On The Dual Nature of Humanity, Part 2

Photo Credit: Darrell Fraser (Pexels)

by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė | Source (Mirror) | Symbols for IMEs
Machine Translation Revised by Augusta Project with fully translated segments by Sophia from Classic Socionics

Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Addendum

7. Human Characteristics to Consider When Choosing a Partner

As previously shown in Table 2, there are sixteen different types of people. According to their essential characteristics i.e. the properties that determine the individual’s type of personality or IM, these types can be divided into opposing groups of eight.

8 Schizothymes – 8 Cyclothymes
8 Extraverts – 8 Introverts
8 Logical Types – 8 Ethical Types
8 Sensoric Types – 8 Intuitive Types

The first of these characteristics, belonging to the Schizothyme-Cyclothyme group, is innate.* Children acquire the other characteristics before the age of five based on influences from the closest nurturing figure, which typically is the mother.

*Translator’s note: In Letters and Notes, Augusta changes her opinion on this, believing that being a Schizothyme or Cyclothyme is also acquired based on one’s early childhood environment.

Despite the imperfections of these terms, a great advantage of the terms we use is that it makes it possible to determine which type is a dual by the name of the type alone. If one type is extraverted, the other must be introverted. If one type is logical, the other must be ethical. If one is sensoric, the other must be intuitive. So, in a well-coordinated pair – a dyad – in which the two individuals complement each other, we naturally must find all the names [of the functions]: logic, ethics, sensorics, intuition, as well as introversion and extraversion. Here is one example of a dyad:

Logical Sensoric Extravert – Ethical Intuitive Introvert

It is true that there is one more rule: that both duals must be either schizothymes or cyclothymes. But you can also distinguish a schizothyme from a cyclothyme by the name of a type. All schizothymes have “Logical” or “Ethical” as the first word of their name, and all cyclothymes have “Intuitive” or “Sensoric”. Therefore, despite all dichotomy terms being present, the following pair is not a dyad:

Logical-Sensoric Extravert – Intuitive-Ethical Introvert

These two individuals do not have a complementary intertype relationship, but rather a conflicting one, which is unsuitable for any joint activity.

Table 3 pairs all the types of IM into dyads. It also shows what these types of IM are based on descriptions from other authors – i.e. which psychopathies or accentuations are hidden inside of these types.

In Table 3, all IM types are paired into dyads. It also shows how the same IM types are called by other authors, i.e., behind which accentuations or psychopathies they are hidden.

Our research on married couples shows a clear tendency for couples to be in fully complementary relationships. We already know that a given type’s optimal partner belongs to only one of the sixteen types of intellect. If couples were randomly matched, this would be around 6.25% (100% / 16 = 6.25%)

But in fact, among the fifty marriages we randomly selected, seventeen (34%) of them were optimal. Apparently, both in the behavior of nature and humans, there is less randomness than we have previously believed. Based on everything above, let’s dwell on the question regarding the specific qualities that comprise the opposite properties of a person, as they manifest in life:

Schizothymia – Cyclothymia
Extraversion – Introversion
Logic – Ethics
Sensorics – Intuition

a) Schizothymia – Cyclothymia (Rationality – Irrationality)

What does this innate difference between people mean? According to our data, it is determined by the location of the hemispheres. One hemisphere of an individual perceives and processes information received when observing static objects, which are at rest. The other hemisphere observes dynamic objects, which are in motion. Therefore, one hemisphere is called “static” while the other is called “dynamic”. It’s not difficult for an individual to detect this by closing one of their eyes. When a person is driving or even looking out the car’s window and seeing the houses zooming by, their dynamic eye is working much more intensively. When the car stops moving, the other eye works – the static one. If we try to look at an object in motion with our static eye, things begin to ripple and we may even get a little dizzy. We can also notice this when watching TV.

Since their static and dynamic hemispheres are in different locations, a cyclothyme’s left eye (right hemisphere) observes static objects, while the right eye (left hemisphere) observes objects in motion. For schizothymes, it’s the reverse: the right eye observes static objects, while the left eye observes objects in motion.

If the left hemisphere perceives information about dynamics, then the individual’s dynamics are also controlled by the left hemisphere. Therefore, a truly right-handed person can only be a cyclothyme. Schizothymes are left-handed by nature, but about 50% of them are unaware of it.

Schizothymes can be distinguished from cyclothymes to a very large extent by their build and especially by the way they move. Schizothymes, even if they gain extra weight, are characterized by a certain leanness. Cyclothymes, on the other hand, are characterized by the softness and roundness of their figure, even when they are thin. This is especially the case for their facial features. When it comes to movements, schizothymes have fixed ones. But each type of IM is different: from angular to bouncy to almost gliding. Extraverted schizothymes have an angular gait. Introverted schizothymes (static types) don’t have this angularity and slide instead but also hold themselves in a straight and dignified manner. However, in this “gliding” we have mentioned, there is a stiffness to it and it feels inflexible. The movements of cyclothymes are soft and are always impulsive, more or less. As for the degree of impulsiveness, it is more pronounced in extraverted cyclothymes, who are static, than the introverted ones, who are dynamic. Both in facial expressions and in movements.

Here is what Pyotr Gannushkin writes about the gait of schizothymes:

Their most noticeable feature is usually the tightness and angularity of their movements, the lack of smooth and gradual transitions between them, and in some, in addition, striking eye mannerisms and pretentiousness, and for others striving for elegance and, lastly, in others – just the extreme monotony and scarcity of movements. There are schizothymes who have never been in the military service, but are striking with their almost military alignment; this alignment in them almost reaches the point where they could be described as “wooden” … Especially much originality in their gait: some walk without bending their knees, others – as if bouncing, others – dragging their feet when walking, etc.
Selected Works, p.143 [in Russian]

It’s true that the author is referring to schizoids here, which are schizothymes with fixations or accentuated behavior, but, as far as our observations go, these all fit perfectly healthy people as well. And the fact that they seem like they’re “wooden” or “dragging their feet” is determined solely by their personality type. The most “wooden” in our view is the LSE, and the one that “drags their feet” the most is the opposite*, the LSI. The most “bouncy” is the LIE. These differences in gait are more noticeable in men than in women.

*Translator’s note: “Complete opposite” is a way Extinguishment types are sometimes called by Augusta, or the sometimes seen translation of “Contrary”.

The same could be said about emotions: a cyclothyme’s emotions are way more impulsive and less controllable than those of a schizothyme.

Why do cyclothymes seem impulsive, and were even called “irrational” by Jung? Because their movements, actions and emotions are always a consequence of some feelings and a particular mental state; they are a response to a cyclothyme beginning to feel comfortable, uncomfortable, calm or uncertain. First, cyclothymes need some time to “get going” internally, and only after that do they react to the situation with an emotion or an action. They do not immediately react to others’ emotions and actions – they react to their own feelings evoked by others’ emotions and actions, which is why their reactions are somewhat slow, smooth, very well suited to the situation, but not thought out in advance (“creative”). Cyclothymes do a lot of things simply “out of habit”, in accordance with their established sets.

Schizothymes react to an emotion with an emotion, and to an action with an action – right away, without having to “get going” first. They react in a very reasonable, thought out manner, basing it on all of their experience. For this reason schizothymes seem more strict, decisive, “rational”, their movements are more quick and rigid, their emotions are colder and sharper. Feeling for a schizothyme is a consequence of an action rather than its cause: after a correct action or emotion they feel* better, and after an incorrect action – worse. Because of this fact schizothymes carefully examine and contemplate actions and manifestations of emotions. If schizothymes feel bad, they ponder what they have done wrong, and dig through their past to acquire experience for the future. On the other hand, when cyclothymes feel bad, they think about the future rather than the past: what they need to do to change the way they feel.

Table 3. Comparative Table based on Dyads

*Dyads I-IV: Schizothymes (Rational), Dyads V-VIII Cyclothymes (Irrational)

Dyad	Name of Types of IM	Carl Jung	Antoni Kępiński	Andrey Lichko	Karl Leonhard
I	Logical-Sensoric Extravert	Extraverted Thinking Type	—	—	Demonstrative-Stuck
	Ethical-Intuitive Introvert	Introverted Feeling Type	Psychasthenic	Sensitive	Emotive
II	Logical-Intuitive Extravert	Extraverted Thinking Type	Paranoid	—	Paranoid-Stuck
	Ethical-Sensoric Introvert	Introverted Feeling Type	—	Astheno-Neurotic	Anxious-Hypochondriac
III	Ethical-Sensoric Extravert	Extraverted Feeling Type	—	Hyperthymic	Hyperthymic
	Logical-Intuitive Introvert	Introverted Thinking Type	—	Psychasthenic	Dysthmic
IV	Ethical-Intuitive Extravert	Extraverted Feeling Type	Hysterical	Hysterical	Demonstrative-Hysterical
	Logical-Sensoric Introvert	Introverted Thinking Type	Sadomasochistic	Schizoid	Excitable-Dysthmic
V	Sensoric-Logical Extravert	Extraverted Sensation Type	—	Cycloid	Excitable-Pedantic
	Intuitive-Ethical Introvert	Introverted Intuition Type	—	Conformal-Hyperthymic	Pedantic-Hyperthymic
VI	Sensoric-Ethical Extravert	Extraverted Sensation Type	Epileptoid	Epileptoid	Excitable-Epileptoid
	Intuitive-Logical Introvert	Introverted Intuition Type	Anankastic	Conformal	Pedantic-Anankastic
VII	Intuitive-Logical Extravert	Extraverted Intuition Type	Impulsive	Labile	Affective-Labile
	Sensoric-Ethical Introvert	Introverted Sensation Type	—	Hyperthymic-Unstable	Demonstrative-Hyperthymic
VIII	Intuitive-Ethical Extravert	Extraverted Intuition Type	—	Labile-Hysteroid	Affected-Exalted
	Sensoric-Logical Introvert	Introverted Sensation Type	—	Unstable	—

*Translator’s note: Be aware that Augusta later claims that her familiarity with these typologies (besides Jung’s) was superficial and that she had she can and has been wrong with these. Besides the Jungian correlations, she also maintained the correctness of the following correlations in later works: the Sadomasochistic Personality being LSI , the Cycloid Personality being SLE , and all correlations made to the type ILE .

A cyclothyme’s actions are impulsive, they are nothing more than an individual’s adaptation to the real situation and to their own feelings. It could be said that a cyclothyme acts when they need to exit some kind of situation or some kind of state, while a schizothyme acts when they need to create a particular state, to make themselves feel a certain way. For example, a cyclothyme cooks to end an unpleasant feeling of hunger, and a schizothyme – to acquire a pleasant feeling of being full as a result of this activity; a cyclothyme eats because they find the food delicious, and a schizothyme – in order to be full, even if they are a foodie. Interestingly, the feeling of hunger affects the mood of a cyclothyme much more than that of a schizothyme – when they are hungry, a schizothyme can calmly wait for a longer period of time than a cyclothyme.

When it comes to interactions with objects (including the subject), the opposite is true. Just how a cyclothyme cannot act until they are overcome by some kind of feeling, so a schizothyme cannot communicate with a person until they feel something for this person and some kind of set is established. Without such a set or fully formed feelings a schizothyme cannot even buy the simplest household item. The same process of “getting going” takes place. Cyclothymes start communication without “getting going” (i.e. without sets) – instead they start with direct interactions, during which people and their qualities are thoroughly examined. Only after that do cyclothymes form sets, feelings and attitudes towards people. For this reason, even though a cyclothyme quickly establishes new contacts, these contacts say nothing about the way this individual feels about the people in question. Just how a schizothyme easily and “rationally” changes their actions and manifestations of emotions if they prove to not be reasonable enough, so a cyclothyme “rationally” changes people they interact with if the qualities of these people do not meet a cyclothyme’s needs. The same is true for household items and other objects.

b) Extraversion – Introversion

Not only do extraverts differ from introverts in their psychological characteristics, but also in their appearances. The right hemisphere of an extravert’s brain is always active. This can be seen through their faces and eyes. As a rule, the more developed side of an extravert’s face is on their left side, including the left eye, while for an introvert, the more developed side is on the right side, including the right eye. When talking to an individual, we usually pay attention to their active eye, that is, we aren’t really looking at a person’s entire face, just their active eye.

The active side of a face most often seems to be and actually is narrower and longer, and the active eye seems larger and more meaningful. However, when diagnosing a type of IM by eyes, Extraverted Schizothymes can easily be misdiagnosed since when they look at motionless objects, for example, at a photo lens or a person they’re speaking with, they widen their passive static eye (i.e. the right one). In general, the external differences of types should be seen as a tendency – some faces can be very misleading.

Extraverts have more mobile and less constrained faces, and it is clear that by looking at them, such an individual can bark orders and demands. An introvert’s forehead is particularly calm. It sometimes seems like they’re watching the world with a third eye. Interestingly, the warmest, as well as coldest faces are those characteristic of introverts. The SEI and IEI have the warmest faces, while the ESI and the EII have the coldest ones.

What do we consider an extravert’s main psychological trait (or one of such main traits)? A tendency to change the outside world for the sake of the subject. A tendency to take care of subjects and objects by changing their relations, as opposed to an introvert’s tendency to change subjects and objects for the sake, or benefit, of the relations between them. For an extravert, the relations between people are secondary to the people themselves: the relations must be the way people need them to be. For an introvert, on the contrary, the people need to be adjusted to the relations and not vice versa: if tension starts building, people or their behavior should be changed instead of relations.

For an extravert, objects (including the subject) are the constant of the outside world. For an introvert this constant is found in the relations between objects (including the subject), and the feelings caused by these relations.

We are social beings formed from two parts: our active psychophysical self (a person is an object) and our relations with people and other objects (a person is their relations). Extraversion or introversion of the consciousness prioritizes one of these two parts, and it becomes a seeming cause of the second part. An extravert prioritizes the individual’s psychophysical self, while an introvert prioritizes relations. An extravert is certain that the object of quality always has relationships of quality, that the way the outside world relates to them and feels about them is determined by their personal characteristics or activity, hence they try to improve these characteristics in different ways. On the contrary, an introvert is certain that their personality will be evaluated based on their relationships with others and the way others feel about them. In their own eyes, an introvert is worth as much as their relationships are worth, so they direct all their conscious effort into trying to improve these relationships, they try to be amenable, avoid quarrels. Taken together, all relations and feelings can be called a psychological field, and it can be said that above all else an introvert cares about the quality of their own and others’ psychological fields.

For an extravert, social relationships are a result and sign of the subject’s social value and quality. An extravert’s usual thought process is the following: every subject can improve their relationships with others and evoke positive feelings towards themself through self-improvement. If the subject plays a modest role in society, it means that they lack some socially valued qualities.

For an introvert, relationships are the foundation of the material world. One’s quality as an object is a result and sign of social quality – the value of the relationships one has, and the feelings one evokes in other people. An introvert’s thought process is the following: everyone can increase their value in the eyes of society by improving their relationships with others. If the subject is not noticed and valued, it means that they have not established sufficiently correct relationships.

In the light of this reasoning one thing becomes clear – the currently widespread notion that ”a person is a sum of their relationships first and foremost” is progressive when coming from an extravert, who undertakes to not forget that society is not just people, but relationships as well. However, when coming from an introvert, who already tends to exaggerate the role of relationships and underestimate the object itself, this notion becomes dangerous, inclining them to pay the qualities of the individual’s personality less attention than needed. This leads to the erroneous idea that there are no irreplaceable people, that every person is nothing more than a cog, and that a person must be changed as soon as they disturb the harmony of the psychological field by being unable or unwilling to adapt. The opposite extreme, which can and does come from extraverts, is the assertion that there are no irreplaceable relationships, that one can replace any relationship that does not suit one’s personality and individuality. However, as individuals, people need to both be certain that they are respected and have a right to be themselves, and be certain that their positive relationships with others are constant (stability in life).

For an extravert, the object of orientation in the external world is the surrounding objects (including the subject). For this reason extraverts extend a certain right of integrity: “the other object has the right to be the way it wants to be. If it bothers me, I will change my relationship with it, but not the object itself.” This is because, for an extravert, objects (including the subject) are the fulcrum of consciousness. Changing these objects with one’s own hands means losing this fulcrum. This leads to the world crumbling, which threatens the collapse of consciousness. It is the same as biting the hand that feeds you. Because of this, all extraverts react poorly to various “re-educations,” changes of the subject against their will. Every extravert is already convinced that everyone strives for self-improvement, and every extravert feels it their duty to help everyone else with this voluntary self-improvement.

For an introvert, the object of orientation in the external world is the relationships and feelings of others. For this reason, on the one hand, introverts are very considerate of others, and on the other hand, are certain that everyone is striving for the same goal in this area. Hence introverts help others establish these relationships as much as they can.

Every extravert possesses a certain restlessness of their feelings, a certain activeness. Something pushes them to act in situations where an introvert merely observes, giving the impression of being immersed in oneself. It is very important to understand that an introvert’s concentration is an immersion in the relations of the outside world, rather than in oneself. It is the observation of relations between objects (including the subject), which, in contrast to an extravert, an introvert is unwilling and unable to violate. If an introvert contemplates something in their “immersion,” it is the problems of relations with other objects (including the subject), rather than the problems of their inner life. The impression of being “immersed in oneself” is the result of the fact that one perceives any relation or attitude to the outside world as one’s own feeling.

For all these reasons, when an extravert and an introvert cooperate, an extravert gives their dual a sense of confidence in oneself as an object with certain properties. An introvert gives their dual a real knowledge of how others feel about them, and how to change those feelings if needed.

An extravert adapts to real subjects, objects, their various manifestations, or to what is happening within them or to them. While doing this, an extravert produces relations that are acceptable to these subjects and objects. Thus, an extravert is the creator of new relations and new feelings about the logical and the illogical (), the ethical and the unethical (), the aesthetic and the non-aesthetic (), the timely and the untimely (). An introvert’s creativity leads to the emergence of subjects and objects with new qualities (), as well as new constructions (), new kinds of emotional experiences and inner excitation (), and qualitatively new methods of work (). The creative element is the second element of IM, e.g. for the ILE it is , and for the LII it is .

Only an introvert can invent a qualitatively new construction. This is why the ideas of Roberto Bartini, an LII (), were the most novel among the Soviet aircraft designers we know. On the other hand, only extraverts can create qualitatively new social relations, e.g. all classic Marxist authors. However, introverts are the ones who create new forms of organization of the state (an object), e.g. Thomas More* ().

*Translator’s note: Thomas More wrote Utopia (1516), which describes the political system of an imaginary island state.

Everything is the other way around when it is necessary to reproduce some kind of already existing samples, something that has already been invented or existed somewhere. While an introvert is the inventor of a qualitatively new product, only an extravert can organize the production of this product based on an existing sample. This is where the first, leading element of IM manifests itself.

A production enterprise is, simultaneously, a manufacturer of a product, and a system (team) of people working in it. The head’s personality type determines the way the enterprise relates to these two sides of reality. Extraverted personality types see their main goal as expanding and developing production, increasing output. The team and its interests must be subordinated to this goal. This setup is productive when there is a need for rapid development of the industry, as well as during the search for internal production reserves. Introverted personality types see their main goal as improving the system of relationships in the team, as well as between the team and the management. With this setup production plans are only exceeded when this is required by the team’s interests. This setup is productive when the branch works steadily, which brings to the fore the problems of stabilizing the team, ensuring the stability of each member’s position. This setup also helps to stabilize the life of society. But it should not be forgotten that each type of IM manifests itself in its own unique way – here we only provide the general picture of extraversion and introversion.

An extravert likes leading an active life. One could say that, by showing initiative, an extravert always “climbs on stage” to some extent. But they primarily do it in order to be able to see and evaluate more objects, rather than to be seen themself. They enjoy assessing others and putting them forward. An introvert does not put themself or others forward. They do not even notice others, only assessing them based on the way these others activate them with their attention and improve the overall psychological climate while not getting in the way. An introvert quite honestly states that leadership work is not for them, but they cannot refuse it, feeling that they have no right to, if others are putting them forward. And after assuming some kind of position they keep it for many years, feeling irreplaceable. An extravert can leave on their own or be removed for their mistakes, but an introvert does not make mistakes in planned economy because they are always in complete harmony with the plan (which is a relation). An introvert does not break any relationships, does not get on anyone’s nerves, and is always able to explain their passivity and indecisiveness with the objective factors. They see everyone who is more active than them as engaging in self-promotion; deep down they also aspire to be more active, but they cannot show initiative until it is demanded from them in each particular case. An introvert is afraid to be inappropriately active. Whether this “inappropriate activity” gets called insolence or stupidity is determined by the individual’s type of IM.

An extravert acts in order to become more valuable and necessary for society, to become an object of a higher quality, irreplaceable if possible (since they constantly doubt people’s good feelings), and to be able to show initiative, which is also merely a way to provoke positive feelings in others.

An introvert only acts out of necessity – to fulfill their duty and obligations, to avoid crossing someone and damaging their relationships with others, and to stay in the public eye by any means necessary, because otherwise no one will demand an introvert to be active, their obligations will be limited, and they will be left out in the cold. It is often said that, supposedly, an introvert only acts to be left alone. This is an illusion. They do not want that. And the reason why an introvert cannot refuse or abandon any leadership position, even though they see that they cannot handle the work, is fear that after doing so they will be “left alone,” will not be noticed, will not be needed by anyone. This leads to egocentrism and unhealthy monopolistic tendencies to cling to power at any cost, by hook or by crook, even if this undermines one’s health. The fear of becoming invisible is stronger than common sense.

Extraverts do not like duty and obligations, they like responsibility. They feel responsibility for everything that is going on around them, which activates them, making them act. They accept responsibility for work, for people – everything. Extraverts see responsibility as a privilege, but associate the notions of duty and obligation with a violation. On the contrary, introverts do not like responsibility, they like obligations. They take pleasure in doing things that are considered to be their duty and obligation, that allow them to be active. But they try to avoid responsibility in every possible way – the very word “responsibility” reminds them of a court sentence, a punishment.

While an introvert avoids excessive activity, an extravert avoids demonstrating excessive feelings, i.e. their attitude towards various objects and subjects, to the exact same extent. This is because an extravert is afraid of being immodest and of their feelings getting in someone’s way, while an introvert is afraid of their activity getting in someone’s way. They consider it bad manners, tactlessness.

To obtain psychological comfort an extravert needs to surround themself with relation-oriented introverts, i.e. people who can consider other people’s feelings. An introvert, on the other hand, feels the need to be surrounded by extraverts who can notice and assess people themselves, as well as their activity.

In a group an extravert pays attention to others, tries to shake them up, and is happy when people enjoy it. They are bored if there is no one to pay attention to. On the contrary, an introvert draws attention to themself. They are bored if no one notices them.

Introverts are more inclined to be reclusive. But this is not for the fun of it – it only happens when they feel unneeded and unwanted, when no one gives them the attention they so need. There are eight introverted types in total, and there is no doubt that the aspects of their personality expression that they need others to pay attention to differ from type to type. One type needs attention to their work, another type – to their emotions, their abilities, or their will. An individual is calm and content only when others notice and talk about exactly what said individual needs them to notice.

An extravert also needs such attention, but instead this attention should be paid to their feelings. They need others to believe in the fact that their feelings are voluntary, that an extravert cares about other people, loves them, properly assesses them, is not selfish, etc.

In short, the difference between all extraverts and all introverts can be defined in the following way. When it comes to their attitude towards the world, extraverts are constructive, active, and have a strong need to achieve the goal. Introverts, even when they are very active, rather avoid trouble and failure. Where an extravert is constantly dissatisfied with not having done more, an introvert feels bad after having done something that proves unnecessary in retrospect. They are afraid to be seen as an upstart by themself and others, and to ruin established relationships. An introvert is deeply convinced that it is reprehensible to be doing something that is not strictly necessary.

A typical example from college life. After successfully passing an exam, extraverts are almost always a little unhappy about not having had time to read something related to the subject. Most introverts are just as unhappy thinking about something they did read, but did not need on the exam.

An introvert’s laziness can be shaken up with criticism for their sluggishness; but any careless remark about how they overdid something or were more active than necessary kills their desire to be active at all, for a long time. When an extravert is criticized for being less active than was needed, they become aggressive, angry, and feel misunderstood; but criticism for excessive activity is perceived more as a compliment.

An extravert is the initiator, inspirer and organizer. An introvert “covers the rear” by finishing work others started (even if at first an introvert showed no enthusiasm for it). They are more modest and calm, and have less confidence in the significance and importance of their efforts. An introvert is more self-critical, and more egocentric at the same time.

c) Logic-Ethics

Logical types of IM differ from ethical types in their relation and attitude to the objective world and to other people.

The strength of ethical types manifests in relation to people, while the strength of logical types manifests in relation to the objective world. Ethical types are unsure of their ability to do something objectively valuable, while logical types do not know how others see them, nor do they know what rights they have to other people.*

*Translator’s note: “a right to other people” in this context has the meaning of “a right to have or obtain something” (e.g. “a right to housing”).

A logical type tries to do everything on their own. They prove the fact that other people need them through actions: “look at what I have done, and give me the acceptance and credit I deserve.” An ethical type feels that others need them, they know how to build relationships with others and how to manipulate their feelings or emotions. An ethical type does not doubt their rights to other people. However, they are constantly unsure of their own strength and abilities, which they spend a lot of time passively pondering and agonizing over when left alone.

Usually logical types are perceived as more independent. But this is just an illusion, because when it comes to relationships with people, ethical types are the one possessing such independence. The independence of logical types manifests in solving problems and challenges of the objective world, the independence of ethical types – in solving problems of human relationships, and regulating others’ emotional life. All of the efforts of logical types to be reliable, strong, and good people, are based on their desire to please ethical types and earn recognition. Logical types are often surprised by ethical types’ lack of independence when it comes to addressing objective challenges; ethical types are surprised by logical types’ inability to use other people, and by their lack of understanding of their own influence on others.

A very important difference between logical and ethical types lies in the fact that logical types usually try to prove they are right, while ethical types persuade and do not mind asking. Logical types do not know how to persuade or ask; often they are the ones who are persuaded more easily. Promises of logical types are more trustworthy than those of ethical types. This is because the former try to keep their word at all costs, and if they are unable to do something, they say so beforehand, so as to not “deceive the person.” But for an ethical type, not deceiving someone is less important than not ruining the relationship with them. For this reason, instead of giving promises they can fulfil, an ethical type often promises to do things others expect from a “good person” such as themself. They feel like a careful diplomat rather than a liar.

When evaluating others’ actions, a logical type is more inclined to use the following criteria: logical – illogical, right – wrong, reasonable – stupid, rational – irrational. Whether something is “good” is evaluated based on whether it is reasonable – the reasonable cannot be bad. For an ethical type, the criteria is the following: good – bad, needed – not needed (by other people, or by a specific person), humane – inhumane, fair – unfair.

An ethical type knows how to take care of people, of themself and their loved ones, and how to do nice things for others. However, only those an ethical type considers “their” people are those they take care of completely honestly. They know how to ask for such people, which is how outsiders are made to take care of them as well. This is why those close to an ethical type value and love them, forgiving all of their mistakes. A logical type is, at best (when they are also sensoric), able to get what they are “rightfully entitled” to. An ethical type does not see things through the prism of rights one person has among other people; instead, they see what can actually be “forced” out of others, what can be obtained, what they can coax or talk others into doing through entreaties, pleas, and emotions. An ethical type is the best at pushing others, particularly when they are also sensoric.

Ethical types manipulate the feelings and emotions of others, so for them, “true” and “untrue” are relative. Often, what becomes “true” is that which other people find pleasant, which charms others and elevates an ethical type, thus making them a pleasant person in others’ eyes. Being pleasant and loved is something every ethical type achieves masterfully. They know how to make a good impression, how to answer for their actions, how to write reports, and, while at this, how to praise everyone, themself first of all. An ethical type feels great in any group, among any people, and they easily become an emotional core of the group. When making reports, a logical type tends to also talk about what is not done, about their own and others’ mistakes, shortcomings, and flaws. This is because they try to grasp the real situation, to see and demonstrate the real state of affairs or real prospects for the future.

It should be noted that the ethics of all logical types is normative. They strictly follow the ethical norms established by someone else and do not allow themselves any creativity in doing so. They strive for perfection in their adherence to norms, and are never sure that they have achieved it. For this reason they often get disappointed in these aspirations. Ethics of all ethical types is more or less creative, they focus on the specific situation more than on the norms. The ethical is that which improves an ethical type’s situation, makes them more charismatic, more needed, makes them stronger among other people.

The same can be said about logic. The logic of all ethical types is normative. They strictly follow all logical norms and care a lot about what is scientific or at least commonly accepted. This is because they do not discover or invent new logical relations or methods of action. Ethical types are very cautious in their actions and logical reasoning, never sure of their perfection. For this reason they have a wide range of logical interests, are more well-read than logical types, and are good at describing and presenting various scientific facts. Logical types are usually well-read in fiction, which gives them the opportunity to learn ethical norms.

Ethical types are distinguished by the refinement of their feelings and emotions, although these types are not more sensitive than logical types, just how logical types are not more intellectual. The notable difference lies in the fact that ethical types see and understand not only their own feelings and emotions, but also those of others. Behind relatively unspecific actions, random words, and facial expressions, an ethical type sees the complex world of another person’s feelings. If this other person is logical, an ethical type sees their feelings better than they themself do, since for a logical type their own feelings are a poorly understood mystery that needs someone to solve it. It is as if ethical types measure others’ actions and feelings by their own actions and feelings. Love is the domain of ethical thinking, an ethical type’s mission and talent.

The main talent of logical types is in evaluating others’ logic. Only they correctly assess an ethical type’s intelligence and logic, and explain it to that very person. They can assess another person’s activity in the same way in which ethical types assess another person’s kindness and the depth of their feelings. On their own an ethical type cannot estimate the amount of their work, is inclined to get drowned in any task (including domestic chores), and is never sure whether they have a moral right to rest. This is why the mutual friendship of individuals with logical and ethical thinking (although not in every combination) enriches them both and increases their self-satisfaction. Next to a logical type an ethical type does not doubt the logic of their actions, while a logical type does not doubt that their actions are a good person’s actions. This is exactly what a continuation of one person in another is.

According to our research, the logical type of thinking is more common among men, and the ethical – among women. However, ethical types put more effort into being the way they need to be, the commonly accepted way. For this reason the men with ethical thinking are often the ones to be pronouncedly masculine (in the good way). The most feminine women also have ethical thinking. A logical type is distinguished by the lack of anything demonstrative. This is why the men often seem “bland,” and the women, if they are extraverted, seem relatively “masculine.” Logical thinking prevents a person from chasing rapidly changing trends and doing a lot of little things that are irrational and lacking in practical significance (short-term hairstyles, manicure, shoes with uncomfortable heels). This is because logical thinking grants an ability to value one’s effort and energy expenditure.

As was mentioned earlier, people with logical thinking do not know how to talk about their feelings, they avoid it. A feeling makes them act in favor of the object they love, but not talk about it. If in their relationships with their loved ones they are not affectionate enough or make mistakes, this is only because they are not familiar with other possible patterns of behavior. Such a man often finds it easier to ask “Will you marry me?” instead of saying “I love you.” Feelings of an individual with logical thinking are delicate, fragile, easily scared away. For them to get stronger a logical type needs time and the active feelings of the other person. Girls with a logical type of IM behave very similarly.

Feelings of a logical type are more stable due to the fact that, before making a decision, a logical type needs more time for the feelings to get examined through logical reasoning. These types also need more time for reversing the decision they have already made. This is why a logical type who decided to get together with someone is more inclined to stick to this decision.

An ethical type loves deliberately, because they want to love. Love is a conscious creation of pleasant emotions for themself and the other person. While for logical types the most important thing is whether they are loved, for ethical types it is whether they themselves love: “You do not love, but I do…” This expansion is most often successful due to being directed at people who are expected in advance to surrender. If the object of attention does not surrender, ethical types state in the most serious way that this person was unworthy of love and thus should blame themself. Whoever has not reciprocated an ethical type’s feelings is considered ungrateful, unreasonable, or someone who thinks they need more attention than was given. It means that this person wants too much, more than they deserve. Often, the only reason the life of ethical types is difficult is the fact that they start having too many objects of love, not knowing when to stop; that they sort of have love, but their partner is not a source of real support for them; that, for some reason, they are plagued by a strange sense of unease that demands they change partners, and that none of these partners has something that would make them an object of permanent love, finally giving an ethical type solace.

For a person with an ethical type of IM, love is one of the most important things in the world. But they need a partner with a logical type of IM, whose feelings are not demonstrated, but are stable. An ethical type is attracted to a logical type’s composure and logic. If a girl with ethical thinking has, for some time, been friends with a guy she considers very smart, she will compare all her other friends to him. Until she finds someone who seems even smarter, she will feel unsuccessful and unhappy. The same can be said about an individual with logical thinking.

An ethical type is not afraid of any feelings, neither love nor hatred. They love what is good, but their hatred for evil, for something that evokes negative emotions, is just as strong, and they do not hide it. This is why, if an ethical type gets disappointed in love, they can become dangerous. They want to love, even when their feelings are out of place. They can replace one feeling with another – either a positive feeling for another object, or a negative feeling for the same object – but they do not give up the feeling itself. When an ethical type becomes sure that their loved one is “bad,” “unworthy,” “a cheater” (i.e. when, technically, nothing new has happened, but something became the final straw), a positive feeling turns into a negative one, love turns into hatred. If their partner thinks that an ethical type’s services and concessions are endless, and that self-denial is just a part of their personality – said partner is mistaken and is digging their own grave. An ethical type, unable to measure their favors, still eventually has an epiphany. There comes a point when they can no longer hide from themself the “ingratitude” of their partner who does not appreciate their services, and when this point comes, an ethical type becomes enraged.

d) Sensorics – Intuition

Sensoric types of IM live by sensations in the fullest sense of the word: they have an aptitude for perceiving nature and art, for enjoying all that is visible, audible, and palpable. They feel their physical self and its needs very precisely, and have a pronounced rhythm of life.

It is as though a sensoric type lives only for today. Everything that will happen tomorrow is a little bit unexpected for them. Due to undeveloped abstract thinking they lack a sense of foresight and rely only on their own strength and volition. When extraverted, they are too active and make their own life more difficult; when introverted, they are too passive, afraid of making mistakes, and unsure that they actually need to do things that seem to be necessary. Introverted sensoric types are afraid to overdo it – this would make them ridiculous in their own eyes, as well as in the eyes of all other introverts.

Sensations of intuitive types are not vivid enough, and these types are constantly absent-minded. They do not even perceive their physical self clearly. Often they are only certain of their materiality while they are looking in the mirror.

A sensoric type lives a different life: differently eats, differently breathes, differently feels nature and beauty. They perceive the fullness of life – a kind of fullness that becomes available to an intuitive type only next to a sensoric type who loves and respects them – in a different way. At the same time, friendship with an intuitive type allows a sensoric type to contemplate what is happening in a calmer manner, to trust the future, and to avoid unpredictability. An intuitive type happily adapts to the rhythm needed by a sensoric type, as long as this person fits the intuitive type’s criteria in other areas (intelligence, interests, culture). On their end, an intuitive type provides a sensoric type with a prospect for the future, enriching their life with an endless list of new possibilities and a feeling that every activity is relative.

Sensoric types are, in the fullest sense of the word, attentive to all their physical needs, considering them an integral part of their physical self. This is why, for them, attraction is an inalienable right to self-realization, and a means of influencing others. For an intuitive type, attraction (just like their concrete surroundings and their own self) is something unreliable, something they cannot fully sense. They are always unsure and doubtful – is it real or just a fantasy, a figment of their imagination? For this reason they do not take initiative, waiting for it from others. A sensoric type looks for an object of attraction and tries to achieve the physical realization of this attraction. An intuitive type feels the need to be this object, since it gives them an opportunity to become themself through acquiring the right to their needs and desires. For an intuitive type their partner’s attraction is a proof of their own materiality, a moment of psychological complementation, a means of making their own self material and concrete. For intuitive types attraction is needed, necessary, desirable, and, at the same time, dangerous. They are inevitably drawn into the life rhythm of their partner, as if it was a vortex they cannot escape on their own. This leads to caution and fear of falling into submission.

It follows that only sensoric types try to attract the object of their attention. They are also the ones to take the initiative and abandon the faded feelings if it turns out that their partner does not satisfy all their psychological needs and is not a true complement to their personality. A sensoric type needs their partner to be consistent, and to have a particular kind of dependence, tameness. This can only be provided by an intuitive type, who supports the initiative of a sensoric type, but cannot take this initiative into their own hands. An intuitive type quickly realizes that they are desired, but even after that they show no activity. Their own sexual activity is taboo for them. Not because of shyness and upbringing, although this creates additional difficulties, but because of the specifics of their sexual activity. If their activity exceeds their partner’s, they feel very bad, and their former positive set related to the partner turns into a negative one. Getting closer to someone is always difficult for an intuitive type, so they are more reserved, and usually not inclined to take advantage of sexual freedoms despite all the open-mindedness they often possess.

The role jealousy plays in the intuitive-sensoric relationship is interesting. An intuitive type knows that nothing will change from their partner’s random actions. A sensoric type judges by their own experience and is therefore the jealous one. A little bit of jealousy affects an intuitive type positively, increasing their value in their own eyes. It reminds them that they are needed, desired and irreplaceable, which is the most convincing proof of their value.

Every intuitive type is more successful in taking care of others than they are in taking care of themself. A sensoric type understands their own material interests and knows how to defend them. An intuitive type waits for what is left behind by others, or for others to take care of them.

An intuitive type’s “sensorics” are normative: they strictly adhere to established aesthetic norms (for example, fashion), and are not ready to be radical in this area. However, if no sensoric type complements them, an intuitive type gets tired of these efforts, gets lost, and may reach the point of complete neglect and disorder in their domestic life. Usually they know a lot about aesthetics, but are not sure of their own aesthetic taste, nor are they sure of the aesthetics of their body, clothes, and movements. For this reason an intuitive type quite often looks clumsy – that is, of course, if there is no direction from the complementer. Otherwise intuitive types achieve perfection and outdo their sensoric “directors,” the latter being quite pleased with themselves.

The same norms apply to a sense of wellbeing. A sensoric type trusts their sensations and has no doubts of being healthy or sick: after all, they “feel” it. It is the doctor who must be subordinated to their concrete, real sensations, instead of them being subordinated to the doctor’s unfounded diagnoses. If one doctor “found nothing,” a sensoric type goes to another. To an intuitive type their own sensations seem less objective than the doctor’s diagnosis. The diagnosis is the “norm,” and they behave in accordance with the diagnosis, not in accordance with the way they themself feel.

A sensoric type has a normative “intuition,” so they are exceptionally careful when it comes to the use of their time, as well as the use of potential energy and the potentialities of objects, subjects, and phenomena. They certainly cannot be creative in this area. For this reason a sensoric type is a tactician, and an intuitive type is a strategist.

They also differ in their appearances: in their eyes and gait. The eyes of the intuitive type, look at things but do not truly “see” them. The eyes of the sensoric type, on the other hand, see things very well and notice everything. The gait of intuitive types is less confident, seeming like they’re floating in the air and are ready to give way to anyone. Sensoric types have gaits characterized by their distinctness, self-confidence, and unyieldingness.

Not only can you judge whether an individual is a sensoric or intuitive type based on their eyes, but also whether their sensorics or intuition are extraverted or introverted. You can determine this by the wideness of their eyes. Individuals with Extraverted Intuition () have the widest eyes, while the narrowest, most squinted ones come from individuals with Introverted Intuition (). This is most noticeable when the individual is in a contemplative state. The width of the eyes of sensoric types is distributed towards the middle, with individuals with Extraverted Sensorics having wider and less sharp eyes than individuals with Introverted Sensorics. This is because the former tries to cover the entire observed space, while the latter only looks at separate objects. based on the wideness and narrowness of the eyes, with all other conditions being equal, i.e. in individuals with similar facial structures, we can form the following ranking (from the narrowest to widest*) of all the types of IM:

1. Intuitive-Logical and Intuitive-Ethical Introverts;

2. Logical-Intuitive and Ethical-Intuitive Extraverts;

3. Sensoric-Logical and Sensoric-Ethical Introverts;

4. Logical-Sensoric and Ethical-Sensoric Extraverts;

5. Logical-Sensoric and Ethical-Sensoric Introverts;

6. Sensoric-Logical and Sensoric-Ethical Extraverts;

7. Logical-Intuitive and Ethical-Intuitive Introverts;

8. Intuitive-Logical and Intuitive-Ethical Extraverts;

*Translator’s note: This originally said narrowest to widest, which is either an error or a difference in the way rankings are communicated based on the context of this paragraph.

We said earlier that ethical types are unable to estimate the amount of their work. On the other hand, intuitive types are unable to assess its quality, which is why they also drown in endless tasks. They are simply not sure that the work is done well enough, so they cannot finish it.

e) Static-Dynamic Types

The world around us is formed of static and dynamic moments.* Some elements of IM reflect static information () and (), while others reflect dynamics, () and (). A type of IM is called static if there is a Static Element between the Leading and Creative, and the rest are dynamic.**

*Translator’s note: Moment refers to the physics concept which refers to the fixed properties of an object at an instantaneous reference point.

**Translator’s note: Technically, both elements are either static or dynamic, but this passage refers to the four extraverted elements, which all types of IM have either in the Leading or Creative position.

Only dynamic types can describe an incident very well. In their stories, it is always easy to restore the sequence of events through the process of time. Static types cannot do this, they always end up analyzing the situation or telling a story about the people and objects that were involved in the incident. The thinking of static types is analytical and inductive, while the thinking of dynamic types is synthetic and deductive.

You can perfectly see this distinction in art. In a dynamic type’s art, every line is a pulsating movement, while a static type’s art is completely still and frozen. For example, Nicholas Roerich is a static type [], while Svetoslav Roerich is a dynamic type [].

Tibet Himalayas. Nicholas Roerich.

Two Peaks. Svetoslav Roerich.

*Translator’s note: In the original version, Augusta refers to the two as “Roerich the Father” and “Roerich the Son”. Nicholas Roerich has two sons, Yuri and Svetoslav, who were both artists. However, since Svetoslav was primarily an artist and was mentioned in Augusta’s list of typings, we are assuming that this is refers to him.

Static types are always aware of their needs, and easily come up with goals for both their life and everyday activities. They have difficulty coming up with methods to achieve these goals. Dynamic types, on the contrary, always have several creative methods to choose from but would like someone else to suggest their goals.

f) Other Qualities

There are other, less noticeable opposing qualities that distinguish two partners of a dyad. One of them usually speaks in a questioning tone, while the other speaks in a declarative tone. The former prefers to receive explanations, while the latter prefers to explain, tell, and declare different truths. When communicating for a long time, two asking types bore each other with their problems, and two declaring types bore each other with their unnecessary declarations.

The Asking Types are:

Logical-Sensoric Extravert
Intuitive-Logical Extravert
Ethical-Intuitive Extravert
Sensoric-Ethical Extravert
Sensoric-Logical Introvert
Ethical-Sensoric Introvert
Intuitive-Ethical Introvert
Logical-Intuitive Introvert

As we can see, these are all extraverts of one Ring of Social Progress, and all introverts of another (This is described in further detail in Theory of Intertype Relationships). “Question marks” are clearly visible in their eyes and faces. Especially the eyes of SLIs and LSEs.

8. What does Psychological Complementation Provide for an Individual?

A person cannot simultaneously be extraverted and introverted, sensoric and intuitive, or logical and ethical. Their psyche resembles a magnet formed of two separate poles. Except that both poles are one magnet. And that a person is asymmetrical, and this “second pole” is another person.*

*Translator’s note: This is essentially saying that the psyche is polarized like a magnet, but only has one end of the magnet, whereas magnets have both a positive and negative end.

We will call the relationship between two types of IM complementation when the partner has the necessary complementary qualities, while we call the process of complementation itself dualization.

The life of an individual in society is complicated by its duality and even more so by its sixteen-sidedness, which makes it not always possible for the individual to find their “other half”. Without a dual, an undualized individual becomes a restless, spiritually hungry being with no idea what the essence of their hunger is and who to blame for it. An individual in this condition finds it difficult to live in peace with the world, causing all sorts of conflicts, discrepancies, and gratuitous aggression to pile up. Such an individual reaches out to others for answers yet becomes even more confused about who they are and their relationships. It is difficult to find what you need when favorable conditions and a suitable micro-environment do not form by themselves.

The psychological structure of the individual’s spouse is extremely important to their well-being and functioning as a social creature. There is no harmonious personality in isolation. A person’s existential nature is in harmony when not only do they have a loving partner, but also a psychologically compatible dual. Marriage does not only grant the right to sex but also to the psychological complementation and continuation of one individual’s personality in another – to the dualization of their mind.

Therefore, one of the aspects needed to prepare young people for family life is learning to recognize the differences in psychological structures to select a fully suitable partner or to adapt to one that is not fully suitable. When an individual understands that their partner’s unacceptable behavior is not determined by an evil will, but rather by an objective psychological structure, then it is possible for them to at least partially adjust to them consciously. In addition, when an individual realizes they can never fully satisfy their partner, it is easier to seek a compromise.

A deeper analysis of young people’s relationships shows that psychological structures not only determine people’s behavior in marriage but also in the relationships that form before then. The way an individual fights for the initiative or avoids it, flirts, as well as how they emphasize their restraint and independence is a complex defense mechanism. This mechanism, to some extent, wards off psychologically unsuitable partners and attracts suitable ones. Each structure has a different system of accepting and showing sympathy. In other words, the psyche can take care of itself unless prevented by circumstances. Unfortunately, this mechanism is more adapted for conditions where young people have known each other since childhood* since there was no danger of confusing mental and sexual needs. And if there were mistakes that were made, they were corrected without being locked into marriage. Today, a little bit of psychological knowledge must be added to innate foreknowledge.

*Translator’s note: This emphasizes that our psyche was able to self-regulate and find duals more easily when people lived in more tight knight communities and partners would ultimately be people the individuals have known since youth, but since society is more mobile and potential partners don’t know each other as well anymore, this process is not as effective.

How do people with complementary psyches perceive each other? As the most “humane” individual. The most humane, gentle, accessible, and responsive kind of individual. That’s what they are. It’s a partner who also knows what to do and when to do it, how to respond properly, what to advise, and what jokes are needed to quell tension. An individual who understands everything, and is always able to support, protect, and never offend the other while most importantly – never getting offended. With a dual, everyone feels more activated, more powerful, and more “right”. When an undualized person acts, they constantly go beyond the boundaries of their capabilities and lose balance. What is called “rest” isn’t needed so much to restore strength but rather to restore mental balance.

Many people have not known or felt what dualization of the psyche is, and therefore do not seek it. In relationships before marriage, people quite often aren’t looking for dualization which comes with quiet spiritual comfort, but for “great selflessness”. And suffering. Many believe that love must come with spiritual suffering. But this is only true when the lovers do not complete each other.

Dualization increases an individual’s self-esteem. Thanks to it, an individual can constantly be aware of their usefulness to others as well as their place in society. Their partner consistently provides reliable information about it. Feelings of inferiority or fear of being an outsider disappear. An individual does not look up to their dual like an unreachable prince, but rather as a monarch sitting next to them on their throne.

Everyone has a “sour” mood that manifests in grumbliness. It is noteworthy that the nagging of a dual isn’t perceived as a barrage of complaints. Grumbling is a form of communication that’s characterized by the greatest amount of directness and mutual understanding – where everything can be half-understood in a short time, allowing the partner to receive extensive information about what is happening in the external world and most importantly, about what the source of their confusion is and the uncertainty of their partner’s attitudes toward things happening. Grumbling is just a half-conscious request to the partner to explain something incomprehensible. And no one, except the partner, knows how to respond correctly to this nagging, whether giving the right answer or explanation or even just keeping silent.

The source of irritation and conflict between individuals in work and family life is sometimes a clash about initiative: either by manifesting it or the inability to support the initiative of another. In duals, such conflicts are impossible. They act harmoniously in a way that activates and balances each other. One picks up the initiative of the other, then passes the baton back at the right moment. When they alternate activity, they don’t neglect any parts of the chain in the work performed, which increases the effectiveness of labor and reduces the time needed to execute it while not leaving room for frustration. What one individual does, the other perceives as a manifestation of extremely rare and valuable abilities and skills. They constantly surprise each other with praise (and not just any praise – necessary praise) that energizes and ignites the other emotionally. Not only do duals not want to destructively influence each other, but they cannot. They can’t do so because they don’t have the language to offend each other. After all, what offends others isn’t so much their actions, but the language they use to explain these actions, what motives they highlight, and what facial expressions accompany their explanations. Duals converge at the appearance of common interests, and if there are no common interests, depart just as easily without complications.

A dual partner is better than others because there is no need for compromises. It is as if everything happens on its own. The relationship between duals can be serious and businesslike, it can be playful, but never mean-spirited and aggressive.

We can also explain the phenomenon of duality in humans in the following way: Dualization forms based on the mechanisms of information and energy metabolism of duals (IM and EM). Each sequence has an identity. At the same time, however, the chains of IM and EM that get strongly expressed in one dual are in the most undeveloped state for the other. Therefore, during joint activity, such individuals successfully launch each other. The identity and complementarity of the individuals show when they work together. This is particularly noticeable at the start of a new workday, when the words and gestures of one become an ignition key for the other. And also in sexual games. Psychologists Nikolai Obozov and Antonina Obozovy describe this issue.

They write:

For psychophysiological communication, not only are the sexual characteristics of the partners important (type of sexual makeup, sexual potency, etc.), but also … the reactivity of the organism, the psychodynamic characteristics of behavior … as a consequence, the cause of dissatisfaction of some spouses is not sexual contact in the narrow sense of the term, but a form of erotic games, which are a manifestation of sexual interest.”
Diagnosis of Marital Difficulties, p.147 [in Russian]

Therefore, we add that once an individual has been in the arms of a dual, they won’t be inclined to change them for anything else. There are no dead bedrooms or frozen partners in the relationship of duality. These spouses remain sexually active for a long time.

Different types have very different sexual behavior. Therefore, we can only discuss true sexual compatibility regarding duals. Let’s illustrate it with two contrary dyads: the dyad of the SEE and the SEI. These two contrary Sensoric-Ethicals also dictate opposing forms of “sensoric” behavior with their partners. In the SEI’s dyad, partners love with the entire surface of their skin. There aren’t any sudden movements and the partners seem to melt in each other’s warm embrace. On the contrary, in the SEE’s dyad, the partners avoid skin contact and the fusion of bodies. There are lots of sharp motions, sex positions, and gymnast-like exercises. Interestingly, Sensoric-Extraverts do not tolerate the touch of another person at all, even, for example, from a doctor. They are the ones to reach their hands out for a handshake, but only by their own initiative.

When duals are married, temporary misunderstandings are possible. This sometimes happens when individuals are not aware of their inclinations toward duality because they grew up in a relationship where they didn’t see it. The individual does not have the experience of seeing a person freely behaving, or how quietly natural they are when with a dual. Duals need to be able to be “programmed”. They program others when they behave impulsively and follow the “demands of the soul.” In situations where at least one of them has this directness, the other partner quickly learns to both “accept the program” and to “transmit one”, i.e. to program the first partner.

In well-coordinated families, in which the husband and wife are duals, have children, who, as a rule, have the same types of IM as their parents. (The exception is if a schizothyme child is born to a cyclothyme pair or a cyclothyme child is born to a schizothyme) Daughters most often grow up to the identical type of the mother, and sons grow up to the identical type of the father. The daughters receive duality in their relationships with their father and brothers’ types, while sons experience the same with their mother and sisters, provided that the children are raised by the parents. These are the best, most harmonious families. It is easy to raise such children, and such parents are described as having an innate knack for teaching children the basics of life.*

*Translator’s note: Adapted from (“воспитатель”) lit. “kindergarten teacher” which in this context, refers to someone educating another with the “elementary” parts of life.

Just like the relationship of duality, identical relationships are necessary for the formation of the stable psyches of children: nobody is a better teacher than an identical and nobody is better at teaching children the basics of life than a dual. Therefore, in families where the parents are a dual pair, the optimal prerequisites for raising and socializing children are present. An individual who has one of their parents as a dual feels their value and significance to others. They are confident that both through childhood and in their life, they will be loved and understood, whether in future families or teams at work. Their temperaments are easier to deal with and their nervous systems are more balanced. Other individuals with less fortunate relationships with their parents always feel, to some extent, lost, guilty, and unnecessary. They lack mental protection and have more aggression (in extraverts) or conformity (in introverts). They are more likely to get into conflict situations and struggle with neuroses and other chronic diseases.

Dualization is a prerequisite not only for the successful mental functioning of an organism, but also physical. Individuals with a dualized psyche are ill much less often and recover faster.

A dualized psyche affects human health because not only does each element of IM reflect a certain aspect of objective reality, but also controls the organism itself. Each element of IM has certain meridians and body systems controlled by them. The systems that belong to the most developed, leading elements of IM are the least susceptible to the danger of disease. The systems in the leading positions of one’s dual are the most prone to getting sick.

According to our hypotheses, the connection between the elements of IM and meridians is as follows:

: Governing Vessel
: Stomach Channel of Foot and Spleen/Pancreas* Channel of Foot
: Bladder Channel of Foot and Kidney Channel of Foot
: Gallbladder Channel of Foot and Liver Channel of Foot
: Conception Vessel
: Heart Channel of Hand and Small Intestine Channel of Hand
: Pericardium Channel of Hand and Triple Burner Channel of Hand
: Lung Channel of Hand and Large Intestine Channel of Hand

*Translator’s note: “Pancreas” in original text. In traditional Chinese medicine, spleen and pancreas count as one organ.

Our observations confirm this hypothesis. For example, logical extraverts are indeed more likely to have heart disease, ethical extraverts are more likely to have kidney disease, and intuitive extraverts are more likely to have stomach, pancreas, and liver disease.

Prev – Next