Theory of Intertype Relationships, Part 1

Photo Credit: fauxels (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 – Part 4 – Part 5

From the Author

How did this work come about?*

A few years ago, as a teacher by profession and a sociologist by interest, I got hold of Carl Jung‘s book, Psychological Types. Was it a coincidence? Yes and no. Neither was it a coincidence that I studied economics in order to understand the basics of human relations. Thanks to this, I understood that in interpersonal communication, besides economics, there are other, no less strict laws, which I tried to grasp. The main thing I did not understand was how everyone wants to be kind, sympathetic, and good-natured, and yet people have irritability and anger that comes from somewhere. Everyone wants the same things, yet others interfere with this. But why? What is the mechanism that prevents universal understanding and goodwill?

*Editor’s note: This work was written in 1980.

By that time, all available sociological and social-psychological literature had already been studied and discussed among my colleagues. The group of enthusiasts gradually moved on from sociological to socio-psychological, psychological, and psychiatric problems.

In search of the answer to the questions of interpersonal relations I studied the works of Pyotr Gannushkin, Ernst Kretschmer, Sigmund Freud, Otto Weininger, Talcott Parsons, Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Maria Ossowska, Jacob Moreno, Erich Fromm, Igor Kon, and even Auguste Forel, Theodoor Hendrik Van de Velde, and Alfred Kinsey. Different relations between people in the same social conditions, from my point of view, could be explained only by different properties or psychological structures of the people in contact. Everything else is biased. These structures may be innate or acquired, but they must be sufficiently stable structures to explain why some people form one kind of relationship with others. But literary sources did not provide an answer to this question: neither psychological nor even psychiatric literature could answer the question of what a personality structure was.

Psychology textbooks described individual psychological phenomena like thinking, will, and emotions. It turns out that everyone falls short of some unbeknownst norm, and that everyone has some defects, which have to be corrected. One’s will has to be hardened and tempered, one’s thinking has to be developed and refined, and one’s emotions have to be fine-tuned. Everyone could be turned into a list of flaws. They gave the impression that anyone with a conscience and a desire for perfection should worry all the time and feel inferior because of all that others had and they lacked. And this is instead of them rejoicing and developing what really exists within themselves. In essence, it was not about the virtues of the person, and not about what is beautiful in them, but about their shortcomings. It was about shortcomings, although no one knew exactly what norms they fell short of either.

It is clear that under such conditions, social psychology was limited to more or less general considerations, at most to the study of various personal defense mechanisms. And the defense mechanisms themselves were explained not so much by properties of the personality itself, but by the same external social conditions. And why one person protected themselves in one way and another person in another way, and in general, why and from whom this protection was needed, remained unclear. Why does the psychology of other living beings not require such protection, but human psychology does? Because it is human psychology? But what is its main difference? Is it in complexity? But there is no such thing as “complexity” at all.

Psychiatry books were different, showing what defense mechanisms lead to when they overstep the bounds of the norm. And at the same time it was argued that the norm as such could not be defined.

The most specific perspective that interested me was the work of Kretschmer, Physique and Character. It divides people into schizothymes and cyclothymes. They differ from each other not so much by their physique, but by their emotional and dynamic characteristics and their entire attitude to the world. Everyone who felt and understood these basic differences was able to easily identify one’s belonging to one group or another. The main thing this book gave was the recognition of a person’s right to be at least to some extent themselves, that is, to be a schizothyme or cyclothyme. Not making claims against the cyclothyme for not having the qualities of the schizothyme, and not criticizing the schizothyme for not being a cyclothyme.*

*Translator’s note: Schizothyme – rational type, Cyclothyme – irrational type.

It was the only one that was really concrete before I read a hundred pages of Psychological Types by Jung, published in 1924 in a translation by E. Roeser with a preface by Prof. Yevgeny Ermakov.

Jung interested me right away. Because he offered structure. And even sixteen structures! The fact that I was not a professional psychologist turned out to be an accidental stroke of luck – I did not know the popular opinion was that Jung’s typology could not be deciphered, that this typology only worked in the hands of the author. I became aware of this much later, when I had the decryption key in my hands.

Undoubtedly, I found Jung’s descriptions of psychological types extremely complicated and incomprehensible. In order to understand his structures, I had to resort to graphic symbols. The symbols, which replaced Jung’s psychological functions, formed models. Firstly, there was Model J (Jung), which we named after the creator of the typology, and then the model that was already made up of eight symbols. It is thanks to Jung’s model that we were able to reveal several laws of human relationships.

Later on, Kępiński’s original theory of information metabolism was very helpful in understanding Jung’s ideas.

The first major success was the formulation of the law of dyads or complementarity of psychological types. It became clear that society is formed not only of 16 different types of information metabolism (hereinafter: IM), but also of eight dyads of IM. In a dyad, an individual’s entire life activity becomes dualized. The fact that a social group is formed of dualized or non-dualized individuals determines the quality of the psychological climate in the group and the mental state of the individuals themselves, their character and health.

The second important step was to find out the features of the so-called third function, what Lichko called the place of least resistance (PoLR) and which turned out to be the cause of conflict relations. Gradually, it became clear: what psychiatrists (Kretschmer, Gannushkin, Kępiński, Lichko, Leonhard) describe as various forms of accentuations, neuroses and psychopathies, are in fact neuroses and psychopathies* of different types of information metabolism.

* Translator’s Note: “Psychopathies” does not necessarily refer to Antisocial Personality Disorder, but mental disorders in general.

The third stage was the establishment of the fact that all eight dyads form two rings of social progress, or a Socion, which can explain the long-noticed spiraling social development. As a formation of the eight dyads, the Socion is thought of as an independent energy formation, a higher form of organization of psychic energy.

Significant for concrete practice in the organization of small groups is the notion of a quadra – the optimal working or therapeutic group in terms of psychotherapeutic self-impact.

All of this together gives rise to a new branch of the social sciences, which we have called Sociomatics. The part of Sociomatics that studies the social structure of society and intertype relations will be called Socionics.

The “theory of intertype relationships” introduces the reader to the basic forms of intertype relations and reveals the mechanism of the rings of social progress.

I would like to apologize to the reader for the loose terminology. Apparently, it is impossible to do without it in any fast-developing science. The question often arises as to whether it is possible to establish one’s own type of IM based on this work. Unfortunately, it is not. Although some readers somehow managed to do it. My earlier work is more suitable for this purpose: The Theory of the Relativity of Erotic Feelings, which in the 1983 revision is called On The Dual Nature of Humanity.

Are there any objective methods of diagnosing the type? Partially. That is why our consultants use a clinical method that takes many psychological parameters into account: particular patterns of thinking, manner of speech, strong and vulnerable points of personality, dynamic stereotypes*, facial expressions, facial asymmetry, and signs of left-handedness.

*Translator’s note: This is a reference to Ivan Pavlov’s idea that habitual, semi-conscious gestures are imprinted within people, in a similar way to how people develop muscle memory.

I am sure that many specialists – psychologists, physicists, and philosophers – could present all this in a much more elegant and precise way with less amateurish language. I have no doubt that in some of my arguments, I have made mistakes in terminology and whatnot, which may surprise specialists in a particular field. Therefore, I suggest that everyone who is interested in this young branch of science – who can clarify things, generate new ideas, or want to apply it in practice or learn something themselves – join our efforts.

Introduction

Specialization of the Psyche.
According to Karl Marx, a person is comprised of their relationships with other people. This paper will deal with those relations, which are determined by type of human intellect. Type is the result of the existence of sixteen ways of perception and processing of information received by a person. The psyche of creatures on the lower levels of development reflects the whole world around them. The depth of human thinking is achieved by its specialization, that is, by narrowing the reflection of the world. This is figurative, but not entirely accurate. More precisely, individual parts of the surrounding world are reflected by the human psyche with varying degrees of awareness. That is, each individual deeply and consciously reflects only one aspect of the external world. A personality, even if they are a genius, is only a part of the integral intellect.

Code of IM.
It has long been known that personality traits are determined by innate and acquired factors. The starting point of Socionics is the idea of a third class of factors, occupying a place between the first two. This is a mechanism for selecting perceived signals. It can be called the code of information metabolism (IM), that is, the rules of the language by which information is transmitted. It cannot be called congenital, because it occurs after birth and only if the child grows up among people. But it is also difficult to call it acquired, because it is not so much a consequence of individual human experience as an awakened repetition of the history of mental development by that experience. Just as at the stage of embryonic development the biological history of humans as a species is repeated under the influence of the mother’s organism, so at an early age the history of mental development, the history of the foundation of a person as an individual is repeated under the influence of the same mother most often. Only after that does the history of the individual and their individual experience begin.

Intertypicality and Intratypicality.
The concepts of intraindividual and interindividual differences are known in psychology. Interindividual differences are differences between individuals, while intraindividual differences are differences in the expression of a trait in the same individual at different periods of their life.

Intertype differences are defined as differences between people belonging to different types of IM. Intratype? Differences in the saturation of the same trait in individuals belonging to the same type of IM.

How do intertype differences appear? It supposedly happens like this. The child’s psyche under the age of five goes through three stages according to the degree of differentiation of received information. The mechanism of signal selection, or IM code, is transformed three times, with a successive narrowing of the range and increasing degree of consciousness of actively perceived signals. At each of these three stages there is a division of people like a two-pronged fork, until the adult IM code is formed: 1x2x2x2=8.

However, there are not eight IM types, but sixteen, because schizothymeness or cyclothymeness, according to Kretschmer, (or rationality or irrationality according to Jung*) are innate**. Each schizothyme, like each cyclothyme, acquires one of the eight IM codes available to them, and 8+8=16.

*Editor’s note: Our research has shown that 80% of the people we referred to the rational type (schizothymes) notice signs of left-handedness.

**Translator’s Note: In Extracts from Letters, Augustinavičiūtė changes her view on this, believing that schizothymeness and cyclothymeness is also conditional.

A child’s IM code, i.e. their personality type, is formed up to the age of five under the influence of interaction between the IM codes of people close to the child.

Later on, the presence of people with compatible or conflicting IM codes forms an individual’s personality as strong or weak, healthy or unhealthy, well or poorly socialized, i.e. intratype differences are formed.

The purpose of this paper is to give a brief overview of the main forms of informational relationships between people of different IM codes. We only delve into more detail about the relationships that seemed to us especially significant in a person’s personal or social life.

Information Exchange.
The social significance of a person is determined by the characteristics of their psyche – its differentiation. One person is only a carrier of one of the sixteen types of IM that are equivalent and equally deserving of rights*, and only one of the components of social intelligence. Therefore, a large part of the information necessary for the existence of an individual comes not from their personal observations and conclusions, but from people with certain types of IM.

*Translator’s note: Adapted from «равноценных и равноправных», lit. “equal and equal” – the first sense of the word refers to the structural equality of the types, whereas the second refers to equality in the sense of being “created equal” as a human being with the same rights as others.

People exchange information they’ve acquired. The relationship between two types of IM is informational. To live outside society, a person would lack mental rather than physical strength.

If intellect is integral, then the role of an individual in society, especially in a small group – their social function – is determined not only and not so much by the level of intellect (education or speciality) but by their type. It is quite definitely possible to talk about the social function of each type of intellect. The problem of realization of the type of intellect is no less important than the problem of realization of its level. Everyone needs to feel that in the environment in which they live, they bring – determined by the type of their individual intellect – a socially necessary element. Without such realization, a person does not feel an organic connection with society, and is alienated.

Space and Fields.
Kępiński observed that the same space can seem large and small to a person, that is, that the feeling of sufficient or insufficient space is not determined by the number of people per unit of space. People of certain types of IM constrict our space more than people of other types.

A space with such properties can be called a psychological space, i.e. A space that is curved by other people and at the same time curved according to the types of IM of the people present in it.

Given the asymmetry of an individual’s psyche, we have to assume that a non-dualized individual needs a much larger space so that they do not feel oppressed by other people. Their psychological space is sharply curved at the approach of any random person, and they are constantly tense and confused. This makes the person helpless or angry and inclined towards reclusiveness. When a partner with a complementary type of IM is present, the situation changes. Apparently, the biofields of people with complementary types of intellect merge, forming a symmetrical dyad biofield, which is more immune to the influence of other people. It protects people from information irritant-signals that are dangerous for them and increases the vitality of their mind.

The dyad field is a physical phenomenon. But at the present level of development of exact sciences, it can be checked only by “sensitives” – people with increased sensitivity to the biofield. As for immediate and instantaneous changes in the feeling and behavior of individuals, for example, a change of voice timbre when a partner with a complementary type of IM appears is something we routinely observe as a pattern. Feeling and behavior change even in those cases when such partners are previously unfamiliar people who have nothing in common with each other.

The most mundane physical law requires that fields with certain properties (different types of IM) are characterized by certain relationships and distances. Therefore, with the appearance of a new person in a group, there is a change in the relationships between all of its members. Their position in the group’s space changes. This causes improvement or deterioration of their functioning. A specific content or a specific consequence of disturbance of functioning of the individual’s biofield is an improvement or deterioration of information exchange with the environment.

This is one of the reasons why an individual cares about how far away certain people are from them. Some, in the interest of their mental equilibrium, need to communicate directly, while others need to communicate through intermediaries. A space in which IM types are arranged correctly seems to feel free. When misaligned, partners feel stuck, oppressed, aggressive, or depressed.

Being in contact with nature seems beneficial to most of us, not only because of the feeling of the direct effect of nature and “fresh air”, but also because in the bosom of nature, the distance between people naturally increases and the warpage of psychological space decreases.

Formal and Informal groups.
In relatively small, formal teams, it is possible to limit the number of types of intellect (in informal ones, as a rule, it is self-limiting), and at the same time the number of forms of transactions. From the point of view of the tasks facing the team, such a limitation may play a positive role. But it should not be forgotten that in such a group the position of its individual members will not be equal. For example, in a group of 17 people with all 16 types of IM, the person who has two partners with a complementary type of IM will be in the best conditions for realization of their type of intellect.

Running from Freedom.
The origins of human culture, as well as spiritual torments, doubts, experiences, and struggles with the self and others, are in the differentiated personality of the individual. This is also the cause of social progress. Only the integration of the intellect transforms the beast, ignorant of social bonds, into a member of society fleeing from freedom (according to Erich Fromm).

Simultaneously with integration came the danger of disintegration. This concerns both the psyche of the individual, when disintegration manifests itself in neuropsychiatric disorders, and “the psyche of society”, when it manifests itself in stagnation and social unrest.

The balance of the psyche.
Each person’s psyche is more or less balanced. This is neither a gift from God nor a merit of the person, but a result of better or worse organized information exchange, i.e. a consequence of informational properties of psychological space, in which the person was formed and where they are currently located.

Favorable conditions of psyche formation are those in which a person is surrounded by a sufficient number of partners with a complementary type of IM necessary for adaptation and socialization of the individual in society, and also partners with an identical psychological type for identification. Or, if over time, the individual has managed to provide themselves with such partners. Such an individual is characterized by a calm, balanced character without signs of neurosis and psychopathy that appear in chronic information exchange disorders. They will be able to maintain the necessary and safe distance in communication and protect themselves (and others) from negative stresses.

Level of Intellect, Culture.
In our further analysis, we will completely abstract away the level of intellect and culture of a person. We will talk about different types of IM with all other conditions being equal. Although a person’s level of intellect and culture are of great importance, in interpersonal relations, the type of IM is more central, and therefore more important. The main condition for successful or unsuccessful cooperation between people, and the emergence of goodwill or ill-will, is the type of IM. The opinion of the person about the intelligence and culture of other people is very subjective. When checked, as a rule, it turns out that it is determined by intertype relations.

This by no means diminishes the importance of the level of intellect, which in cooperation provides the coefficient of realization of the partner’s intellect.

When choosing a life partner, much more attention is paid to this [intellect]. Education is prestigious. This would not be a problem if young people had enough opportunities to socialize, if society itself began to be interested in expanding the circle of acquaintances of young people. It’s not enough to say you have to choose by yourself. And where to meet a worthy one? There is no concrete answer. The circle of acquaintances – even for a student – is too narrow.

Religion.
The science of the sixteen types of human nature makes it possible to approach such a question as the emergence of religion in a different way. God was not needed to explain incomprehensible phenomena of nature, but to find a peaceful way for peopleto coexist with their own kind, whose motivation for behavior under certain distributions of types becomes completely incomprehensible and invariably leads to enmity. Religion is a unifying force, a force that stands above the conflicted nature of humanity that is driven by type. No one type has an advantage over the others and could enjoy more respect than the others. Under such conditions, in the absence of any common, unifying idea, it was difficult to unite under any one person, unless behind them stood a force representing all ways of thinking and understanding the world. Before it, all types felt their equality, which could not be said of the attitude of the leaders, who always had favorites among the types suited to them. Which certainly seemed very, very, unfair to the unsuitable types.

Socionics gives us a solution to the riddle of the sixteen-fold nature of the human intellect, explaining much of what until now could only be answered by general reasoning. Thanks to this key, the young can understand what only the wise and elderly could have come to in the past. Everyone’s energy can be channeled into a real search for better forms of integration of multiple intelligences. In this way, Socionics avoids the accumulation of discontent and aggression, and can make society more manageable. But the first thing that needs to be addressed on this path, the most important prerequisite for society’s further calm and rapid development, is creating organizational forms that facilitate young people’s correct choice of partner. For the manageability of society, the growth of its culture and its psychosomatic health, this is the most important thing.

Elements of IM.
The theory of information metabolism suggests that the human psyche divides the surrounding reality into eight components. (This is what Jung called functions). How and on what basis does this happen?

First, matter is formed of bodies and fields. Therefore, the stimulus signals, which to a living being bring information about the objective material world, can be divided into those which bring information about bodies, and those which bring information about fields, that is, relations between bodies. On this basis we can speak of two kinds of sensations:

Sensations which are formed in perceptions and bring information about the qualities and states of bodies,
Sensations, which are formed into feelings and bring information about the interaction of fields or about the relations between bodies.

In addition, we can talk about four stages of the body state and four stages of the field state. The first are called body phases, and the second are called field phases. What do they represent? That is, what parameters does each body and each field have from our point of view?

Each body has form, content (structure), is capable of moving or being shifted, i.e., changing its position relative to other bodies; within every body there is some movement: chemical, organic, atomic, emotional, etc. In short, every body has form, content, and external and internal dynamics.

It may seem self-evident that one gets the most information about the form of the body and its external movements. However, this is true only for certain types of IM. Other types of people have a better understanding of what potential forces are hidden in an object or what processes are going on in it.

Each field also has four aspects or four parameters, that is, four field-phases. First, it is the space that unites objects and due to which one object is reflected in another object, and one process is reflected in another process. This reflection determines the well-being of living beings. Space can simply be called a relationship between processes occurring at the same time. Secondly, it is time that is a relationship between processes that follow one after another, or between the constituent parts of a single process. The third field-phase is the relationship between those qualities of objects, the change of which can lead bodies to motion, to external dynamics. For example, some objects – with certain qualities – do not cause a person to react at all, but other objects cause the person to flee by running. The fourth field-phase is the relationship between those qualities of objects, the change of which leads to an increase or decrease in the internal dynamics of the body (chemical reactions, emotional states, emotional arousal, etc.).

Body and field phases are only half-phase of energy and information metabolism; a complete phase is formed of one body and one field phase. Such half-phases are called homogeneous – i.e and .

We will use graphical symbols to denote body and field phases:

Body Phases

Perception of the content, structure, and potential energy of an object
Perception of the external form and kinetic energy of the object
Perception of the internal dynamics of the object and conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy
Perception of the object’s external dynamics as perception of the body’s utilization of kinetic energy

Field Phases

Perception of time, sense of time
Perception of space, well-being
Perception of internal relations between objects, their internal interaction
Perception of external relations between objects, their external interaction

Note: In a way, we can say that space () is the external conditioning of a process by a process, and time () is the internal conditioning of a process by a process. Because when one process gives birth to another process in time, it is a kind of internal causality, both when we speak of internal and external processes. But when one process is conditioned by another in space, it is already as if it were an external connection, even in those cases when we are talking about the conditioning of one person’s emotions by another person’s emotions. Or the conditioning of a chemical reaction in one vessel by a reaction in another.

In the human psyche, all body phases and field phases are isolated from each other, and moreover, are so isolated that they differ in the degree of awareness, in how consciously an individual is able to use the information received by a given half-phase. The same half-phase in an individual of one type of IM is more conscious than in an individual of another type. This is the essence of the whole typology and the intertype differences of people.

The type of human IM is determined by the two most developed half-phases. One of them is always a field phase, the other is always a body-phase. The first, leading one for extrathymes (extraverts) is the body-phase, and for introthymes (introverts) the field-phase. This pair of phases forms a block, which we call the Ego block. The type model, Model A, (See Fig. 1) is formed of all eight half-phases. Model J has four. For now, however, we are interested only in the most conscious block, the Ego block*.

* Editor’s Note: More detailed information on the structure of Model A can be found in another work by the same author: The Socion.

Structure of the Ego block.
The elements or phases that make up the Ego block differ in their functions. The first phase of the block reflects, photographs, reproduces reality and provides the psyche with objective information. We can talk about an insufficient supply of information, but not about its subjectivity. We will call this phase accepting, i.e. perceiving what is outside.

The second element of the block is producing. It can also be called creative, because what it extracts from the information it receives in the first phase has a particle of something that does not and did not exist in the objective world. This is the individual’s self-adaptation to the objective world. The creativity of the individual.

Extrathymes, or Extraverts.
The first, accepting phase of each extrathyme’s Ego block is always a body phase, and the second is always a field phase. According to the existing rules of block formation, detailed information about which is given in the Socion, the eight blocks of the extrathyme’s Egos can be created:

For the same reason there are eight extraverted IMs. Jung called them extraverted because information about the states of objects (the first phase) is “extravertized” outwardly by the second phase, i.e. relations with these objects are built on the basis of information about objects.

Introthymes, or introverts. If we rearrange the elements in each pair, we get the leading blocks, i.e. the Ego blocks of introverted IMs. There are eight of them, too:

Jung called them introverted because the information received about relations between objects (the first, accepting phase) is “introvertized” from outside, that is, from relations, into the object.

Reproductive and Productive Thinking.
The first element of the leading block of Ego corresponds, apparently, to what the German psychologist Otto Selz called reproductive thinking in the 1920s, and the second corresponds to what he called productive thinking. Reproductive thinking is the reproduction of information obtained earlier by an individual and its use in new conditions. It expands a person’s knowledge of the use of previously obtained information. The essence of productive thinking is the production of new information for a subject. The result of such thinking enriches them with what was unknown to them before.

The question may arise as to why the first [Leading], most developed function, which we will call accepting, corresponds to reproductive rather than productive thinking. The point is that the main thing for a living being is not to lose contact with objective reality. This is ensured by the accepting element. Without exceptional stability and objectivity of information obtained by the first, accepting function, a human being would not be a sufficiently competent checker of the quality of production of the next function. (This does not mean that a person with the leading block directs their main attention to the objective processes around them. On the contrary – their main attention is given to the emotional state of the surrounding people, and to efforts to avoid conflicts in the emotional sphere.) However, the strength of their intellect is in their ability to control objective processes, not understand emotions, which they are just particularly sensitive to. At the same time, a person with the leading block, someone who skilfully controls other people’s emotions, directs their main attention to the logic of objective processes.

Extraverted? Extravert? Extrathyme.
The concept of Extraversion & Introversion was introduced by Jung. He distinguished between extraverted and introverted personality types. Later the terms “extrovert” and “introvert” caught on. They are simpler than Jung’s, but they are much less precise. We will not go into the matter, only mentioning that there was a deep meaning behind Jung’s term which was lost in the simplified version. In addition, extraversion by Jung and extraversion by other authors are often different concepts. According to Eysenck’s test, almost all ILEs fall into the category of introverts only because they are quite difficult to establish contact with people. Whereas the sociable SEI invariably falls into the extravert group. Karl Leonhard in his book, Accentuations of Character, defines Don Quixote as an introverted dreamer and Sancho Panza as a practical extravert. According to Jung’s typology, the former is a fully outward-looking ILE, while the latter is a very practical SLI.

On the basis of the above and in order to avoid any misunderstandings about the terms and their meanings, we will use the terms extrathymic and introthymic.

Extraversion and Introversion of Consciousness.
As we know, “Everyone is, admittedly, orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him…”* An extravert receives information about an object. That is, their consciousness perceives some aspect of the object’s manifestation. And goes from it to the relationship. The transition from perception (acceptance) of an object to the creation of a new relationship with it is called by Jung the extravertizing of consciousness. The introvert, accordingly, receives information about relations and goes from them to the creation of new qualities, new forms of object manifestation. This is what he calls introvertizing of consciousness. Introversion and extraversion are two sides of one whole, and are separable in abstract reasoning but not in real life. Information about the state of objects and their fields are two equal parts of information about the objective world. Jung wrote on this subject: “Self and world are commensurable factors; hence a normal introverted attitude is just as valid, and has as good a right to existence, as a normal extraverted attitude.”

* Editor’s note: These quotes are from Jung’s Psychological Types, Chapter X, in the sections “Extraverted Type” and “Introverted Type”.

If one stops to look at society, it appears that the role of objects is played by people, and the role of fields is the sum of possible objective human relations. A human and their relations are one whole, just as any body and its field are.

Perception of the Extrathyme.
Perception of the extrathyme provides the personality with information about objects of the material world, which:

Does it have certain potential energy? ;
Has it come into a state of internal excitation? ;
Due to this excitation, can it acquire kinetic energy, from which some of the potential energy was transformed? ;
Can it realize this kinetic energy by changing its position in space? ;

Jung called the second and fourth listed aspects of perception; i.e and rational, and the other two irrational.

We will call the information received by a person about the four aspects of an object introthymic, not forgetting that one of the objects is the person themselves, the subject of perception. By receiving information about other objects, one also receives information about themselves, about their physical and mental properties. Jung called these four sides of object functioning directed towards the object.

Perception of the Introthyme.
Perception of the introthyme provides information about the fields of inter-object relationships, about the state of the zones that the objects are interacting in. As it is already known, we distinguish four forms of relations:

External, logical relationships between objects – ;
Internal, ethical relationships between objects – ;
Spatial relationships between simultaneously occurring processes – ;
Temporal relationships between successive processes – ;

The first and second aspects of information are rational, the other two are irrational.

Names of Phases and Half-phases.
All constituent parts of an IME (except for the graphic image-symbol) should be given certain names, which can be used when constructing names of separate types of IM as well. In his definitions, Jung followed a strict internal logic, but we haven’t been able to follow Jung’s terminology completely, because he defined one of the elements of IM as thinking, and as a result it was opposed to all the others. The term thinking is equally suitable for defining all the elements of IM. We have tentatively settled on the following definitions of individual phases. As is known, one phase consists of two half-phases: a body phase and a field phase:

Jung called these sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling, respectively.

The fact that the two symbols have the same name corresponds not only to our understanding of the four phases of EM and IM, but also to Jung’s understanding that there is, for example, only one sensation, but for some types it is extroverted, and in others, introverted.

According to the provisions of Jung, what we call body phases: , , , – is “extravertized” by field phases: , , , , what we call field phases are “introvertized” by body phases. On this basis, introvertizing field-phases can be called introthymic elements, and extravertizing body-phases – extrathymic elements. Introversion – everything that is connected with the body is in the body. Extraversion – everything that is outside of the body is connected with the field.

Note. Unfortunately, if you look from a different point of view, the opposite interpretation seems no less logical, according to which everything that is extraverted is called extraverted, and that which is introverted is called introverted. Moreover, an individual with a leading first function or is called an extravert. However, it is forgotten that any extravert, as Jung figuratively said, “serves the object”, that is, worships introverted field phases, and their creativity, free will manifests itself in the implementation of the second, “extravertizing” and therefore extrathymic function, for example, or . They are extrathymic because they are able to change external relations, introduces something of their own into one or another part of the surrounding world. In an introvert, the opposite is true: they brings something new to the surrounding objects.

For all of the above reasons, we assign the following names to the individual half-phases:

Note. According to the color of the symbol, the body phases are often called black: black sensorics, black intuition, and the field elements are called white: white sensorics, white intuition, etc. They are no less acceptable than the aforementioned ones for the simple reason that all the names we use for the elements of energy and information metabolism are very conditional.

*Translator’s note: This is fairly typical in Russian, but in many English communities, the convention is to use “introverted” and append the name of the phase, such as introverted logic (). However, for abbreviations, they use a system based on Jung’s functions. The phase names are labelled S, N, T, and F to refer to Sensation, iNtuition, Thinking, and Feeling, and the first letter of the attitude is added as a suffix. So would be “Ne”, and would be “Fi”.

We recognize that these terms are very imperfect and may lead to certain misunderstandings: for example, the erroneous belief that the “ethical” types of IM think illogically and the “intuitive” types are characterized by mysterious abilities. However, the search for more precise definitions is a task for further research.

Models J and A.
There are two models of information metabolism of individual types. Model J (Jung), built at the very beginning of our research on the basis of four functions, i.e. from the four most conscious, according to Jung, elements of the psyche. In 1979, a new energy model, Model A (Augustinavičiūtė), formed of two rings, was formed in which all eight elements of IM found their place, and already in a different order than in Jung’s. With its appearance the J Model lost its relevance.* However, the theory of intertype relations that we offer to the reader is written by us with the use of the J model, since when considering intertype relations, especially their graphic images, the J Model seemed indispensable to us. It gives an exceptionally clear and memorable, visually uncomplicated picture of the interaction of all sixteen types of IM (Fig. 1). Each of the IM models includes four elements: the leading block and two more elements, the functions of which are defined below. Let us only note that the third element, which follows the producing ones, is called the place of least resistance (PoLR), and the fourth is a suprapsychological element.

*Editor’s note: There are still a number of Socionists who successfully use Model J in their research. They include: Grigori Shulman, Yevgeny Litrovik, I.A Bulkina (Unknown), Eugene Shepetko and others.

So:
1) Leading, accepting element
2) Creative, producing element
3) Place of Least Resistance (PoLR)
4) Suggestive element

Four out of eight, i.e. the most developed, according to Jung’s theory, elements of IM in functions I, II, III, and IV, are included in Model J. The model is built top-down.

*Translator’s note: Inductive = Static, Deductive = Dynamic, Schizothyme = Rational, Cyclothyme = Irrational

If the first function is introthymic, then the next three extravertize it, and such a model is called extrathymic. If the first function is extrathymic, then the next three introvertize it, and such a model is called introthymic.

For greater clarity, a list of names of famous people, literary heroes, whose IM types we were able to establish, is attached at the end of the work. These are our first attempts to study human history through the lens of typology. Therefore, there are more examples of some types of IM and fewer of others. Despite the fact that the list determines some tendencies in the direction of personal self-actualization, it is impossible to judge which types are suited towards certain specialties. All of our studies show that the productive activity of individuals of different types is conditioned not only by the personality type of the individual, but also by the personality types of the people in contact with them, as well as by social requests from society. Thus, all of the following writers belong to different types of IM: Miguel de Cervantes [SLI], Roger Martin Du Gard [SEI], Honoré de Balzac [ILI], Jean-Jacques Rousseau [IEI], Vladimir Mayakovsky [SLE], Leo Tolstoy [SEE], André Maurois [ILE], William Faulkner [IEE]*, John Galsworthy [LSE], Antoine de Saint-Exupery [LIE], Anton Chekhov [LII], William Shakespeare [EIE], Vasily Shukshin [LSI], Ivan Turgenev [ESI], Fyododor Dostoyevsky [EII].

*Translator’s note: Later retyped to SLE.

Next

, – Sensation	, – Logic
, – Intuition	, – Ethics

– Extraverted Sensation	– Introverted Sensation
– Extraverted Intuition	– Introverted Intuition
– Extraverted Logic	– Introverted Logic
– Extraverted Feeling	– Introverted Ethics