Sign "kvestimnost-deklatimnost: hypothesis testing experiment
VV Gulenko, ShGS
Abstracts of the 28th Conference of the IIA September 22, 2012

Modeling Experiment

As an introduction, I want to say a few words about the use of the term "modeling experiment."*In psychology, there are actually three types of experimental method: a natural experiment simulating experiment and laboratory experiments.
Laboratory experiment - suggests research in the psychological laboratory, equipped with special devices and appliances.*This type of experiment is also characterized by the highest artificiality of experimental conditions.*He is usually used in the study of elementary mental functions (sensory sensitivity and motor reactions, differences sensory thresholds, the amount of memory, etc.) and much less frequently in the study of more complex mental phenomena (processes of thinking, communication, and so on. N.).

Natural (field) experiment, as the name suggests this method, closest to the non-experimental research methods.*Terms used in making natural experiment, the experimenter did not organize, and she life situation.*The experimenter in this case uses a combination of different (contrast, usually) operating environment and test records by monitoring or special diagnostic techniques or that the psychological characteristics of the subjects.

Modeling experiment.*During the experiment, the test simulator operates on instructions and experimenter knows that participates in the experiment as a test.*A characteristic feature of this type of experiment is that the behavior of the subjects in the experimental situation models (plays) with varying degrees of conditionality is quite typical life situations steps: setting goals, the perfect choice, performance of various intellectual and practical actions, and so on. D. The modeling experiment allows to solve particularly difficult, complex research tasks, in which many factors intertwined.

Here is one example of simulation experiment.*In November last year ended experiment on modeling the 520-day flight to Mars.*It began July 3, 2010.*It was run by the Institute of Biomedical Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences.
The hypothesis about the content of the attribute "kvestimnost - deklatimnost" checked us it is through simulation experiment.

This experiment, I announced more during the fourth meeting of the Roundtable on "Signs of functions", which took place in the House on February 13, 2012. Teachers were invited observers from all schools.*But responded only Galina Chikirisova of the IIA.*She was part of our group of experts.

The experimental hypothesis
In the first stage of experiment planning occurs hypotheses.*At the second stage the hypothesis to be confirmed by identifying the variables that are observable and fixation.

Our current experiment, which was called "Test of Variables", was a continuation of the previous one.*The difference lay in the fact that the tribes whose lives we modeled, the transition from alpha stage is in beta stage, that is, they were set in motion - burst from their homes and tried to learn new territory and a new way of life.

Known scheme Toynbee "challenge - response" can be seen as a social action feature kvestimnost - deklatimnost.*It was built as a mechanism sotsionicheskiy energy shock where the catalytic role played by kvestimnost.That quest challenge - "Challenge" in English.*So talk about the positive aspect of the calling behavior.*Challenger - is challenging.*In a negative sense - it's a provocateur.*He who accepts the challenge, takes a position responsible.*Answering a call give deklatimy.*What it will be the answer - to accept or reject it is very difficult to predict.

Lists the various manifestations of CD feature in the behavior of groups that were considered in the framework of our hypothesis:
· Proposals or evaluation
· Provocative statements
· Categorical statements or evasive statements
· Aggravating action or calming action
· Randomness in the actions / activities in order
· Inflicts environmental objective setting
· The choice of the extreme solutions from a range of options or choice of medium

What follow these and similar behavior?*- From the main characteristic value "kvestimnost - deklatimnost" - the nature of the prevailing type of feedback in communication system.*In life there as a system with the prevailing positive operating systems, and systems with negative feedback.*And the difference between them is fundamental and significant.

If we consider the semantics of "kvestimnosti - deklatimnosti" on four levels of communication, as required by the methodology of the TOS, the characteristic manifestations are expressed as follows:
1. Offers - assessment.*Through this polarity sign is shown on an intellectual level.*These differences are very important for situations such as brainstorming.*Kvestimy gravitate towards the supply side, and deklatimy - to the evaluation of such proposals.
2. Attraction - reactivity.*This is the psychological level of sign.*Who first sends a signal to personal rapprochement?*Who gives a reason, and this reason one uses?*Attractive kvestimy and reactivity - deklatimy.*If we consider the action attribute in a negative way, then we are talking about the degree of provocative.*Provocative behavior more characteristic kvestimov.
3. Radicalism - moderation.*This refers to the manifestation of the trait in the society.*Consequence of this polarity - constructive or destructive tendencies in the life of communities.*The most notable destroyers - it revolyutory (extrovert kvestimy).*This refers, of course not an information product, but real actions.*Because of this feature kvestimov difficult to organize and hold together a long time.*Greater stability and organization - the hallmark of deklatimnyh communities compared to kvestimnymi.
4. Stimulus - reaction.*The physical layer feature.*Reflexes of both, presumably operate differently.*Here, everything is difficult, as needed appliances or scrupulous observation.*And we have in mind is not the reaction rate (this affects extroversion, sensing, and dynamics).*What then?*- Variety or unpredictable reaction.*Studies of this type are still ahead.

In addition to the basic hypothesis I consider more such features in communication these opposing groups of types.

First, the rhetorical (general, insipid, do not require a response, or receiving any answer) questions are typical for kvestimov.*A special, address, requiring a clear answer questions - for deklatimov.

Second, as a consequence of this way of communication, direct answers from kvestimov and evasive, indirect answers from deklatimov.

Preparation and progress of the experiment

Proceed with the preparation of the experiment, I took into account that:
· To humanize the experiment should be maximally replace confrontation "man - man" collision "man - nature"
· It is advisable to focus operations on the border of different ecosystems (forest and water).*The fact that the sign of the CD border, mezhkvadralny and quadrupole in its static aspect I regard as a certain ecosystem.

When and where there was an experiment?*- For two days, 2 and 3 June 2012 on our old site in Goloseyevsky forest on a hill by the lake Didorovka.

Were formed three groups of eight people each - group kvestimov (Seeker, Mentor, Analyst, Lyric) group deklatimov (Inspector, Critic, Advisor, Humanist) and a mixed group.*Engaged in the supervision of an expert group of 4 people.
Formed groups were wearing T-shirts with the logo of the experiment three different colors - blue, red and green.

About how the experiment

Every day from 14.00 to 18.00 experimental group performed four linked by a single storyline quests.*According to the plan of the experiment these tasks on the first day were:
· Tribal Council (the choice of the leader)
· Search totem (the climax - the construction of stairs)
· Procurement of raw materials and
· Fair (sale of manufactured raw materials).

On the second day tasks were more difficult:
· construction of the raft,
· crossing,
· honoring distinguished themselves at the crossing, and
· Finally tribal alliance.

Experiment showed that
That it was possible to verify

Everyone who watched the experiment, as well as the participants were unanimous on the following items.

Firstly, confirmed stimulating-provocative nature kvestimov, especially extroverts, and mobilization and response nature deklatimov, especially introverts.

Secondly, reaffirmed the unity and organization deklatimov and smaller - kvestimov.

Third, confirmed the greater propensity to vestimo to discuss various proposals and options compared to deklatimami.

Surprisingly, and confirmed the thesis that kvestimy caused greater harm to the environment: "red" team had cut a live tree and used it to build the stairs instead of dry.

Partially confirmed the interim nature of the mixed group: in the episode "Homage" when they introduced the option, which consisted of awarding a girl like deklatimov, but the reward of an imaginary character, like kvestimov.

Protocol processing experiment involved D. Pavlov.*Unfortunately, due to an insufficient number of protocols is difficult to talk about some statistically significant correlations.*More or less reliably can only talk about two things:
· The degree of activity of the group changes abruptly: "yes" to kvestimov and "no" for deklatimov and
· under the item "conflicts" - they are often recorded in a mixed group.

Since collect enough statistics to its quantitative analysis we have not received, as a result are excerpts from reports assignable leading groups, which not only put the job, but also followed the activities of the group during the whole period of the experiment.

Observations leading deklatimov (Irina)

Was Assigned leader in your group?*As he stood?
Was a clear leader - Cyril.*Stood out immediately and was not discussed.*The choice of the leader passed quickly (suggested - took).*Throughout the experiment, the leadership did not give, clearly stands out when communicating with other tribes.*In his led softer policy.*Questions answered and helped the tribe.*United tribe.

Which sub-shared your group?*Does the composition of these groups?
Subgroups were not.*The hierarchy was.*Cyril - men of the tribe - women of the tribe (thus communicated all and all).

As the behavior of the group changed during the day?
Behavior became more cohesive and quiet (especially in contrast with the behavior of other tribes).

Changed if the behavior of the group on the second day?*If yes, then what is expressed?
On the second day of the course of action remains the same.*The group acted independently in this framework.*Remarks, suggestions were discussed and accepted as information (even if something did not understand or did not like).

Has your group internal conflicts?*If so, who was their source and how were they resolved?
There was no conflict.*Pressure too.*Self-organization was.*Discussion and the opportunity to speak too.

That the behavior of the group you seem confusing, strange, difficult to explain?
Everything was clear.*Surprised by the self-organization and solidarity groups, and support within the group.*Little discussion.*All quickly get to work.

Observations leading kvestimov (Nicholas)

Was Assigned leader in your group?*As he stood?
- Yes, this proved to be a leader Andrew - the first day, almost immediately.*Highlight an active when choosing a place for the totem.*Also on the role of the leader is very active Misha claimed - but after the incident with a tree being cut down, they say, "blown away" and effaced.*Andrew spent much time discussing the job and how to execute.

Which sub-shared your group?*Does the composition of these groups?
In principle, the team was quite cohesive, distinct groups were observed.*During execution of tasks grouped according to the work performed.

As the behavior of the group changed during the day?
By the end of the first day of the group became Bole cohesive than at the beginning, even a girl, trying to separate from the group and go to the observers - took an active part.*The turning point of the first day was the construction of the ladder.

Changed if the behavior of the group on the second day?
On the second day of the group "red" greatly changed accordingly changed and behavior.*Fewer coherence, actively "pulling the blanket over himself," Wick tried to prove himself as a situational leader.*The team re-grind, significantly slowed their joint work and reduced the effectiveness of the interaction.*However, after the construction of the raft - the team has found its former cohesion.

Has your group internal conflicts?
At the end of the second day there was some clash for power between Vika and Andrew.

Hypotheses that could not be verified
Unable to validate the thesis of the tendency to choose medium or extreme option, depending on the sign pole CD.*Unfortunately, we were unable to create the conditions for normal observation during the corresponding experimental task ("Fair").
Also failed to confirm a chaotic search in kvestimov.*And again due to poor organization of the job.*One thing to search for speculative and another thing when you have to find the real thing buried in the ground.

Conclusions and future plans
Initially, the methodology of the experiment suggested that the findings will be made with the support of two types of sources - an objective-quantitative, based on the processing of standard protocols, which observers filled directly during the experiment itself, and inter-quality, based on the experiences of groups of experts on the results of the experiment in general.*Unfortunately due to lack of resources observers really was too small (on the first day - seven in the second - four people), and therefore had to make conclusions based almost exclusively on qualitative data, without an independent cross-check through statistical processing protocols.

A second disadvantage was the same as in the previous experiment.*It did not happen due to strong motivation of participants.*His role, of course, played a factor and retention of participants as a lack of material interest.*In the absence of funding to conduct serious preparations for such a complex undertaking is almost impossible.

And, nevertheless, the method of simulation experiment, I believe very promising and I'm going to develop it further.*Special attention, in particular, deserves checking groups on coherence in the implementation of actions with increasing coordination.

The next year, we will change the format of the experiment.*As I have said, to hold it at the proper level and not be afraid that the participants flee because of fatigue or loss of interest, it is necessary to obtain financing.Because we lack, then most likely move on to small and medium organizational format.

Topics of our future experiments:
1. asymmetric IO (audit and order), a comparison of consolidating power which will allow in practice to test features of the two different models sotsionicheskikh - information and energy;
2. sign "upstream - downstream", which together with the sign of "central - peripheral" is responsible for the distribution of roles in the quadra socion.

Similar publications
· Gulenko VV logic changes.*How out of chaos comes order
· Gulenko "Symptom" aristocrats - Democrats ": testing the hypothesis in a field experiment"
· Pavlov D. O. Socionics and modern science metadigma