Socionics Blog

April 2006

Is the concept of 'psychological compatibility' psuedo-science?

Some people are of the opinion that the idea that some kind of inherent compatibility or incompatibility between people is a myth doesn't belong in science. Here is my rather dry argument against this claim.

Let's suppose that psychological compatibility is a myth and does not actually exist. We want to debunk the concept once and for all. This should be quite feasable, actually. We can use any number of different settings — jails, space shuttle trips, submarine cruises, or any other setting where people spend lots of time together in an enclosed space.

All we do is create a bunch of random pairs of people and have them live together for some significant period of time. Then we take non-random pairs and have them live together. These non-random pairs can be chosen using any method — socionics, psychological testing, body weight, whatever. Then we conduct some kind of testing to get quantitative measurements of psychological comfort, well-being, or any other variable we define.

Our hypothesis is that the psychological success (however we choose to define it) of the non-random group will not differ statistically from the random group. If this is the case, time after time, no matter what criteria of compatibility we apply, then we think we have debunked the concept of "psychological compatibility."

But wait, it's not that simple. To completely disprove the concept, we would actually have to show that there were no significant differences in the psychological functioning of each pair of participants. To be more precise, Person 1 must experience the same level of psychological comfort (or whatever measure we choose) with all other participants of the experiment.

If we end up finding that Person 1 experiences what we define as "comfort" with Persons 2, 4, 6, and 8, and "discomfort" with Persons 3, 5, 7, and 9, then we have in essence proved the existence of psychological compatibility, even if we are unable to find criteria on the basis of which we can predict the compatibility of any two or more people.

Thus, the only real way of proving that psychological compatibility does not exist is to demonstrate that all people are equally comfortable around all other people.

Experiencing the quadras in real life

There are moments when one feels the profound differences between the quadras. Even if you don't know a thing about socionics, you might still notice that in some groups you encounter you feel good and quickly become part of the group, while in other groups you feel self-conscious and inhibited and seem to be misunderstood. I experienced this contrast during my recent cycling trip to Crimea.

During my train ride there I shared a compartment with three people from the Beta quadra — two lady friends (SLE and IEI) of about 60 years of age and a 35-year-old SLE man. The three of them quickly struck up a conversation and were soon laughing loudly and having a great time. Meanwhile, I found reasons to leave the compartment and found someone I knew in the same car (!) and talked to him for quite a while. When I returned, the three of them had been joined by one other and were in the middle of a meal, sharing the food they had brought with them. The man brought out a container of 140 proof home-made whiskey and served everyone. The conversation was mostly about criticism of various government structures that they had worked in or dealt with, and funny stories from these structures. There was a lot of hearty, loud laughter and lengthy, expressive monologues. I felt pretty inhibited and quickly climbed up to my bunk after the whiskey and went to sleep.

The next morning they served me some tea and a sandwhich and asked about me. When my nationality (U.S.) came up and I began giving some of the unusual details about myself, it seemed like they weren't able to understand correctly what I did or why I was living in Ukraine, and somehow found it all "a little suspicious." They wanted to know what structures I was affiliated with (my occupation, religion, involvement in any U.S. government programs, etc.) rather than trying to understand me as an individual, which always makes me uneasy and self-conscious. They also commented on my behavior, noting that I seemed very serious and businesslike, and seemed to have a calculating mind (I inferred this). They seemed to feel a little uneasy around me, because I never really laughed at anything, but just smiled. I didn't seem emotionally involved in the situation at all.

My own reaction to them was also rather negative. Before I would do or say anything I would play it out in my mind first (total lack of spontaneity), and often I felt clumsy even though I was trying my best to find a way to act spontaneous and occupy my usual social niche. I felt like I had little to say about any of the things they talked about, because they were looking at everything from a point of view that I found uninteresting.

Contrast this to a group of four bikers I came across at a rustic lodge in the mountains. They seemed harmless and approachable from the outset, and I asked them about their route. We struck up a conversation about our routes, trip details, and gear. Our conversation was factual with lots of useful information. Their group consisted of one extravert (IEE) — the obvious leader — and three rather quiet introverts (one SLI, and I'm not sure about the others).

From the outset I took initiative and felt quite comfortable with them. Shortly they invited me to share a room with them at the lodge and go have dinner at a restaurant up the road. I gladly accepted both invitations. I felt uninhibited with them and talked actively without thinking things over in my head beforehand.

During our conversations, no one asked me any questions I would feel were personal, and I felt accepted for who I was. There weren't any communication problems whatsoever. We talked about placed we'd traveled and about countries of the world we'd like to visit. We also discussed a lot of intriguing facts we had heard or read about. Mostly I talked with the IEE while the others listened or thought about their food.

I noted that the quiet and emotionally uninvolved — even indifferent — behavior of these "listeners" would have been quite disconcerting to people from Beta quadra. They would have nothing to go on in trying to understand these people and would feel like they were being viewed with suspicion. I, on the other hand, did not feel threatened by their subdued behavior and simply took it to mean that they were listening with at least a bit of interest, but didn't personally have anything to say, which was indeed the case. The next morning we exchanged contact information and some other useful contacts we had discussed and parted ways. What a contrast with the group of people from the train.

Of course, some of the external differences in interaction could be attributed to age, shared interests or the lack thereof, and cultural differences between Crimea (where the first group was from) and Kiev (the second). However, I don't believe these things had much of an influence on the internal aspects of our interaction (psychological comfort, feelings of self-consciousness or uninhibitedness, etc.). I have come across other groups of hikers and bikers in Crimea and felt no desire to get to know them closer, much less go out to eat together or share a room with them!

Type messages

There is a new topic I've been thinking about in relation to types and what about people actually defines their relationships with others. I believe there is an underlying prevailing message that each person conveys to others in virtually all his words and actions. It takes other people a little while (up to five personal conversations) to distinguish this prevailing message, and this message — the "point" of everything the person does and says — is precisely what forms the basis for long-term relationship development.

This message comes through mostly between the lines, though it is also reflected in the topics one speaks about. The message is a mirror of one's personal priorities, or hierarchy of values — in other words, what things you consider more important or less important in life. These values come through indirectly in everything one does. People always praise manifestations of their top values in themselves and other people, usually somewhat exaggerating its importance in the process.

One's attitudes towards other people depends primarily on how much one likes their message. Some people's messages seem "just right" for you, while others feel potentially threatening. When people with "threatening" messages begin emphasizing their message around you, you begin to suspect they're trying to point out your weakness in that area. Apparently, there is no way of completely eradicating the areas of self-doubt inherent in the psyche that are related to the super-ego functions...

People's overall messages are best formulated in a few short words or sentences. Don't think about type when doing this; think about the meaning of everything the person says or does that he or she conveys to all other people he interacts with regularly. This is very important; what people would like to think they convey to other people is not always their primary message. What does the person actually believe is most important in life? Among his close friends, what is he most appreciated for?

My observations show that people of the same socionic type have strikingly similar messages, even if they work in different fields and have different lifestyles. I would like to formulate each of these type messages; I believe it would help me to identify types faster and more accurately. Nonetheless, each person is a certain variation on his type theme. Another potential problem is typing people with chaotic value structures who send out conflicting messages. These people's true messages take longer to identify.

Note that a well-formulated personal message turns into a spiritual mission. My two concepts of type-related spiritual aspirations and type "messages" are closely related. Maybe I will eventually combine them into a general theory of socionics and value structures.

DRAFT LIST OF TYPE MESSAGES:

SLI: correct living and temperance
IEE: expanding one's horizons
LSE: worthwhile activity
EII: being an example to others
ESI: meeting society's expectations
SEI: enjoyment of life
ILI: the insignificance of [earthly] things
SEE: making an impression on others
SLE: readiness to fight (for what one wants)
IEI: searching for subjective meaning (?)
EIE: attracting attention to oneself (?)
LSI: doing things the correct way (?)
ILE: searching for the unknown (?)
LII: ?
LIE: ?
ESE: ?

I think this approach constitutes an important discovery, but it needs to be elaborated to correctly convey all the images I have in my head.

[ADDED 4/22]: I am currently working on developing these ideas into type descriptions.

Unconscious mechanisms in relationships

There is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of people are completely unaware of the reasons they get along with some people and don't get along with others. If you doubt this, just start asking people:

- Why do you like _____?
- Well, we have a lot in common.
- But you have a lot in common with _____, too.
- Yes, but... he doesn't seem to trust me.
- Why not?
- I don't know.
- Why do you have such a good relationships with _____?
- We understand each other very well. Plus, he's fun to be around.
- Why do you understand each other?
- Um...
- Does everyone think he's fun to be around?
- Well, no...

People constantly make the perceptual error of assuming that the people they like are somehow superior (morally, intellectually, personality-wise, etc.) to other people, while those they don't like are objectively inferior. It takes a serious interest in the subject of relationships and social psychology to go beyond this thinking and recognize that one's circle of friends is not superior to other people, but that there are other underlying reasons for having chosen each other.

Socionics is the first theory ever that attempts to explain unconscious mechanisms of relationships in a structured manner. The real "meat" of socionic concepts is hard to understand at first, because the subject of relationship mechanisms is itself inaccessible to most people's conscious awareness. It takes time and a series of incremental insights to learn to see this level of unconscious functioning.

Socionics and neurology

There is no doubt that socionic perceptual patterns have their basis in specific neurological phenomena. Often, with a little bit of self-study, comparisons with other people, and a very basic knowledge of physiology, you can arrive at interesting conclusions (or hypotheses). For example, some people might have more well-developed connections between different areas of the brain, or simply longer neural connections. This would allow them to establish connections between facts and ideas with greater ease. Other people might have "shorter" neural connections that tend to form intense connections within their respective area of the brain. These people would experience strain while trying to establish "neural connections" between different areas of knowledge and awareness, but would be able to develop separate areas with easy. The opposite kind of people would experience strain when trying to get deep into one thing. I believe my own thinking is "superficial" in the sense of involving well-developed connections with different areas of the brain (and hence with knowledge in general). It seems like I have a lot of things in my head at once and can make connections very rapidly to anything else that I know or have experienced. Also, I suspect my need to see the "big picture" is essentially a need to establish long-range neural connections that connect phenomena located in different parts of the brain. Activities that require intense brain activity only in a certain area are tiresome for me, but for many people they are pleasant and relaxing.

[ADDED 4/11]: Here is an illustration of another possible neurological view of socionic phenomena.

Quality of thinking and brain food
I have made some interesting observations about thinking quality. Intense mental activity of any kind gradually depletes the level of certain vitamins, minerals, chemicals, or other "brain food" in the area of the brain that is being used. After a certain period of time (different for each person), quality of thinking begins to drop (I first noticed this when playing jawbreaker and solitaire on my pocket PC), and the area of brain that is being used needs rest and replenishment of certain substances. People's endurance periods for different kinds of brain activity seem to differ widely, depending on specific physiological parameters of their brains.

Balanced typing

Oleg Khrulyev's celebrity typing project is quite interesting at many levels. He made diagrams of each socionist's convergence with other participants in the projects. You can view the results for each participant by clicking on their names (in Russian) half-way down the page at http://famous.socionic.ru/. A couple observations:

1. Every participant had a lopsided representation of types in his typing results. For example, here are Aleksandr Bukalov's stats.
2. Some socionists had a greater lopsidedness than others, and each was lopsided in his own way. This reflects each socionist's familiarity with certain types.
3. Gulenko's typings in 1990 were vastly more balanced than in 2004, where half of his typings were EIE!
4. Only one participant's typings were perfectly evenly distributed — Yuriy Ivanov, from Moscow, Russia. I would definitely like to meet this guy and talk about his typing methodology. He was also one of the socionists closest to the benchmark typing list.

[ADDED 4/21]: I was told that Yuriy Ivanov's typings for this project came from his book. In their books socionists usually try to give relatively evenly distributed typings.

A mature socionist needs to know all types very well. This takes years of work. I still have holes that I am gradually filling in. My current teaching work gives me a lot of contact with random people, which is helping me quite a bit.

Essential socionic type characteristics

This is a big issue that I want to write more about after I "completely" figure things out myself. Socionic type is defined by certain mechanisms that come to the forefront in close-distance relationships. All other traits are secondary and are often misleading. Type descriptions come from traits of "vivid" type representatives, but many or even most people are not as striking in their personality and behavior. When you look at people's relationships with each other, many of the things that are typically written in type descriptions are of little consequence. For example:

"tries to always be on time"
"has a good aesthetic sense"
"lives in the here and now"
"is forceful and demanding of others"

I guess writing these things in type descriptions is okay, but there will always be people who don't have these characteristics and are confused or decide that they are a different type. I would like to formulate the essential type characteristics that come out in close relationships, and ignore these misleading "superficial" traits.

[ADDED 4/22]: I think I have a good idea of what those essential type characteristics are now, and I am currently incorporating them into my type descriptions.