Found this article a while ago with some interesting observations regarding types. It seems like this is an excerpt taken out of a book or a series of articles, where the author examines how the rate of arriving at a decision within regular management and relationship situations, has an effect of altering the classical socionics ITR relations.
Full article in Russian: https://web.archive.org/web/20120213...N/temportm.htm
A quantitative model for describing the normative modes of communication between social groups and the individual.
It is true that observations alone are rarely sufficient in themselves: they must be applied, and for this it is necessary to generalize them. This is what has been done in the past; however, since the memory of past mistakes made people more and more cautious, they began to observe more and more, and to generalize less and less. - Henri Poincaré, "Science and Hypothesis".
In the previous paragraphs, we have examined the effects accompanying the assimilation — the socialization of new information — that is, the process of developing a new mode of management. At the same time, situations when management is implemented without the need to develop new modes of management, that is, when existing modes that have already developed are sufficient for management (for example, when we encounter standard situations) are quite common. This does not mean that a person in such a situation does not have to process information; it does not mean that he doesn't have to resolve current tasks of management on a particular hierarchical level. It simply means that all the necessary modes of management, all the necessary ways to solve the emerging situations - already exist among the people, that every person in question already knows how to manage such situations, is familiar with and learned them previously - which is why there is no need to develop something new.
Thus, let's consider a situation when all people have the same set of ways of managing the Reality (that is, the same set of knowledge, skills, abilities and experience) - and, ultimately, the same information.
In this case, type will be distinguished from another type not by the amount of information, but by the “decision time”, that is, each of the types will simply have a different “lag time” in the implementation of management, a different “characteristic of that type data processing time”.
Further, let us briefly and schematically recall some of the information from our book "Fundamentals" ... Let us consider the time aspects of implementation of management by each sociotype under the normative management regime, that is, when all types have the same information.
First of all, let us describe the most striking and expressive differences:
a) A rational type reacts faster than an irrational type: after all, the latter starts acting only to get out of their previous state - thus the irrational type loses time to “enter” into an activity. The rational type, meanwhile, reacts immediately, “without warm-ups”: after all, the rational type has previously thought out (!) how he is going to apply everything that he knows (besides, the time intervals characterizing concrete KS are much smaller than the time intervals that characterize the entire hierarchical level as a whole);
b) An extrovert reacts faster than an introvert: after all, the extravert is programmed by the current state of things, whereas the introvert needs to process it, which wastes time;
c) A logical type reacts faster than an ethical type. A rational ethical type requires more time to "consider" the interactions between the KS that would take a rational logical type to analyze the characteristics of a single KS, and at the same time, the irrational ethical type will spend more time "unwinding" and "launching" the characteristics of interactions between KS than the irrational logician will do the same, but for only one KS;
d) A sensing type responds faster than an intuitive type: one can both "see" and "make" characteristics of a membrane/surface faster than one can accomplish the same iwth characteristics of topology.
Using the above, it is easy to obtain the following Table for the distribution of types on the "time plane":
[diagram appears to have been distorted in the archived version of the article]
[The middle of the article was omitted from translation. The author proceeds to derive an equation for reaction time of different sociotypes. The result is the following table which he labels as: "The table of comfort factors for intertype relationships under normative communication." Dual relations are set at 0, while large coefficients he interprets as being least comfortable: "The value of K(A,B)=0 is due to optimality for managing dual relationships, that is they are the “most comfortable” for a given type (type A in our notation), and the greater is the difference of K(A,B) from 0 - the more uncomfortable the interaction between types."]
[The table is to be read as "left column's type reaction to top type" i.e. each coefficient in the cell represents the way the type on the left hand side views the type at the top. The author notes that these coefficients are asymmetric. Thus, ILI->ILE has a coefficient of -0.88 while ILE->ILI carries a coefficient of -1.6. The interpretation of signs is as follows:]
a) The minus sign "-" corresponds to the fact that this type reacts earlier than is necessary to the considered type (earlier than the dual of the considered type) - that is, the delay time of the reaction of this type is shorter than that of the dual of the considered type. [Thus both ILI and ILE react faster in each other's perception than they expect from their duals, with coefficients of -0.88 and -1.6.]
b) The plus "+" sign corresponds to the fact that this type reacts later than is necessary to the considered type. [ For example, the LSE->IEE coefficient is +0.33 while the IEE->LSE coefficient is +4.62, thus both of them react somewhat slower in each other's eyes than they expect from their respective duals.]
c) A value of K=0 corresponds to a type's dual type. The square brackets indicate the “optimal management lag time” for each type under consideration.
d) The value K=-1 corresponds to the identical of the considered type.
Below are several examples describing both characteristic and frequently encountered in practice situations.
Example #1: The relationship between SEE ("Napoleon") and "LII" ("Robespierre"). Under normative regime, these relations are good, even though in conditions of developing a new mode of management these relations are “conflicting”! This example is probably the most revealing: after all, without taking into account the normativeness of the mode of communication, such relations would be rather tense (conflicting). From Table 1 it is clear that the SEE believes that the LII responds “a little bit earlier” (K=-0.36 ) than "is needed" - that is, than SEE's dual ILI - "Balzac" would respond, and the LII accordingly believes that the SEE reacts “slightly” slower than the LII requires (K=0.23). These circumstance presents itself as both appropriate and adequate to both types: the SEE recognizes LII's right to criticize him “for thinking too slowly”, while the LII accordingly, recognizes SEE's right to “admire him for quickness of mind” (that is, both types perceive each other adequately and evaluate each other equally)! Therefore, the SEE often goes to seek advice for his actions - from the LII! However, as soon as we begin to talk about the development of a new joint management mode, a conflict develops from both sides almost instantly.
Example #2: The relationship between LSE ("Stirlitz") and IEI ("Yesenin"). For the LSE, the IEI is the type that responds most slowly among all other types: K=0.82. Therefore, the LSE is not averse to "advise and prompt" the IEI. For the IEI the LSE also reacts most slowly out of all other types: K=0.37. In fact, in IEI's perception the LSE is generally the only type that “reacts too late”: only before the LSE the IEI can feel himself being faster. Friendly relations between the IEI and the LSE fold only when both people have high levels of intelligence: this is not surprising, because “the willingness to prompt and support the other” is almost an essential characteristic of intelligence.
Example #3: The relationship between SEE ("Napoleon") and ESI ("Dreiser"). For the ESI the SEE is one of the least "uncomfortable" type in his reaction time (K=-0.43), and therefore the ESI reaches out to the SEE as an adviser. However, the ESI for the SEE is a much less comfortable type (K=-0.84), close communication with which the SEE seeks to reduce to a minimum (the SEE quickly gets tired from communicating with the ESI). However, we recall once again that this applies only for the normative modes of communication.
We can see the following regularities from Table 1:
a) Small coefficient values are interpreted as "almost dual" to oneself type [by reaction response time]. There are several instances of this within the table: for example, LII perceives ESI to be "almost dual", (K=-0.08), SLE perceives IEE as his “almost dual” (K=-0.01). A few other of such pairs are: ILE and LII or SLI, SEI and IEI or ILI, ESE and LSI or ESI, EIE and LII or SLI, LSI and LIE, IEI and LIE, LIE and LII, LSE and SEI, IEE and SEI or LII, SLI and IEI (all of pairs listed are, of course, only approximations).
b) With rare exceptions, the comfort coefficients are asymmetric. If a type under consideration perceives another type as being comfortable by their reaction time, that type does not necessarily perceive the type under considering as being comfortable. The most striking examples are: 1) if the IEI perceives the LIE as “almost dual”, then the LIE perceives the IEI as “the most stupid” among all! 2) if SLE perceives IEE as “almost duala”, then IEE perceives Zhukov as one of the "two dumbest" types.
[Translator's note: The author seems to imply that slower reaction time is interpreted as having low intelligence or being "dumb" by a type in question, however, individual interpretations may vary from this. It does make it unlikely that the faster reacting type will view the slower reacting one as being suitable for a leading role.]
c) Under conditions of normative communication, some types perceive each other as “normative identicals”, and these are the only cases (except for identicals and duals), when their relations are symmetrical. These are the following three pairs of types: 1) LII-SLI 2) LSI-EII 3) EIE-ESI. From this it follows that the exchange of information between these types is impossible within normative communication (indeed: they not only have the same set of knowledge and skills, but, as follows from Table 1, they are even interchangeable within a management group).
d) Interestingly enough, for each of the 3 pairs of such “normative identicals”, there are exactly two other types that perceive them as also being “normative identicals” - in other words, they can't tell differences between them under normative communication modes! We list these types: 1) for a pair of LII-SLI, this is an ILE (K=-0.2 for both types) and EIE (K=-0.2 for both types), 2) for a pair of LSI-EII, this is SLE (K=-0.51 for both types) and IEE (K=1.77 for both types), and 3) for a pair of EIE-ESI, this is SEE (K=-0.84) and SLI (K=-1.31).
How Each Type Perceives the Society Around Them
[The intro of this section has been omitted from translation. The author derives an "integral" type from the coefficients in rows of Table 1. From these results he compiles Table 2 that gives each type two integral coefficients: Ki which represents the "comfort of work of a given type with the society/unstructured social groups, and D Ki which represents the extent of variability of comfort that a given type experiences interacting with different individuals from these social groups.
Type [Ki] [D Ki]
ILE - [1,45] [2,52]
IEE - [1,23] [1,43]
LIE - [0,89] [2,33]
ESE - [0,52] [1,26]
EIE -  [1,95]
ILI - [-0,21] [0,66]
LSE - [-0,40] [0,46]
SEE - [-0,51] [0,48]
IEI - [-0,55] [0,34]
SLE - [-0,60] [0,25]
LII - [-0,83] [0,88]
EII - [-0,93] [0,32]
ESI - [-1,32] [1,62]
SLI - [-1,38] [0,75]
LSI - [-1,80 [3,52]
SEI - [-3,65] [3,26]
[The author interprets positive +Ki coefficients as "types reacting ahead of the society", running ahead so to say, Ki=0 as types that perceive society as their duals, K close to -1 as types perceiving society as being their identicals, and negative -Ki coefficients as types viewing the society as running ahead of them. From this he comments that types ILE, LIE, ESE, IEE perceive the society as lagging behind in reaction time, type EIE perceiving the society as its dual, type EII perceiving it as identical, ILI perceiving it as its adviser/consultant, and the four types with Ki below -1 as viewing the society as already being developed and mature where they can only "fix" processes.
Low D Ki coefficients are interpreted as types that tend to treat others equally within a social group, while high D Ki coefficients are interpreted as types that tend to experience wide variability in comfort of intertypes and thus prone to have certain favorites within social groups. Following this interpretation, types that are most inclined to perceive others evenly are SLE, EII, IEI, LSE, SEE; types that experience the most variation are LSI, SEI, LIE, ILE, ESI, EIE.]
From Table 2 we can highlight several types and groups of types that stand out in how they perceive the society:
For type ILE "Don Quixote", LIE "Jack", and ESE "Hugo" is seems like society reacts on the average well after them (!) - that is, it seems to them (moreover, "they are sure" of this!) that they are the “smartest” of all; and since they are extroverts, they don’t try to hide this fact. These types have elevated self-esteem. However, as it follows from Table 3 (see in later section), society “recognizes” this leadership only for ILE "Don Quixote" and LIE "Jack" - the “leadership habits” of IEE "Huxley" and EII "Hugo" society does not encourage (which leads to the "eternal discontent/frustration" of these types).
There is a single type of personality who perceives large unstructured social groups as his dual - this is EIE "Hamlet". Therefore, the EIE is confident that his or her task is to change the opinion of society, to form its line of conduct, to manage it - in particular by use of large social groups and teams, large unstructured groups of people. The EIE is confident that his or her business is to set an "ideology" for society. The EIE is sure that “without him or her” this social group simply cannot function optimally, that “it is only he/she” that is the equivalent of the social group (just like that!), that he or she is completely self-sufficient for making all decisions for this group of people.
The other types (11 of them) it seems that such “large and unstructured” social groups are “smarter” than them, that they decide everything “to one degree or another degree quicker than them”, that “collective work/effort/labor” will lead them to success quicker. Moreover, some of these types are deeply convinced that they themselves are “not good for anything”, that “everything that is needed has been already thought out and accomplished long time ago” ... In the next section, we will see that society perceives some of these types in quite the opposite way, as tending to react earlier than a social group.
For LSI "Maxim", SEI "Dumas", SLI "Gabin", and ESI "Dreiser", it is characteristic to believe that "the society is already mature", and that they simply fix the processes that have already taken place in society. Lower self-esteem, in comparison to the first group, is characteristic of these types. The following phrase is very characteristic of type LSI "Maxim", with which he likes to justify his decision: "It is already thought/believed ..." "There is already an opinion that ..." (quite familiar, isn't it? - however, this is how Maxim perceives the situation!).
To the ILI "Balzac" it seems that society "does everything" a little before than him, that he is always running a little late. It seems to him that the society is “already ready, already matured” for the perception of everything that he can advise this society. It seems to the ILI that when he joins an activity or process, that this process is has already started and is actively ongoing. Therefore, “seeing” the first results of such an activity, the ILI brings his “song” to the “common choir”: he starts sharing the results of his observations with everyone around him and comments on how this activity is happening! Naturally, the groups that is working on this activity perceives this as a criticism - and, moreover, as will be seen from the results of the next section, a criticism that is delieved ahead of schedule. Therefore, the ILI is sometimes perceived as a "critic". Note that other types are not prone to follow such a line of conduct, since it seems to them that the social processes have already started so long ago that it makes no sense to advise anything ...
EII "Dostoevsky" perceives the society as almost his identical. Therefore, the EII sees well what interests people in the current situation, what kind of a response his social groups needs right now. Moreover, the "desires, hopes, feelings, and deeds" of society seem to be obvious to the EII - he/she simply "sees" them (and, among other things, it is rather uncomfortable for the EII to exist in such an identical society, that is always "prickling" him). Precisely in this lies the true strength of the writer F.M. Dostoevsky: in the ability to see behind small fact that go on being unnoticed by the majority, the general tendencies and trends which will determine the evolution of society for many years ahead. It is sufficient only to recall the history of the creation of his novel "Demons" - a novel that became a kind of "discovery" of the perestroika era in the USSR, a novel in which he described the anti-human ideology and practice of the real embodiment, the real process of formation of the "new socialist society" ... all this - while being in Switzerland, essentially solely basing this on a small note in the newspaper, and on the fact of his rather superficial acquaintance (from the words of his wife’s brother) with a killed student. . . Running ahead into the next section, we note that society perceives the EII as its dual, one from whom one may ask for an opinion, and as a judge in matters for which this type of personality is “responsible”. Returning again to the writer FM. Dostoevsky it is no longer surprising basing on these results that his activities are being addressed practically throughout the world, and not only in Russia and the countries of the former USSR (and his phrase “The future of the world is not worth a child’s tear” has became, in fact, the slogan of the Democrats in these countries).
SLE "Zhukov" perceives the society as a kind of "unified mass" [i.e. D Ki coefficient is closest to 0], as an object that reacts "almost as a whole" (but mentally "quicker" than the SLE!). That is why, within his or her work, the SLE easily manages large groups of people - however, it must be remembered that in doing so the SLE manipulates everyone as a single entity. For this reason, the SLE is “equal” with everyone in communication, for him “everyone is equal”, and he/she picks his “favorites” for reasons other than their active business qualities (except for IEE "Huxley" - see Table 1).
Approximately in a similar way as the SLE "Zhukov", the IEI "Yesenin" and the EII "Dostoyevsky" perceive social groups as being "averaged", as a "single whole". But if the EII strives to channel his/her perception of society into the processes that would change relationships between people, then IEI instead registers and fixes states of the relations as they already exist in reality (that is, registers existent emotions).
Two extroverts - LSE "Stirlitz" and SEE "Napoleon" - perceive society "almost as a whole", and therefore they treat others almost equally, without significant deviations in their treatment. Three introverts - ILI "Balzac" , SLI "Gabin", and LII "Robespierre" - already perceive the society as a kind of "uneven" formation - but still having some internal integrity and unity. They also treat other types more or less equally.
For the remainder of types [LSI, SEI, LIE, ILE, ESI, EIE], society presents itself as a rather heterogeneous mass, dealing with individual representatives of which one constantly has to expect various kinds of "jabs" of different degrees of "trouble" for them ... Therefore, these types quickly establish their "favorites" within groups, communication with which doesn't have to be pleasant but least "stinging" and "jabbing" (ESI "Dreiser" says to SEE "Napoleon": “Talking to you is the least unpleasant for me, talking to you I can rest!).
How Each Type is Perceived By Society
Table 3. Kk - the coefficient of comfort for the perception of a given type by a society; and D Kk - the coefficient of the the level of variability of comfort in the perceptions of the type by members of the society.
Type - [Kk] [D Kk]
LII - [-0,80] [0,6]
ILE - [- 0,75] [0,93]
LIE - [- 0,75] [1,17]
EIE - [-0,73] [0,59]
SLI - [-0,68] [0,60]
ILI - [-0,64] [1,60]
LSI - [-0,59] [1,03]
LSE - [-0,54] [3,14]
ESE - [-0,48] [1,78]
IEE - [-0,48] [2,34]
IEI - [-0,43] [2,91]
SEE - [-0,38] [1,31]
SEI - [-0,37] [1,25]
ESI - [-0,32 ] [0,78]
SLE - [-0,13] [2,81]
EII - [-0,02] [0,93]
From Table 3 follow the following conclusions:
First of all, society perceives each of the sociotypes - and, as a result, all types of personality - as those that react before the society (!) .. In other words, society agrees to follow any (!) of the types, to "catch" and further develop activities of any type - this is quite acceptable for the society.
The following types and groupings of types can be distinguished:
LII "Robespierre", ILE "Don Quixote", LIE "Jack", and EIE "Hamlet" are perceived by the society as types that react most quickly. In other words, the society is ready ("has already agreed to") to receive a decision from them, to “take up” their activities, and delegates to them the “right to leadership”. At some stretch, these types are also perceived by society as identicals. The society may not have wanted to follow these types, but it understands that this is “necessary” (the perception of people of identical types tends to be: “We would have done the same in his or her place.”) ... In other words, society perceives the activities of these types most completely and unequivocally. In fact, by this acceptable society reinforces the behavior and self-esteem of ILE, LIE, and EIE - but at the same time it “pleasantly surprises” with its “compliance” type LII "Robespierre" (which the LII does not expect by his own sense of self — see Table 2 in the previous paragraph).
There is one type which is perceived by large unstructured social groups as being their dual - this is EII "Dostoevsky". Therefore, it is only to the EII that society “grants” the right to comment on the relevant “normative blocks” (that is, gives him or her the “right to educate” the society!); in other words, - only from EII's “mouth” the norms and standards become accepted by society “without further thought”, as a “guide to act”. And now let us recall from the previous section that EII is the type that perceives society as its own identical and, therefore, the EII perceives the society as always expressing (verbalizing, socializing) exactly what “really is” (as it seems to the EII, of course!), that the society thinks, wants, and does exactly what is “really happening” with this society. As we see, there is a kind of " complementarity " between two ways of perception (Dostoevsky - society, and society - Dostoevsky): the EII "feels his/her right" to self-express - but the society also "allows" the EII to realize (exercise) this "right" . Thus, society supports EII in his or her "claims" - and EII, consequently, does not hold back and “disappoint” the society in this.
When it comes to EIE "Hamlet", however, who perceives the society as his or her dual, the society itself perceives as "almost identical". In other words, the society allows the EIE to “teach” and to change some social standards to others. That is, the society is ready to accept from the EIE that “Ideology” which this type offers to the society. Thus, the society encourages the EIE in his or her activities on “producing a Social Ideology” by its own readiness to listen to, accept, and live by it.
Similarly, the society is ready to accept something new from ILE "Don Quixote" and LIE "Jack", thereby supporting their confidence that it is they (and only they!) who “see all that is new - before anyone else”!
In contrast to the above, the "claims" of ESE "Hugo" and IEE "Huxley" to a program for action for the society" - are not supported by the society, which leads to a conflict between the "expectant" and the "existing", moreover this is a conflict from both sides, their's and the society's. Such a conflict is very depressing for ESE and IEE (in fact, it is aimed at curbing "excessive" activity of both of these types).
The opposite happens with SLI "Gabin" and LSI "Maxim" than with Hugo and Huxley: both SLI and LSI consider that everything “comes to them” too late - but the society completely disagrees! There is also a kind of “conflict” apparent here - but, unlike the one described above, there is a conflict that improves the self-perception of both SLI and LSI, aimed at supporting and encouraging the activity of both of these types.
Interestingly, the SLE "Zhukov" is perceived by the society "almost as a dual " - that is, the society recognizes SLE's right to command itself, and quite willingly obeys it. For type SLE there is a convergence of opinions of SLE about the society, and about the SLE from his or her society.
Let us consider the "level of diversity" in the responses of society towards the type in question - that is, the "comfort spread" - in the opinion of society - when it (the society) communicates with a given type.
The most "even" in perception of society are types LII "Robespierre", EIE "Hamlet", and SLI "Gabin" - for the last two types this is in stark contrast with their own perceptions of the society around them! Next comes ESI "Dreiser", who is also characterized by a marked contradiction between his or her own perception of the society as a “prickly hedgehog” and the rather "even" perception of ESI by the society .
Finally, EII "Dostoevsky" and ILE "Don Quixote" are perceived by society as “moderately even” when dealing with them; for the ILE such a reception by the society does not correspond to his or her own perception of society as an object “possessing numerous needles”!
There is a significant range of opinions in the perception of society SLE "Zhukov", IEI "Yesenin", LSE "Shtirlitz", SEE "Napoleon", and ILI "Balzac" - which is somewhat unexpected for people of this type. When these types deal with large unstructured social groups, this fact can lead to stressful situations.