Speaking Different Languages, Striving for the Same (Socionics vs American typology)

For a long time development of socionics was limited by a single country's borders, but in 1984 its founder, Ausra Augustinaviciute, learned about the MBTI test (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)¹⁹, and this was the beginning of communication between socionics and its “transatlantic cousin”.

Comparison between the American type theory and socionics became possible due to the publication in 1995-1996 of several books by American authors: D. Keirsey, M. Bates, O. Kroeger, J. Thuesen, P. Tieger, and B. Barron-Tieger^11-13,16. Although the primary source, the theory of personality types developed by C.G. Jung²⁰, is the same for the both typologies, there is a serious difference between them in contents and language.
Moreover, whereas we, the socionists of the former USSR pretended that socionics can be considered as an independent science and are even sure we have created a new scientific paradigm, the American adherents of the named typology limited application of their typology to just people and their groups and, in my opinion, for this reason are satisfied with a very modest term type watching.

I will hereinafter refer to the American theory and practice of studying human types as type theory, or type watching. The trilogy published in Russia^11-13 gave a general overview of human types, their characteristics in the business sphere and relations between men and women.



There are only 4 pairs of Jungian dichotomies splitting mankind into 16 types. All socionic schools apply them both in theoretical works and in practice, e.g. type diagnostics. However, Gregory Reinin (St. Petersburg) proved the mathematical existence of 11 derivative dichotomies describing the same 16 types in addition to the 4 basic ones⁵.

In addition to Jungian dimensions I often use several Reinin dimensions that have been already tested in practice: Static-dynamic, leftists-rightists, central-peripheral, aristocrats-democrats.These dimensions are not known to American researchers^7,9.

The situation with type names becomes more and more sophisticated. The Americans refused to use Jung's rationality-irrationality term in favor of a different one called judging-perceiving. On the other hand, in order to avoid misunderstanding in Russian word usage, A. Augustinaviciute renamed the thinking-feeling dimension into logical-ethical³.

The next problem encountered in attempts to study socionics goes back to the conventional symbols for dimension. In the US psychologists refer to Jungian dimensions by letters: E vs. I (Extroversion vs. Introvers ion), S vs. N (Sensing vs. iNtuitive), T vs. F (Thinking vs. Feeling), and J vs. P (Judging vs. Pe rceiving). In socionics this system is known but rarely used. Hereinafter I will refer to socionic types by names used in MBTI, according to the comparison table made by Russian MBTI adherents¹⁵ (TABLE 1).

On the other hand, socionics pays more attention to the so-called communicative aspects absent in the American type theory but strictly corresponding to the 8 basic Jungian types³:

a) structural and practical logic
b) ethics of relations and emotions
c) force and perception sensing
d) time and potential intuition.

Aspects are created by splitting each of 4 Jungian functions (intuition, sensing, ethic, logic) into 2 components: static and dynamic (TABLE 1).

Two different systems of signs [or “symbols”] are used. The first comes from A. Augustinaviciute's colleagues who have proposed geometric conventional signs: triangle, square, circle, and corner, either black or white. Later, I had proposed to refer to the aspects by letters, as more convenient as well as conforming to scientific tradition. The American system of signs [symbols] had not been known to me at that time.

Alas, for this reason several letters have quite different meaning: compare F as force sensing (in my system of socionic signs) and Feeling in MBTI; I as potential intuition (socionics) and Introversion (MBTI); T as time intuition (socionics) and Thinking (MBTI).

My choice of letters was not voluntary: each letter corresponding to a communication aspect has its meaning. In the meantime, I tried to observe conformity of my symbols with the semantics of general scientific system of symbols: 6 information, 3 time, 5 energy, 4 force, etc. Here are these 8 universalia – the communication aspects:





Translator's remark: in MBTI correspondence of functions to types, their essence and order in type models is different: compare e.g. [I]www.typelogic.com[/I]. The letters come from Latin, however, it is easy to find in the same way explications of the letters in English: Emotions, Relations, Practice, Logic, Sense, Force, Time, and Intuition.

One more remark: not all socionists support the idea of "static" and "dynamic" functions.



Each type may be described in two different ways: by combining either Jungian dimensions or communication aspects, and the last is used exclusively in socionics. Difference of approaches leads to differences in type descriptions, and chaos emerges.

American symbols consist of 4 letters, while ours of either 3 (type as a combination of Jungian dimensions), or 2 (as a combination of communication aspects).

For example, the same type is named: ESTJ in the type theory, and in socionics: LSE, logical-sensory extravert = = PS in socioanalysis (a school in socionics founded by the author, Gulenko). The 4 letters system used in the US competes with the more compact socionic systems.

The problem of type names is more complex. As a rule, human types do not have their particular names in the US and are indicated by 4 letters; exception is made only by Keirsey who refers to types according to occupation-related pseudonyms¹.

Unfortunately in the former USSR a misleading system of pseudonyms is still in use of naming types by celebrities (e.g. Writers: Dumas stands for ISFP, Gorky for ISTJ. Book heroes: Holmes stands for ESTJ, Don Quixote for ENTP. There are even persons unknown outside Russia). Several socionists^17,18 still use such pseudonyms, ignoring the trend of transition to functional names.

In 1989 (published in 1995) I made the first attempt among socionists to introduce a functionally motivated system of names to be convenient for management consulting practice and professional orientation⁸ based on Keirsey system but slightly different (see TABLES below). It still helps me in reading lectures and performing seminars and trainings, and is described in details in sourced literature¹⁰.

My repeated appeals to stop using ridiculous terminology have been ignored for a long time; finally, the situation changed, but instead of attempts to a dialog with me, the socionists in Kiev offered their own alternative system of names. Seeds of controversies and hostilities have been sown.

Since socionic circles are not integral, and some of socionists are hostile to other schools, the diversity of name systems seems to grow up in the future. I see 2 ways out of this problem: either socionists will be able to come to an agreement like chemists did in a similar situation at Karlsruhe International Congress 1860, or one or two systems will win as a result of natural selection. The first way is preferable for our science, but in this case somebody will have to tame his ambitions.

Type components (differentiation dimensions or communication aspects) are usually positioned in a certain order which allows building schemes. Such schemes are usually called models, and these are used both in socionics and in the type theory.

The difference is that socionic models (e.g. the Model A — see TABLE 2) consist of communication aspects, whereas the American model consists of Jungian dimensions. As a result, these two models are not easy to combine. Our models consist usually of 8 positions, and American only of 4.

Another essential difference: order of numbering functions in the model is also different. Let us consider for example two types: ILE, intuitive-logical extravert (ENTP) and LII, logical-intuitive introvert (INTJ). What are their main functions (TABLE 3)? A socionist would answer: for the first it is intuition, and for the second it is logic (i.e. thinking). By contrast, a type scientist says that intuition is the main function for the both, but it is extraverted (Ne) for ENTP and introverted (Ni) for INTJ.

In other words, hierarchy of functions must be the same for the both types: main—intuition, auxiliary—logic, third—feeling, fourth—sensing. The difference is, that the ENTP's first function is extraverted, and the INTJ's is introverted. According to socionics, however, intuition is extraverted for the both (), but has different positions in their models.

1. Keirsey D., Bates M. Please Understand Me. Character & Temperament Types. Gnosology Books Ltd., 1984.
2. Myers I.. Myers P. Gifts Differing. Palo Alto. Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1980.
3. Аугустинавичюте А. О дуальной природе человека//Соционика, ментология и психология личности, 1996, №№ 1—3. (A.Augustinaviciute. On the Dual Nature of a Human).
4. Аугустинавичюте А. Социон (основы соционики) //Соционика, ментология и психология личности, 1996, №№ 4, 5. ( A . Augustinaviciute . Socion or Fundamentals of Socionics ).
5. Аугустинавичюте А. Теория признаков Рейнина//Соционика, ментология и психология личности, 1998, №№ 1—6. (A.Augustinaviciute. Reinin's Theory of Binary Dimensions).
6. Гуленко В.В. Выразительные возможности психических состояний. Человек и мир языком универсалий//Соционика, ментология и психология личности, 2001, № 3. ( V . V . Gulenko . Expressive Possibilities of Psychical Conditions ).
7. Гуленко В.В. Интровертная соционика//Соционика, ментология и психология личности, 1996, № 4. ( V . V . Gulenko . Introverted Socionics ).
8. Гуленко В.В. Как называть социотип? //Соционика, ментология и психология личности. 1995, №3, с.74-80. ( V . V . Gulenko . On Giving Sociotype a Name ).
9. Гуленко В.В. Менеджмент слаженной команды. Новосибирск, Рипэл, 1995. ( V . V . Gulenko . Harmonious Team Management ).
10. Гуленко В.В. Отчёт о соционической работе в 6-г классе средней школы #16 Октябрьского района г.Новосибирска. Новосибирск, 21.04.1996. (V.V.Gulenko. Report of Socionic Practice in the 6-G Class of the Secondary School #16, Oktyabrsky District, Novosibirsk City).
11. Крёгер О., Тьюсон Дж. Типы людей. М., Персей-Вече-АСТ, 1995. (O.Kroeger, J.Thuesen, Type Talk).
12. Крёгер О., Тьюсон Дж. Типы людей и бизнес. М., Персей-Вече-АСТ, 1995. (O.Kroeger, J.Thuesen, Type Talk at Work).
13. Крёгер О., Тьюсон Дж. 16 дорог любви. М., Персей-Вече-АСТ, 1995. (O.Kroeger, J.Thuesen, 16 Ways to Love Your Lover).
14. Ливер Бетти Лу. Обучение всего класса. М.: Новая школа, 1995. (Leaver, Betty Lou. Teaching the Whole Class).
15. Овчинников Б.В., Павлов К.В., Владимирова И.М. Ваш психологический тип. СПб ., «Андреев и сыновья», 1994. (B.V.Ovchinnikov, K.V.Pavlov, I.M.Vladimirova. Your Psychological Type).
16. Тигер П., Бэррон-Тигер Б . Делай то. для чего ты рождён . М ., Армада. 1996. (P.Tieger, B.Barron-Tieger. Discover the Perfect Career for You through the Secrets of Personality Type).
17. Филатова Е.С. Соционика для Вас. Новосибирск, 1994. (Ye.Filatova. Socionics for You).
18. Филатова Е.С. Соционика в портретах. Новосибирск, 1996. (Ye. Filatova. Socionics in Portraits ).
19. Шнейдерман Б. Психология программирования. М. 1984. (B.Shneiderman. Software Psychology. Human Factors in Computer and Information Systems).
20. Юнг К.Г. Психологические типы. СПБ., Ювента, М., Прогресс-Универс, 1995. (C. G. Jung. Psychological Types).
21. Якушина Н.Р., Синицын Е.С. Соционика в сократовских диалогах. Новосибирск, 1995. (N. R. Yakushina, Ye. S. Sinitsyn. Socionics in Socratic Dialogs).