Socionics Blog

November 2006

Old age, senility and the base function

There is a view among Jungians that the weaker functions come into their own with age, or are somehow brought into the consciousness. I don't know their views exactly, since I have only encountered it here and there and have not given them serious study. However, my socionics based observations do not support this "rounding out with age" view, or at least put it in a different perspective.

First, let me discuss three very old people (80 +) whom I have had the chance to observe closely over several years.

1. LIE or LSE male. This lean, wiry old man had been an avid sportsman his whole life and was remarkable for not being able to sit still — even at the ripe old age of 80-85. He was always doing some work of some kind, always moving, always going somewhere. He remained distinctly action-oriented till his death.
2. ESI female. This lady had been known for always making plus/minus ethical judgments of people and their behavior. You could always read her attitude in her face, even if she tried to keep from saying it out loud. Her sentiments could never be budged after she had made her initial impression of a person. This quality remained her trademark deep into senility. She preserved her natural ability to establish emotional contact with people and became more and more sentimental with age.
3. SLI male. This quiet old man had always been known for leading a balanced, healthy lifestyle and for his lack of tension or judgmentalism. He was always a nice, softspoken guy who went around doing things he enjoyed and that needed to be done without paying much attention to anyone else. Even as he has withdrawn somewhat from people (now that he is 85), he continues to lead the same lifestyle, centered around nature, simple things, and physical work at his home, his cabin, and his land plot in the forest.

Physiologists tell us that many of the brains functions (not socionic functions) begin to deteriorate with age. My observations of these and other old people suggest that it is the weak functions that "go to pot" after 70 or 80 years of age, while the base function preserves its competence till death or dehabilitating illness. This is not hard to explain. The "strongest" functions have been given the most "exercise," are best supplied with vitamins and minerals, and form the core of one's adaptational niche in one's environment. When the brain deteriorates, this is the last to go.

Reconciling the views
How can my experience be reconciled with the "rounding out" view of Jungians and many others? Over time, one builds up simple behavior patterns ("rules of thumbs") to preserve a semblance of order and balance in the areas one is weak in. In youth, people tend to be maximalistic and not recognize the worth of anything that is not a part of their strengths. In adulthood, an awareness of the worth of alternate behavior patterns and adaptation niches comes. One comes to terms at some point with one's own built-in limitations. This, however, does not mean that one suddenly begins to produce information from one's weak functions for society's use.

Updated type statistics

Here I have updated the type statistics of all my Ukrainian English students to date.

I have added the types of over a dozen new students and have revised a few of the types of those already included in the chart. Now, with 60 students total, the stats are shaping out into a significant distribution. As a result of being able to observe such a number of people over many months, I have been able to fill in many typing holes and gain a much better idea of certain types. No other experience in recent memory has been as valuable for better understanding all 16 types.

So, what do we get at this point? A strong predominance of Gamma quadra with otherwise even or nearly even distributions of all dichotomies. Note that the sample is as random as conceivably possible for the given situation (corporate English classes that I do not organize personally). Just a few of the individual students included are either acquaintances of mine (one SEI), or referrals of people I already teach (LII, SEE, EIE, and LSI), but so far there is no pattern to these referrals.

The Gamma predominance may be explained by two factors: 1) the relative predominance of this quadra in the corporate business world (as opposed to self-employed individuals or small companies) observed by numerous socionists, and 2) a slight predominance of this quadra in Ukraine, which might be related to a ESI integral type, as maintained by numerous socionists (but not all).

Intertype relations and seating arrangements

One of the things I currently do is teach English — both to groups and individuals. Of course, this provides tons of opportunities to observe people, study interaction, and see how socionic factors influence situations.

One of my classes has been meeting together for a few years, and all the participants work in the same company. In situations like these, people already have well-established relationships and know perfectly well what they feel about the others. After several months of working with me, their relationship with me also settles down into a certain pattern.

Seating arrangement
The four members of this class always sit in the exact same places across the table from me:

LSI (man) - EII (man) - SLI (woman) - SEE (woman)

From a socionics standpoint, they sit in the most logical possible arrangement according to the comfort level of their respective intertype relations. LSI is the supervisor of SEE, and SEE is the supervisor of EII, so these types try to keep as far away as possible. EII is the activator of SLI, so the two sit next to each other. SEE and SLI are mirage partners, which is also generally a comfortable relationship.

Of the group members, the LSI is in the worst position psychologically and is most aloof from the rest of the group. He participates the least and seems to accept his fate as the loner of the group. I have to put in an extra effort to involve him. No one displays any signs of closeness with him, except for the EII, who occasionally tries to make funny comments to him on the side. The SLI is in the most comfortable position and is very laid-back. The EII is a chatterbox when the SEE is absent, but when she is there, he speaks in an unsure, questioning-like manner and keeps glancing in her direction. When she is gone he likes to explain things and tell stories. The SLI is always the same — laid-back and neutral, but when the more talkative SEE is gone she talks quite a bit more. When others (usually the SEE) talk a lot she quickly gets lazy and is content to take on a listener's role.

What happens when someone is absent
The LSI is always restrained no matter who is absent (possibly as a result of interaction with my type, IEE). The EII livens up whenever the SEE is gone but the SLI is present. The SLI is most talkative when the gregarious SEE is absent, but feels comfortable in any case. The SEE is always talkative and dominant, but becomes sweeter and less demonstrative when the LSI and EII are absent. When they are present, she feels it her duty to fill up the pauses and make something happen. When they are gone, things happen by themselves.

Probably the worst combination is me (IEE), the LSI, and the EII. In these rare cases, I can't get anyone to say more than brief sentences in response to my questions. Also very unfavorable is when the LSI and SEE are alone with me; there is no cohesiveness, and it takes a lot of my energy to preserve a balanced feel in the class.

The best combination is me, the EII, and the SLI. In these cases, interaction becomes spontaneous, and we inevitably hit on topics that interest and involve all participants, and I feel relaxed enough to work on specific problems that they have in their speaking. Next best is when it's me, the SLI, and the SEE. In these cases we have active discussions that jump from topic to topic, but all people are involved and participate.