-O
    91 Gum Ba EEO Dr. Huck Kilowatt-m Metastatic GC-on
    92 Huck Ba Metastatic GC Dr. Ba Metastatic GC-m T-o
    93 Rob Huck EEO d-On K-m Cases-on
    94 On J. Act Dr. Dos Prvz-m, TD-o
    95 On J. Act with piece- USC-m Cases-on
    96 Etc. Pieces TD Dr. Ma Affairs of th Pp-on
    97 Du Don D with Don D-m T-o
    98 Gum Rob TD with Rob- TD-m T-o
    99 Du J. To Dr. Huck TD-m Zach-o
    100 Huck Pieces Act with-J, Dr. Ma USC-m K-m Rhode oh Pp-on
    101 Gum Rob TD Dr. Rob TD-m, T-o
    102 Pieces Gab Zehr Dr. Ec K-m Se-on
    103 Don J. KW with-J Kilowatt-m T-o
    104 Huck Gab D with piece- Act of th Zer-O
    105 Ha Ec Zehr with Don, with Gum Act-m, T m, Metastatic GC-oh-oh Zehr
    Literature

    1 Bukalov AV Karpenko OB, Chykyrysova GV Statistics of relations within couples. // "Socionics, mentology and personality psychology», №1, Kiev, 19992 ES Filatov, Socionics for all, the Ivory Coast, St. Petersburg, 1999.3 Ivanov DA Some features of thinking twins suffering from mental infantilism. // "Socionics, mentology and personality psychology», №6, Kyiv, 1997.

  13. #13
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LOL @ how "zhukov" always gets translated to "beetle".
    I wonder what "pieces" is?

  14. #14
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/filat-stat.html

    original article here, I can't translate.

  15. #15
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Filatova's data is messier and less pleasing to look at but feels somehow more authentic than Bukalov's.

  16. #16
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    Filatova's data is messier and less pleasing to look at but feels somehow more authentic than Bukalov's.
    Both data sets are poor.

    "The present work was originally conceived as a study of the dependence of the psycho psycho children of their parents. For this purpose, I have collected and stored data of many years of my work, which touched on this topic, including information about those who turned to me for help to resolve conflicts with the children (or their parents). Therefore, the information presented here does not relate to a specific professional orientation of the people, and are completely random - there is also data on relatives, friends, neighbors, etc."

    "Of course, we can assume that the maximum number of researchers compared to other clubs due to the fact that the social circle of scientific intelligentsia"

    The data is not anywhere close to random, it does not represent any sort of population. However what is significant is despite this, her findings show duality being a common relation.

    I am going to assume some level of error in both data sets but I would be surprised if dual relations was somewhere between the 15%-45% statistic in these 2 studies. I would ignore the lower tier results which have less than 5 examples.

  17. #17
    Fembot Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    IEI-1Ni
    Posts
    6,516
    Mentioned
    536 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay. I'll comment on the article as I am reading through it…


    1. Looks like the typings of the people could have been accurate. They seem to correlate with MBTI statistics.

    2. The over-representation of Duality is common for Socionics studies, hence I don't find it significant – there is likely something inaccurate. (I am wondering how the people were being typed, anyways…) Regardless, I could see the finding that most married couples were in Inter-quadra relationships followed by Benefit ("Social order") to be accurate; it does not negate what I have observed myself.

    3. Logicians to prefer Identity/Mirror relations... mhm, interesting finding. Not sure about it as a whole, though. I would say Thinking lead types are not prone to prefer that (being Feeling-seeking), but more likely those with Thinking second.

    4. "The dynamics more successfully select the spouses, than the statics in whole; probably they foresee possible development of the relations better." Nice, I could see that. Though some Ep people still suck at doing this, haha. So... Maybe this is just an Ni lead thing.

    5. Wow, supposedly the most common dual pairings were SLE-IEI, LIE-ESI, SEE-ILI, ILE-SEI…That actually makes some sense, as in I have noticed these types more commonly to be with/look after their Dual.

    6. "The types with emotive ethics (Fe) in the EGO block more successfully (in terms of intertype relations) select the partners in whole, than types with relational ethics (Fi) in this block. Probably, the first ones in the greater degree orient on an emotional climate in the couple, tend to psychological comfort in a present situation — each minute — and avoid emotionally intense, unpleasant, unresonant interactions, which are originated in unfavorable intertype relations.“ Yes! Fe types rather look for feeling good in a relationship over values, whereas Fi types tend do the opposite.


    All in all: We need more studies.

  18. #18
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    536
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SisOfNight View Post
    All in all: We need more studies.
    That we do @SisOfNight, if only to satisfy vain intellectual curiosity. Inquiring minds want to know things like "what type's are most likely to find each other attractive enough (in many senses of the term) to marry them" and other such questions. Will it all help anyone in the end? Maybe, maybe not, but still I wanna know!

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,050
    Mentioned
    381 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    The study of socionic type allocation in casually selected married couples confirmed the main rules of the theory of intertype relations in socionics. So, the dual relations (full addition) make
    45 % and the intraquadral relations make 64 % of investigated couples.
    1) For correct research typers must don't know with whom in the couple is the concrete man. Or they may type preconceivedly.

    2) A. Bukalov types wrong even himself as thinks his type as ENTP when it's INTJ realy.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,050
    Mentioned
    381 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    That we do, if only to satisfy vain intellectual curiosity.
    To have correct knowledge needs objective research. "Vain intellectual curiosity" is commonly to use hypotheses wich have no objective confirmation, as in many cases they are wrong.
    The example of wrong cases in Socionics, is that average match in typing is low (< 30%) between anyone. So it's evident many people use some wrong theory hypotheses or wrong hypothetic typing methods (as they are understood by them).

    "what type's are most likely to find each other attractive enough (in many senses of the term) to marry them"
    Socionics has an assertion about this. Any hypothesis has to be checked by objective experiment to be convincing.

    Will it all help anyone in the end?
    Sure. If you'll know wich traits are objectively and significantly better for friendship/marriage - this will rise possibilities for good marriage and will make easier to find the one who you'll like. Hence using of such knowledge will rise the quantity of good marriages.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  21. #21
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I imagine dual marriage to be high and long lasting however there aren't enough dual pairs to go around and I find that certain types go around the floor in life a few times before they come upon their dual

  22. #22
    Fembot Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    IEI-1Ni
    Posts
    6,516
    Mentioned
    536 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Default

    I imagine duality marriages to be neither common nor exceptionally rare, though they tend to be on the slightly less common side. Most people marry someone who is closer to their own type. Likely because such people are more likely to be at places you happen to hang out at.

    In the "real" world where most people don't know about Socionics, Duality marriages are like an open secret. Most people know that "opposites attract" and "birds of a feather flock together"; most don't know, however, that Duality combines both these aspects, resulting in the most complementary union.

  23. #23
    carrina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    wv
    TIM
    SEE sx sp (8)46
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SisOfNight View Post
    I imagine duality marriages to be neither common nor exceptionally rare, though they tend to be on the slightly less common side.
    My thoughts as well

  24. #24
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see a lot of duality relationships, especially in the early-late 30's. I would say 50% of the relations of people I know are duality or same quadra. It takes a lot of time for people to find their bearings and often a lot of failed relationships before people know what they want but I think people find out things as they progress.

    If you're under 30 and you're looking at relationships around you I think you will see a wide variety of relationships but there's is an very hard expiration date for these relations especially with any level of independence in individuals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •