Chapter 12. Two Approaches to the Formal Description of Socionic Relations

(The principle of duality and the model of a socionic relation)

“It’s exactly the other way round,” said Humpty Dumpty. “We understand one another not because we speak; we speak because we understand.”

Translator’s conventions

Russian	Used here	Meaning
ТИМ	TIM	type of information metabolism
ИО	ITR	intertype relation(s)
ИА	IA	information aspect
АРП	ARP	Augustinavičiūtė–Reinin traits
СО / БО	SR / ER	socionic relations / everyday (household) relations
ПВ	PV	potential possibilities

Churyumov’s function names (Model A positions 1–8), kept as transliterated abbreviations:

Code	Russian	Position	Gloss
PPF	ППФ	1	program-potential function — potential possibilities, programs, ideas
KZF	КЗФ	2	communicative function — communication, communicative code, all-round discussion, logical analysis
ANF	АНФ	3	function of tension — tense situation, pressure, aggression, defence, circumstances
KKF	ККФ	4	critical function — rejection of limits on its theme, criticism, comparison against a standard
ERF	ЭРФ	5	resource-expectation function — expectation of a resource, need
MMF	ММФ	6	mobilisation function — need for stimulation, prompting
IVF	ИВФ	7	imperative-temporal function — concentration on process, working state, inspiration
RTF	РТФ	8	result-technology function — end product, productive work

Relation codes are kept as transliterations of Churyumov’s Russian two-letter codes so that the tables stay aligned with the original:

Code	Russian	Relation
TZh	ТЖ	identity
DU	ДУ	duality
AK	АК	activation
ZE	ЗЕ	mirror
PZ	ПЗ	reception of request (beneficiary → benefactor)
PK	ПК	supervisee (supervisee → supervisor)
DE	ДЕ	business
MI	МИ	mirage
KV	КВ	quasi-identity
KF	КФ	conflict
SE	СЭ	super-ego
PP	ПП	opposition (“full opposite”, extinguishment)
RD	РД	kindred
PD	ПД	semi-duality
ZK	ЗК	request (benefactor → beneficiary)
KN	КН	supervision (supervisor → supervisee)

Aspect symbols (I, l, e, S, s, E, i, L) and ARP pole codes (ex, be, it, ag, …) are reproduced exactly as in the original. Passages where the source PDF’s OCR is unrecoverable are marked [OCR gap]; reconstructed tables are flagged as such.

1. Description of intertype relations on the basis of the principle of duality of types and relations

In 1991, at the conference in Vilnius, I put forward the principle of duality with respect to TIMs and intertype relations (ITR). This principle was fortunate: V. V. Gulenko, who had heard my paper, some time later began developing on its basis the ideas of relational socionics, in which the foundation of the theoretical constructions and practical reasoning is not the TIM — the basic object of “classical” socionics — but the ITR. In his article [3] Gulenko gives a perfectly effective formal description of the ITR, distributing them along the Jungian axes and the Augustinavičiūtė–Reinin traits. He writes: “There is no need whatever to invent some new, special distinguishing traits for the ITR. It is far simpler to make use of the ready-made binary traits of the socionic types included in the Augustinavičiūtė–Reinin list [3].” However, such a conclusion can be drawn only on the basis of the parallelism of intertype relations and socionic types, and work of that kind requires theoretical justification. Such a justification could have been a reference to the principle of duality of TIM and ITR, but in his article Gulenko “forgot” to cite my paper, which is unquestionably a violation of the ethical aspect in science. Without such a reference, Gulenko’s constructions lose all meaning, since it remains unclear where the parallelism of types and relations comes from. And — what is theoretically important — such an assertion must have sufficient grounds, but V. V. Gulenko adduces no such grounds, and this turns the assertion quoted above into an arbitrary assumption or a “brilliant guess”.

By virtue of the principle of duality of types and of the relations between them, and by virtue of the high level of abstraction of the socionic model, it appears possible to describe each ITR directly, using the corresponding TIM models. In this case the description of a relation acquires the same analytical character as the description of a TIM, rather than being built on an intuitive description of the links between the functions of the models of the interacting types. Of course, such a conclusion is justified only if the principle of duality of types and relations corresponds to reality. It is also interesting that, relying on this same idea, the talented socionist A. A. Nemirovsky constructed an alternative classification of the ITR. In his article [4] A. A. Nemirovsky undertook an attempt to change the terminological and semantic basis of the description of the ITR, which can only be welcomed, since it broadens the conceptual basis of socionics.

The formulation of the principle of duality with respect to TIMs and ITR is extremely simple: the structure of a TIM is isomorphic to the structure of an ITR, and between the set of TIMs and the set of ITR there is a one-to-one correspondence. From this it follows that all correct assertions employing the concepts of TIM and ITR will remain correct if each of these concepts is replaced by the other. Therefore, if we accept the truth of the statement that between two TIMs an ITR arises, then we must accept the truth of its converse as well — that between two ITR a TIM is formed. This can be understood as something like a holographic picture arising as a result of the intersection of two information flows associated with each of the ITR. Without doubt such an image is hard to grasp, since human perception is oriented above all toward extracting a figure from a ground, and it is not easy to imagine that the figure may turn out to be the result of interference of certain energy fields that are part of the ground. In any case, it is quite unclear how the image proposed above could be interpreted in physical terms. Nevertheless, the heuristic character of the principle of duality points to the existence of a meaningful interpretation of the formally constructed last phrase.

Concerning the introduction of the principle of duality of TIM and ITR, the following may be added. In a private conversation at the XXII conference, O. Karpenko expressed confidence that the principle under discussion follows obviously from G. Reinin’s mathematical derivations concerning dichotomous traits of a sixteen-element set, and that on these grounds one ought to cite him. This struck me as strange, and I carefully re-read what Reinin had written about the traits. I found there no hint whatever that he had assumed a duality of TIMs and ITR. Moreover, it later turned out that when Reinin learned of my proposal, he expressed doubt about the applicability of the principle of duality in socionics. What has been said is quite sufficient not to suppose any involvement of Reinin (and he himself never claimed any) in this principle. Subsequently I came to the conclusion that the principle of duality can also be applied to the relation between the Augustinavičiūtė–Reinin traits (ARP), the ITR and the TIMs. However, this conclusion could in no way have been drawn from Reinin’s work, if only because Reinin considered only fifteen traits. Only the introduction of the sixteenth Reinin trait — arrived at independently by O. Karpenko and by the present author — created the necessary and sufficient condition for speaking of a principle of duality. But even then it was still necessary to conclude, and to prove, that the set of Reinin traits is strictly ordered. And only after I had carried out this work was it possible to formulate the extended principle of duality, establishing a one-to-one correspondence between TIM, ITR and ARP. Obviously, intuitive declarations on the subject alone would have been insufficient, and only the demonstrative theoretical work carried out gives sufficient grounds to speak of an isomorphism of the three sets indicated.

The correspondence between TIMs and ITR has exactly the same nature as the principle of duality of lines and points in geometry, which asserts that all true geometrical statements mentioning lines and points can be replaced by analogous expressions in which these terms have exchanged places. Into the subject area of socionics this principle can be carried over on the grounds that the form, accepted in mathematics, of representing binary relations as a Cartesian (rectangular) table — with the interacting elements on the margins and the relations at the intersections of rows and columns — may, on the basis of the principle of duality, be replaced by a nomographic form “of aligned points”, in which the interacting elements are located as points on straight lines (in the particular case, parallel ones), and the relations between them are represented by straight lines connecting the corresponding points. It was precisely by this scheme that Aushra established the links between functions with identical information content in the “Yu” model, and the character of these connections, their structure, enabled her to identify the relations and describe their features. It is precisely on the basis of the principle of duality that one may assert that, just as there exists a model of the TIM, there must also exist a model of the ITR, isomorphic to the model of the TIM.

We make use of descriptions of relations, including, for example, the description of duality, proposed by Aushra Augustinavičiūtė. She made these descriptions on the basis of an analysis of the transactions that must exist between identical IAs in the models of two different TIMs. For instance, for duality the scheme of transactions using the “Yu” models is presented in Fig. 12.01. Strictly speaking, the configuration given in Fig. 12.01 may be regarded as a model of a relation, since it makes it possible to introduce the concept of a relation and to bring out certain features of relations. However, this model looks incomplete, since it does not represent or use information about all the functions.

(Fig. 12.01. Transactions between the functions of the “Yu” models for a dual pair.)

In 1968 N. N. Medvedev made a remarkable theoretical attempt to construct a model of a relation using an eight-component model which corresponds exactly to Model A, but in which he introduces his own numbering of the functions — he numbers them in order from left to right, from top to bottom. The aspects he designates by capital letters in alphabetical order. The resulting configuration is presented in Fig. 12.02.

(Fig. 12.02. Numbering of the functions in N. N. Medvedev’s model: 1A 3B 5D 7Zh / 2B 4G 6E 8Z.)

In this model the letters conventionally designate the IAs admissible in the model, and in this way the necessary generalisation is achieved, whereby not a single relation between two concrete TIMs may be considered, but the relation between any TIMs. However, it remains undefined how a transaction is established if the IA is not designated. The author proceeds from the assumption that he knows in advance in which positions of the models interacting in the given relation the identical IAs are located. From a methodological point of view such an approach appears insufficiently grounded, since the author assigns the type of relation in advance, presupposing a fixed position of the IAs, and then draws the transaction lines — with differing completeness for different relations — and interprets the configuration of transactions. For example, the configuration for the relation of activation is presented in Fig. 12.03. In Medvedev’s model of a relation one can see a hint of the permutational character of the operator of a relation, but this theme is not reflected upon by him.

(Fig. 12.03. Medvedev’s model for the relation of activation.)

In models of this type it is accepted that in an ITR the interacting functions are those with identical IAs. Although this looks plausible, it is nevertheless necessary to make at least some explication here, rather than take it as self-evident — all the more so since it is not at all difficult to justify the interaction of functions with different aspects. The simplest idea on which one may rely in justifying the interaction of functions with identical aspectual content consists in this: that such functions work on identical subject matter and use identical codes or carriers of these codes, and this presupposes that it is “easier” for them to understand one another. This sounds plausible. A somewhat different justification of the assumption under discussion might rest on the notion of vibrational-energetic fields associated with the ITR, in which case one could say that such functions “work in the same frequency range”. This explanation is sufficiently different from the previous one, but also sounds plausible — with one limitation, however: such fields still have to be identified. However, socionics deals not with concrete relations between people but with types of relations, where it is unimportant what the aspectual content of the functions is. What matters here is only which function is in contact with which, not which aspects are in those functions. The semantics of relations is determined by the semantics of the interacting functions, not by their aspects. Therefore it is sufficient to construct combinatorially all variants of interaction of functions in order to reveal all possible types of relations. Of course, one must take into account the systemic constraints existing in the socionic structure of the psyche, and what we know from the scheme of construction of Model A. As for the distribution of IAs among the functions, then, from the standpoint of the theory of relations, it may be treated as a heuristic hint which in its time helped to arrive at the idea of types of relations, but which can be defined from entirely different considerations.

In describing relations by TIM-like models one should bear in mind that the semantics of the corresponding symbols will shift toward the content of relations. In any case an exact verbal interpretation of the symbolic combinations here is extremely difficult and stands in need of elaboration and refinement. Let us note also that the analytical description of ITR by the corresponding models differs somewhat from their descriptions made on the basis of the contacts of functions in the “Yu” model, since in the former case we have more data and parameters for evaluation and interpretation, and consequently there is a more developed basis for obtaining not only a more detailed but also a more reliable description.

It can already be said now that socionic relations (SR) and the everyday relations (ER) that unfold between people in daily life are not at all identical, and that with one and the same SR between people there may arise, become established and develop ER that in no way correspond to them (E. S. Filatova develops thoughts somewhat close to this — see the literature). Duals may quarrel, mock one another, hate one another, either one-sidedly or mutually. Socionic conflictors may passionately love one another, actively help one another, activate and amicably criticise one another. A socionic supervisor may hopelessly fall in love with his supervisee and suffer on that account — though of course in this pair there may also be mutual love, deep friendship and selfless support. A socionic benefactor may understand his beneficiary perfectly, while the latter may turn out to be incapable of catching the fine shades of his partner’s thought. So do SR correspond to nothing at all? They do correspond — but not in that literal and straightforward form in which it appeared to socionists at the early stages of socionics’ development. In this connection one may say that SR, first, serve as a shell within which ER develop; and second, that what is described as SR is only types of relations, whereas real relations between people, like socionic types, have a multitude of shades, the totality of which may be defined as the character — no longer of a type, but of a relation. For one and the same type of relation, conflict for example, may be stormy or calm, soft or harsh, protracted or short, deep or superficial, and even — however strange it may sound — pleasant, affording deep emotional and aesthetic satisfaction. Conversely, a dual may be unappealing to you, and relations with him may be tense, tedious, burdensome, dangerous — and nevertheless there will be present in them a dual component that will lend a quite definite shade to all the facts of the relation established in the pair. In particular, dual relations afford the partners good access to one another’s attention.

Socionic relations may develop in accordance with several generalised scenarios, the principal ones being stabilisation, realisation and degradation.

It must also be said that the intuitive description of the ITR by the contact of “Yu” models is somewhat accentuated — that is, certain of their features are sharpened, so that the impression is created that, for example, dual relations are exceptionally good, while conflict or supervision, on the contrary, are exceptionally bad. Almost two decades of work with socionic material have shown that matters stand somewhat otherwise.

Socionic relations only create the background against which real relations between people develop. They are a kind of overtone of the field of relations established between two people. Moreover, it can now be said with confidence that in any pair, if the relations have stabilised and are maintained at a certain level, all the shades of socionic relations are present — from identity to supervision. If between arbitrarily chosen partners there were absent even the minimal moment of identity (for instance, the use of a common language), they simply would not be able to talk about anything or, under other circumstances, to maintain any relations at all. Belonging to a common social group, social status, level of culture or education, a common sphere of interests, finally common circumstances or the situation in which the partners find themselves, and so on — all these are moments of identification.

In just the same way, in any pair there is always at least some degree of dualisation — a natural distribution of duties, work, roles, the presence of cooperation, mutual aid, interdependence — and if this is absent, the relation becomes unviable and will fall apart. Both partners request something of one another and in some way accept requests from the other; both supervise one another and in something submit; in something people limit one another, feel awkward, do not venture or never say certain things to one another, and so forth. Therefore in a real pair it would be important to reveal the whole spectrum of relations and their quantitative characteristics, and this would make it possible to evaluate the partners’ relations more precisely and, if necessary, to carry out psychological correction.

Proceeding from the assumption that a relation has the same model as the corresponding type, one may say that every relation, besides a type, possesses also a character. Thus one and the same socionic scheme of an ITR may yield as great a variety of concrete pictures of relations as the boundless variety of characters that fit within the sixteen socionic types. In this way socionics sets psychology only a scheme for the description of relations. Summing up the foregoing reasoning, one may say that SR represent communicative shells within which two basic types of ER develop — cooperation and confrontation. In describing the ITR we shall adhere to this scheme.

Let us recall that in Lyashkyavichyus’s table the correct sequence of types is distorted: in the fourth quadra the LSE and IEE dyads are transposed. Let us also stress that V. V. Gulenko, in our view, constructed the correspondence of TIMs and ITR almost correctly, determining it by the relations of the ILE to all other types; he did not, however, indicate the grounds for the arrangement of the types in the socion, which could have been reduced to a reference to the “Churyumov square”, where such grounds are presented in sufficient measure. Besides this, it must be taken into account that to the types Hamlet and Gorky correspond the relations of beneficiary and supervisee, and to the types Stierlitz and Dostoevsky the relations of benefactor and supervisor.

A large, interesting and needed work on relations has been written by P. Tsypin [8] — a talented and promising researcher in socionics. However, many of his constructs and assertions bear a problematic and hypothetical character — as, incidentally, do almost all the remaining concepts of socionics at the present stage of development of this new science, and, of course, mine as well.

Consider the following reasoning of Tsypin’s: “The most important thing in intertype relations is the law of perception of an information signal. It states: the human psyche is capable of catching and processing only signals identical to those present in its structure” [8]. Here identity apparently includes also the notion of the sign of a function to which the author adheres. Doubt arises at once that what is at issue is “the most important thing” in ITR. It turns out that the most important thing is not the content of the ITR but some formal trait that has taken the researcher’s fancy. Besides, the formulation of the whole phrase has apparently not been edited, and it is not easy to understand what in fact is being spoken of. The formulation of the “law” itself is obviously¹ incorrect, since the psyche, as is known from psychological research, perceives — at both the conscious and the unconscious level — an enormous quantity of units of information in no way identical to those “present in its structure”, since a person perceives not only what is known to him but also what is unknown, and the unknown is not identical to what is known to him. Further, it is unclear why this should be called a law. The author incorrectly qualifies the assertion he advances by designating it with this term. If this assertion is to be considered a law, then it is unclear from where, from what empirical data, this “law” is derived. At best, it might be a hypothesis whose reliability still has to be proved. In essence, however, the proposed construct is nothing more than a rule for constructing and interpreting a model of a relation, on which its author orients himself in his work. It is an assertion that the author accepts as plausible. Therefore, when the author ties this assertion to the interaction of functions with identical signs, the rule he has taken on faith turns into the ground of the truth of his conclusions. But plausibility is not yet truth, and it would be worth warning of this the reader unversed in logical subtleties. And since all the interpretations concerning the interaction of functions with both identical and different signs can be made without appealing to the semantics of the sign, the rule used by the author looks not only doubtful but superfluous. If one takes into account that the explication of the “socionic” signs of functions, invented by V. V. Gulenko at the very “dawn” of Kiev socionics — that is, when the Kiev scholars were only beginning to acquaint themselves with socionics — has no socionic semantics but represents an empirical guess not satisfying the requirements of completeness, consistency, necessity and sufficiency, then, presumably, the defects contained in it will lead to distortion and to the appearance of a hidden systematic error in all subsequent conclusions.

And here is another construct proposed by Tsypin which personally arouses in me strong doubts. He considers that functions differ, among other things, in that some of them work continuously and others discretely. He writes: “Some of the channels of Model A process information continuously; others, on the contrary, emit signals from time to time.” This assertion looks very plausible, only it is unknown what its empirical grounds are. Tsypin considers that “the acceptant channels (functions 1, 3, 5, 7) constantly scan the surrounding world”, while “the productive channels (2, 4, 6, 8) work with interruptions — for they are functionally dependent on the information of the acceptant channels” [8]. Here the reference to the productive channels being “functionally dependent on the information of the acceptant channels” is apparently regarded as an argument in favour of the discrete working of these channels. But if the acceptant channels work continuously, then information from them must likewise arrive continuously in the productive ones, and consequently the latter must not only receive it continuously but also process it continuously. But of course such reasoning is pure logic. Yet to logic I answer with logic. As for how matters stand in reality, this must be sorted out first of all factually and only then logically, so that logic orders the facts rather than imposing formal possibilities on reality.

It is unclear why productive work must necessarily be discrete. True, it is meaningless to speak in this context of discreteness in general without giving any explication of this concept as applied to socionic functions. Can one, for example, consider such a productive process as the growth of an organism to be a continuous process? That depends on the size of the time step we take, for cells do not divide continuously, and if one takes a sufficiently small interval of time then one can find some moment when not a single cell is dividing and hence there is no growth. To make this reasoning more obvious, let us choose a phase of the organism’s development when its embryo consists of a very small number of cells. Then it will be possible to discover that growth — change in the size of the body — occurs discretely.

And yet this is a superficial observation, since it does not take into account intracellular processes, which cannot be ignored in analysing this process. And since intracellular processes proceed continuously, then… And what can be said of the continuity of sensory processes? Their assessment from this point of view likewise depends strongly on the choice of discretisation step. If we take vision, for example, then only from the position of the perceiving subject may it seem continuous. Possibly not everyone knows that the human eyes continuously perform so-called saccadic movements — small rapid displacements of the eyeball — and that the eye sees² only at the moment of its stopping, that is, discretely. Further, there exists a blink rate which does not hinder subjective perception, but it is obvious that the eye does not see an external object while closed. No — of course it still sees, but not that which is being observed. And finally there are the phases of sleep and waking, when the eyes are now switched off as an organ, now switched on. There are also deeper physiological processes, when the renewal of the light sensitivity of rhodopsin takes place in the cones and rods of the eye. This process is very fast but nevertheless makes its contribution to the discreteness of vision. So one may speak of the continuity of the processes of perception only conditionally.

In just the same way, productive processes, for many reasons, cannot be continuous. They have their own regime of discreteness. But just as some factory, from the point of view of its working regime, works discretely, while from the point of view of macroeconomic indicators it works continuously, so too the work of all the functional systems of the organism may, from different points of view, be assessed now as discrete, now as continuous. Therefore, in assessing the work of such systems, one must first set the criterion of that assessment. So how, after all, do the macrofunctional systems of the human psyche work? Alas, from the point of view of “macroeconomic indicators” — or here it would be more apt to say, from the point of view of macro-informational indicators — the macrofunctional systems of the human psyche work continuously. All of them — both acceptant and productive. But from the point of view of working regimes, in assessing the work of the functional systems one will have to choose an entirely different term: they work cyclically. There exists an introverted part of the cycle and there exists an extraverted part of the cycle, but on the whole, from the point of view of macro-informational indicators, this work is continuous. Therefore Tsypin’s attempt to introduce the distinction under analysis for acceptant and productive functions does not appear well grounded. And consequently all the conclusions he draws from the assumptions he has adopted will also be doubtful.

Nevertheless, Tsypin’s description of the ITR is of great interest, since it is carried out with reliance on the contact of all the functions of Model A, and not merely two functions, as was done using the “Yu” model. It is unclear, however, why there is no reference to [9], where this approach was first proposed.

More difficult to analyse and to criticise constructively is Tsypin’s conviction that “the informational interaction between two Models A is unidirectional, that is, the stronger function gives a signal to the weaker” [8]. Hence it turns out that the stronger function “supplies with information” any weaker function of the partner’s Model A, while the weaker function “is capable only of perceiving informational signals from outside” [8]. However, another view of this problem is also possible, in which the interaction of functions is understood as mutual, going in both directions: from the strong to the weak and from the weak to the strong. Only this influence is different. The influence of the stronger function is active: proposal, intervention. The influence of the weaker function on the stronger is passive: attraction, expectation. Such, for example, is the relation of a nursing infant to its mother — its needs are imperatives for the mother, and this influence upon the mother is very strong. Expectation, or expectancy, is regarded in psychology as a perfectly real influence of one person upon another. Let us note also that the idea of a one-way influence from “the stronger to the weaker function” is apparently the result of a suggestion arising from the designation of transactions by unidirectional arrows.

There is also a structural heuristic prompting the recognition of the mutual influence of any pair of functions upon one another. Thus, if one draws up a “tournament” table of the interaction of functions (see Table 12.01), only by taking this into account can it be filled in on both sides of the left diagonal. Otherwise the whole space above and to the right of this diagonal would have to remain empty. As for the table of interaction of functions itself, at the intersections of columns and rows it indicates the relations in which the corresponding functions interact. This is important, since the semantics of the interaction of functions must be obtained as a composition of the semantics of the interacting functions and the semantics of the corresponding relation — which here, incidentally, acts as a heuristic hint, since the semantics of the relation must itself be derived from the semantics of the functions.

Table 12.01. Interaction of functions and the relations associated with them

	PPF	KZF	ANF	KKF	ERF	MMF	IVF	RTF
PPF	TZh, RD	ZE, PK	DE, SE	KF, KN	DU, PD	AK, ZK	PP, MI	KV, PZ
KZF	ZE, PK	TZh, DE	KF, KN	RD, SE	AK, PZ	DU, MI	KV, ZK	PP, PD
ANF	DE, SE	KF, PK	TZh, RD	ZE, KN	PP, MI	KV, PZ	DU, PD	AK, ZK
KKF	KF, KN	RD, SE	ZE, PK	TZh, DE	KV, ZK	PP, PD	AK, PZ	DU, MI
ERF	DU, PD	AK, ZK	PP, MI	KV, PZ	TZh, RD	ZE, KN	DE, SE	KF, PK
MMF	AK, PZ	DU, MI	KV, ZK	PP, PD	ZE, PK	TZh, DE	KF, KN	RD, SE
IVF	PP, MI	KV, PZ	DU, PD	AK, ZK	DE, SE	KF, PK	TZh, RD	ZE, KN
RTF	KV, ZK	PP, PD	AK, PZ	DU, MI	KF, KN	RD, SE	ZE, PK	TZh, DE

[OCR gap] — a fragment of a table of “Semantics of the functions in the models” is interleaved in the source at this point; only the following key words are legible: PPF — potential possibilities, pr…; KZF — communication, communicative code, all-round discussion, justification, logical analysis; ANF — tense situation, pressure, aggressiveness, defence, circumstances; KKF — rejection of limitations on the theme, criticism, comparison with a standard; ERF — expectation of a resource, need; MMF — need for stimulation, prompting; IVF — concentration on the process, working state, inspiration; RTF — end product, productive work.

In order to prepare the ground for deriving the semantics of relations from the contact of functions, let us represent Model A in the form of a cube (Fig. 12.04). In this model one can discover several variants of structural links between functions. From a purely structural point of view, functions may be adjacent-horizontal (PPF–KZF), adjacent-vertical (PPF–IVF), diagonal-horizontal (PPF–ANF), diagonal-vertical (PPF–MMF), and diagonal-vertical-horizontal (PPF–ERF). Of course it is necessary to take into account that there is a zero structural link of any function with itself. All these variants can be reduced to four types. Empirical observations within the socionic paradigm show³ that the gradations of the energetic quality of contact in the interaction of the partners’ functions are determined by their structural links. Taking the foregoing into account, the following gradations of the energetic quality of contact of functions may be distinguished:

1. An adjacent-vertical link between functions manifests itself in real contacts as “cautious understanding”, which is met with in the mirage relation and in full opposition (PPF–IVF). This contact may be called passively synergetic. To it, by structural criteria, one must also assign duality and semi-duality, where diagonal-vertical-horizontal links are present. Within this group of relations the synergy decreases in the direction DU – PD – MI – PP.

2. Adjacent-horizontal functions are in immediate connection, and therefore when such functions meet in the contact of partners, active confrontation takes place. To this group belong the mirror and supervision relations (PPF–KZF) on the one hand, and conflict and being-supervised (PPF–KKF) on the other. These relations may be assigned to the category of active antagonism, but its degree increases in the direction ZE – PK – KN – KF.

3. Diagonal-horizontal pairs of functions in the ring of the model are separated from and connected to one another through an intermediate function. Such functions themselves are in different blocks, which, it seems, makes their confrontation “deferred” — for antagonism to switch on, additional conditions are needed. In real relations this manifests itself in restrained, or passive, antagonism. Precisely this is what we observe in super-ego and business relations (PPF–ANF). To this group, both on structural considerations and by the results of empirical observations, one must assign identity and kindred relations. The level of tension in this group grows in the direction TZh – RD – DE – SE.

4. A diagonal-vertical link between functions manifests itself in active synergy, which characterises the relations of activation and request (PPF–MMF), and also quasi-identity and beneficiary. The level of activation in this group of relations decreases in the direction AK – PZ – ZK – KV.

Features of this kind can be brought together in the form of a tournament table (see Table 12.02). Here (AS) is active synergy, (PS) passive synergy, (PA) passive antagonism, (AA) active antagonism.

Table 12.02. Generalised assessment of the interaction of functions

(Reconstructed from Table 12.01 and the four gradations above; the source printing is partly scrambled.)

	PPF	KZF	ANF	KKF	ERF	MMF	IVF	RTF
PPF	PA	AA	PA	AA	PS	AS	PS	AS
KZF	AA	PA	AA	PA	AS	PS	AS	PS
ANF	PA	AA	PA	AA	PS	AS	PS	AS
KKF	AA	PA	AA	PA	AS	PS	AS	PS
ERF	PS	AS	PS	AS	PA	AA	PA	AA
MMF	AS	PS	AS	PS	AA	PA	AA	PA
IVF	PS	AS	PS	AS	PA	AA	PA	AA
RTF	AS	PS	AS	PS	AA	PA	AA	PA

From this table it is evident that the interaction of functions within one ring bears an antagonistic character of varying degrees of tension. At the same time, the interaction of functions from different rings bears the character of synergy.

To a certain extent the regularities proposed may have psychological explanations. If identical functions meet, then, by virtue of the identity of their semantics, their initial tolerance is presumable, but the final result of their interaction will depend on the degree of concordance of the programs associated with them: if the programs turn out to be compatible, then the relation too will acquire the positive shade of cooperation. In the opposite case confrontation and competition will arise. If functions located side by side in one ring meet, then they turn out to be immediately opposed to one another by their basic mental or vital semantics, and the process of concordance and comparison of programs will be initially tense, reflecting various degrees of antagonism. It is also plausible that functions from one block in one ring will interact less harshly than functions from different blocks. If, however, functions from different rings meet, then, by virtue of mental-vital complementarity, their mutual signals are perceived by them as expected, and therefore the relation initially has the modality of synergetics. All this, however, needs to be verified experimentally.

The contacts of functions in each socionic relation have their own particular structure; however, the structures of contacts of certain relations have a definite similarity, and this similarity must find its expression in the semantics of the corresponding groups of relations. If, on the basis of the principle of duality of type and relation, one makes use of the representation of a relation in the form of a three-dimensional cube, then one may obtain the structures of relations expressed through the links of functions in intertype contacts, as shown in Fig. 12.05. Here we discover the four groups of relations already mentioned above, differing from one another in the geometrical features of their structures.

(Fig. 12.05. The structure of relations expressed through the links of functions in intertype contacts — sixteen cube diagrams labelled TZh, DU, AK, ZE / ZK, KN, DE, MI / KV, KF, SE, PP / RD, PD, PZ, PK.)

Let us consider Tsypin’s assertion about the order of strength of the functions. These assertions are bound up with the intuitive insights of socionists and stand in need of logical elaboration. When Jung spoke of the leading and the subordinate function, one might see in this an implicit indication of their differing strength. However, such a transition from a judgement about subordination to a judgement about strength is only plausible; strictly speaking, it is not obligatory. The leading element need not necessarily be stronger than the led. This is well known in cybernetics, where it is said that a weak informational influence may switch on powerful energy flows. Thus a light press on a button switches on a powerful mechanism. Therefore, in speaking of the strength of functions, one must give a precise definition of what is understood by this, rather than take it as self-evident, since in doing so it is easy to commit the error of identifying strength and influence. Strength is a projection of the archetype of energy, whereas influence is a projection of the archetype of information. With this one may agree if, of course, we accept that strength is the capacity to perform work, while influence is the capacity to change behaviour. Therefore when socionists speak of the strength of a function while thinking of the character of its influence, we have here nothing other than a homonymic shift, in which one and the same word is understood differently by different people. As a result there arises confusion and mutual incomprehension, up to and including rejection and repudiation.

So then, it is not at all difficult to suppose that all the macrofunctions of the psyche are potentially of equal power. In a real bearer of a type, by virtue of his individual features, the energetic power of different functions may be different, but this by no means signifies that his program-potential function will turn out to be the strongest. It is plausible that the energetic power of the functions is built up in the process of the individual’s self-realisation. Nor does their influence remain constant, which is well noticeable when comparing people who have realised themselves with those who have suffered existential defeat.

It would also do no harm to clarify what this is — “the energetic power of a function”. The simplest supposition is that it is the capacity of a function to pass through itself an energy flow used by it for performing the specific work corresponding to its basic semantics and informational orientation. Despite the plausibility of such a definition, it arouses certain doubts. The point is that, presumably, any function works not in isolation but jointly with others. If we consider that the sequence of functions represents an informational conveyor — and such a representation was formed by Aushra and is widely disseminated among socionists — then it is natural to suppose that all the functions “sit” on one informational-energetic flow which they process and whose ultimate goal is the survival of the living being. Then it is unclear why and how functions can have different power, and why the notion of their energetic hierarchy arises. The simplest answer follows from the analogy with appliances connected to one grid but consuming different power, corresponding to their design parameters. However, this analogy does not entirely correspond to the notion of a functional conveyor, for there what is at issue is the processing of information as a kind of raw material, whose primary mass will at best remain constant, though it is not excluded that, owing to technological costs and waste, this mass ought even to decrease. True, with respect to information one may formulate a law of non-conservation, which might state that information is capable of arising out of nothing (creativity! anti-entropy!) and of vanishing without trace. Although, on the other hand, “manuscripts don’t burn”.

Such reasoning gives occasion to consider three possible cases. The quantitative measure of informational material in the process of its processing on the functional conveyor: 1) remains constant; 2) decreases; 3) increases. It is not excluded that in reality all three cases occur, but it would be valuable to establish the technologically neutral case, that is, what obtains under normal conditions, and what perhaps is precisely for that reason the norm.

Consider the first case. What might it mean that the volume of informational material remains constant in the process of its processing? First, it must be taken into account that information is always located on some carrier. Therefore one may speak of the complex carrier–information. Presumably, not only energy-informational complexes circulate in the psyche; it is obvious that psychically active information may also “sit” on matter. In any case hormones, unquestionably psychically active substances, have a perfectly definite molecular structure, to say nothing of all other neurotropic substances. We shall not go here into the details of the transfer of a control signal from a molecular carrier to a purely energetic one — what interests us here is the question of the volumes of energy-informational substrate processed by the generalised functions of the psyche. And if we turn to the analogy with the processing of raw material in a technological process, then one may imagine that, ideally, the volume of material in passing from raw material to end product may remain constant. For example, the quantitative measure of clay in a pottery article may be exactly equal to the quantitative measure of the lump of clay from which it was made; whereas in making a Pinocchio out of a log there will be a significant percentage of waste. It is clear that there are many nuances here, but at present we are considering this problem at the most general level. What matters to us is that a case is possible in which the quantitative measure of the initial substrate will be equal to the quantitative measure of the end product. This ought to mean that through each function of the informational conveyor there passes approximately the same volume of energy-informational material, which ought to correspond to approximately identical energetic power of each function. So on what, then, are the ideas about an energetic hierarchy of functions based?

On the other hand, from physiology we know that the physical power of separate organs may vary strongly both within one organism and in comparing different organisms with one another. It is obvious that in a weightlifter separate muscle groups may differ very greatly in power from the corresponding muscle group in a sprinter. This fact is easily linked with trainedness, but behind it, unquestionably, there also stands innate constitution. In connection with this analogy one may speak of the different trainedness of different functions in different people. But whence could a basic difference in the energetic power of the functions in one individual arise? It is clear that, for example, as a result of illness the locomotor apparatus, the nervous system or the gastrointestinal tract may become energetically weaker. But on what grounds may one suppose basic differences in the energetic power of its eight physiological systems? At the same time, in socionics the notion of precisely a basic difference in the powers of the generalised psychic functions is stubbornly maintained.

Let us turn to another analogy. Consider the functional conveyor engaged in digestion in the organism. Let us distinguish in it several blocks: seizing food (the oral cavity), its preliminary treatment for further processing (chewing and moistening with saliva), digestion proper (treatment by the enzymes of the stomach, duodenum, pancreas and liver), assimilation of nutrients (in the intestine, liver and kidneys) and, finally, elimination of the unassimilable residue. Of course, the end product of this process must be considered the assimilable substances, not what is not assimilated. In this case it is obvious that the end product, that is the assimilable substances, constitutes only some part (sometimes a very small one) of the initial substrate. In this functional chain one may see the same scheme of a productive four-stroke thermodynamic process that Aushra used in describing the maximally generalised scheme of information metabolism. Of course, in considering a concrete process it is necessary to adapt the terminology to the semantics of that process. First stroke: accumulation of potential — detection and seizing of food. Second stroke: preliminary preparation of the substrate for further processing — chemoreception, determination of the enzyme complex necessary for digesting the food seized. Third stroke: obtaining the end product — digestion of the food. Fourth stroke: removal of the end product from the working zone and its transfer to transport agents whose task is to deliver the nutrients to the target consumers, where utilisation, or assimilation, of the useful substances will take place. In this scheme we see several functional blocks whose energetic capacity is different, but it is determined by the parameters of energy consumption of each block, which corresponds to its norm. But can one, in the case of a normal regime, speak of an energetic hierarchy? For each block consumes as much energy as it needs, and not in dependence on how much is “allocated” to it in accordance with its place in a hierarchy.

Nevertheless, in observing people the impression is created that some of their psychic functions are more energy-intensive than others. For example, the function of self-assertion in representatives of some types often seems the most noticeable. But possibly here different things are at issue — for noticeability and energetic capacity are not necessarily equivalent.

Proceeding from the analysis carried out, preliminary conclusions may be drawn. 1. Possibly, in socionics the concept of the noticeability of a function and that of its energetic capacity are not distinguished. 2. If this is so, then possibly no energetic hierarchy of functions exists at all. 3. Each function has its own normative energetic provision, which may, however, fluctuate within wide limits depending on innate individual features of the personality and on its personal history, reflected in the differing trainedness of the functions.

Then why does the idea of a hierarchy appear? Perhaps it is a hierarchy by some other criterion? For example, by the criterion of parametric dimensionality, the idea of which belongs to A. V. Bukalov. This is a very productive idea, which may be used to explain the level of instrumental universality of the functions. A. V. Bukalov shows the difference in instrumental universality using the example of the manifestation of the IA of functions of different parametric dimensionality. Thus, one-dimensional introverted logic remains within the bounds of formal logic with its extremely limited correctness. Two-dimensional logic rises to “common sense”, subject to the current banality of rationalism, where an excessively straightforward logicality may be compensated by situational interest. Three-dimensional introverted logic is the logic of invention, the logic of finding a way out of a situation and of sophisticated argumentation. And four-dimensional introverted logic is the logic of discovery, of complex theoretical construction, the logic of high abstractions inherent in mathematics or in the best examples of philosophy with its complex reflections. Such an approach would fully explain the hierarchy of functions, but further justification of it is necessary.

A substantial influence on Tsypin’s interpretation of relations is also exerted by his understanding of the semantics of the functions. Thus, considering the 7th function to be supervising, he describes its interaction with the 3rd function as “a peculiar benevolent supervision of the partner’s achievements in the 3rd function” [8]. “Supervision” is because the author ascribes such semantics to the 7th function, while “benevolence” is because such a contact occurs in the relations of duality and semi-duality, in which these functions meet. That is, the author implicitly understands these relations as benevolent — but their semantics ought to emerge from the semantics of the functions, and not be presupposed as known beforehand because the author learned of it from other sources. As for the “peculiarity”, it has to be added as a kind of intuitive coefficient in order to compensate for the socionic understanding associated with the relation of supervision. For what is at issue is the unmentioned duality and semi-duality, not socionic supervision. However, understanding this function as imperative-temporal, which, according to Aushra, not only imposes nothing on others by its IA but imperatively submits, in its subject matter, to the informational state of the environment, we give an entirely different interpretation of the interaction 7–3, or IVF–ANF. The point is that the ANF responds, by its IA, only in tense situations, while the IVF simply imposes nothing; and so it turns out that two “non-imposing” functions are interacting, which is precisely what sheds light on the semantics of duality and semi-duality. Thus there is no question here of any “peculiar benevolent supervision”. What is at issue here is rather a “peculiar” considerateness, in the sense of not imposing anything on anybody. Besides this, Tsypin considers that the 7th function is stronger than the 3rd, and that influence, in his opinion, has a one-sided character; therefore he adds that “constructive criticism and the provision of information necessary for the effective work of the aspect of the 3rd is possible”. Here it is clear where Tsypin’s “criticism” and “constructiveness” come from, but since the given assessment has a very generalised character, it is not so simple to analyse. For, no doubt, constructive criticism and the provision of information are possible from the PPF, from the KZF and from other functions too, so that such a characteristic is not differentiating for the contact 7–3, although possibly it does not contradict its semantics either.

As one more example, let us consider Tsypin’s interpretation of the link 2–3 (KZF–ANF), which is formed in conflict and in being-supervised. He considers that this contact “forces each of the participants to mobilise his forces in the aspect of the normative function, constantly to work on himself so as not to fall in the partner’s eyes”. Since in assessing the ANF he places the accent on its normativity, one can understand the requirement “constantly to work on oneself” — this is in order to correspond to norms. However, it is quite unclear where the fragment “so as not to fall in the partner’s eyes” comes from. This is some sort of tertiary thematic interpretation, out of place in the basic format of a primary interpretation. All the rest in no way follows from the semantics of the functions he adopts. It is unclear why a communicative function should require mobilisation. The communicative function is tuned to all-round discussion, and in contact with a “normative” one it might discuss the norms. However, the normative aspect of the ANF constitutes only a secondary part of its semantics — the result of adaptation to the environment. The core of this function is confrontation with the pressure of the environment. From this one might understand the requirement “to mobilise one’s forces”, but Tsypin has a different semantics, from which this does not follow. Proceeding from my own understanding of the semantics of the functions in question, I propose an entirely different interpretation: “all-round discussion of the partner’s behaviour in a tense situation”. In a tense situation one must act, not analyse the partner’s behaviour. Understanding such a contact as discussion instead of joint action corresponds to the semantics of the relations of conflict and being-supervised, in which the contact under analysis appears.

I consider that the semantics of a contact of functions is determined by the semantics of the functions entering into it and by the order of their address to one another. Therefore, for example, the contact 1–2 will be interpreted taking into account the concepts standing behind the corresponding functions — program (PPF) and communication (KZF). Thus, in the given case, one function offers a program (I), that is, something fundamental, while the other perceives this program merely as a communicative pretext or as an opportunity “to talk about something”, to socialise, and, among other things, “to look at the proposed theme from different sides, to subject it to logical analysis, to determine its place in the hierarchy of values (l)“. On the other hand, the contact 2–1, taking into account the same key words, may be understood in such a way that one function “simply wants to talk about something, to socialise (l)”, while the other is preoccupied with fundamental things (I) and can offer nothing else. From this the semantics of the mirror relation becomes clear.

One more example. 3–7 = extreme situation + cooperation. An expanded interpretation may look like “expectation of support in extreme situations”. And the contact 7–3 may be understood as “an offer of cooperation in extreme situations”. Both these possibilities describe, from different sides, part of the semantics of duality and semi-duality.

Principles of interpretation of relations

The semantics of relations must be obtained as a superposition of the semantics of the functions meeting in the concrete relations and the semantics of the synergy or antagonism characterising the structural links between the functions.
The semantics of a function may be partly represented by key words characterising the process of work or the end product of the function.
Address is possible from any function to any other, but it is unambiguous for any pair of TIMs.
In order to unify the primary interpretations, we shall begin the reading with the symbol of the first partner (in parentheses).
A primary interpretation is the result of substituting, in place of the symbols of the archetypes, their speech equivalents relating to a concrete subject area and mutually concordant according to the rules of the language. The simplest interpretation is the substitution of key words and key expressions in place of the corresponding symbols. As a result we obtain nuclear judgements.
Secondary interpretations are correct semantic transformations of the nuclear judgements.
Tertiary interpretations are the result of further correct transformations of already existing secondary interpretations, with a transition into other subject areas and thematic spheres.
All primary interpretations must be sustained in a single stylistic and semantic key, and must also belong to one level of generalisation. Thus, by choosing different stylistics, different semantic frames and different levels of generalisation, one may obtain different sets of primary interpretations.

Primary interpretations of all possible contacts of two functions

Taking into account everything said above, one may propose the following primary interpretations of all possible contacts of two functions — far from perfect, incidentally, owing to the difficulty of translating symbolic models into verbal form given the undeveloped state of this theme.

PPF – PPF (TZh, RD): Programs, ideas and possibilities are compared and counterposed to programs, ideas and possibilities. Here they do not yield to one another, but treat one another with understanding and respect. If the programs are close, cooperation is possible. If they diverge, honest competition or separate self-realisation is possible. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort.

PPF – KZF (ZE, KN): Programs, ideas and possibilities serve as a pretext for communication, all-round discussion and critical analysis; they are “brought before the court”. Here nothing can be imposed, but one may try to persuade. Active antagonism. Basic incompatibility. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations.

PPF – ANF (DE, SE): The partner’s programs, ideas and possibilities are evaluated from the point of view of their use in a tense situation. In tense, difficult, labour situations both cooperation and rivalry are possible. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort.

PPF – KKF (KF, PK): Programs, ideas and possibilities are subjected to criticism, rejected, regarded as unacceptable. Here there is basic incompatibility. Nevertheless, cooperation is possible if the partners act consciously and not impulsively. Active antagonism. Compatibility by necessity.

PPF – ERF (DU, PD): Programs, ideas and possibilities are assessed as a life resource. Here programs meet needs for them. Cooperation is possible when programs and needs correspond. Passive synergy. Compatibility by discomfort.

PPF – MMF (AK, ZK): Programs, ideas and possibilities stimulate activity. Here programs meet needs for prompting, stimulation, mobilisation. Cooperation is possible when programs and the mobilisation resource correspond. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

PPF – IVF (PP, MI): The programs, ideas and possibilities of one partner inspire and attract the attention of the other by their novelty and promise. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival and free-time activity.

PPF – RTF (KV, PZ): Programs, ideas and possibilities are regarded as the basis of a technology, as material for introduction into practice. Highly productive cooperation is possible, but on condition of extreme rationality. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

KZF – PPF (ZE, KN): one partner analyses and criticises the programs, ideas and possibilities of the other. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: discussions, discussion of principles, strict upbringing, supervisory functions.

KZF – KZF (TZh, DE): the partners are open to communication, have direct communicative access to one another, but the result depends on mutual usefulness. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

KZF – ANF (KF, KN): distracting conversations under conditions of a tense situation, critical remarks under conditions of force pressure. Active antagonism. Compatibility by necessity.

KZF – KKF (RD, SE): discussion of “difficult”, tabooed or forbidden subject matter. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

KZF – ERF (AK, PZ): an offer of communicative support under conditions of resource deficit, discussion of the partner’s needs. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

KZF – MMF (DU, MI): verbal support of the partner when he needs stimulation. Passive synergy. Compatibility by discomfort.

KZF – IVF (KV, PZ): the partners give one another verbal and other communicative support, helping each other to concentrate on the solution of his own task. Creative, productive compatibility. Active synergy. Sphere of compatibility: free-time activity.

KZF – RTF (PP, PD): the partners give one another every kind of communicative support in the process of productive activity. Productive compatibility. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: joint performance of useful work in a tense situation.

ANF – PPF (DE, SE): under conditions of force pressure from the environment, expectation of help by advice from the partner, use of his ideas and possibilities — but the result depends on interest. Compatibility by comfort. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

ANF – KZF (KF, KN): the means used by one partner in a tense situation are subjected to criticism by the other. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations.

ANF – ANF (TZh, RD): under conditions of pressure from the environment and given a common interest, cooperation is possible. In the absence of common interests, competition with respect for the partner is possible. Compatibility by comfort. Passive antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: community of interests in tense situations.

ANF – KKF (ZE, KN): under conditions of a tense situation one partner offers the other means of resistance unacceptable to him. Active antagonism. Basic incompatibility. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

ANF – ERF (PP, MI): under conditions of a tense situation one partner offers resources adequate to the situation. Passive compatibility. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival.

ANF – MMF (KV, PZ): under conditions of a tense situation one partner motivates and stimulates the other. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

ANF – IVF (DU, PD): under conditions of a tense situation one partner gives the other force support. Compatibility by discomfort. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival.

ANF – RTF (AK, ZK): under conditions of a tense situation one partner offers the other help in productive work. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

KKF – PPF (KF, KN): one partner expects from the other ideas and programs that would not contradict the preservation of his integrity, but he is offered something else. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

KKF – KZF (RD, SE): it is difficult for the partners to discuss certain delicate questions. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

KKF – ANF (ZE, KN): one partner, under conditions of a tense situation, points out to the other the inadmissibility of using inadequate means. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

KKF – KKF (TZh, DE): the partners have their own notions of morality and ethics, but they tactfully avoid discussing such questions. Passive antagonism. Business compatibility. Sphere of compatibility: common interests.

KKF – ERF (KV, PZ): one partner points out to the other the inadmissibility of using certain means as a resource, and the latter agrees. Compatibility. Active synergy. Sphere of compatibility: creativity.

KKF – MMF (PP, PD): one partner points out to the other the inadmissibility of using certain means for mobilising his possibilities, and the latter agrees with understanding. Compatibility. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival and free-time activity.

KKF – IVF (AK, ZK): one partner treats the other’s working state with understanding. Working compatibility. Active synergy. Sphere of compatibility: a breakthrough to the next level.

KKF – RTF (DU, MI): one partner readily accepts the product offered by the other. Compatibility. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival.

ERF – PPF (DU, PD): one partner expects from the other proposals connected with a resource suitable for him. Passive synergy. Compatibility by discomfort.

ERF – KZF (AK, ZK): one partner discusses with the other, in a positive key, problems important to him connected with a resource. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

ERF – ANF (PP, MI): one partner expects support from the other in a tense situation. Compatibility by discomfort. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival.

ERF – KKF (KV, PZ): one partner expects that the other will not criticise or condemn him for using a resource suitable to him. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

ERF – ERF (TZh, RD): the needs of one partner are counterposed to the needs of the other. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

ERF – MMF (ZE, PK): active competition for the resource and for sources of stimulation. Incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations.

ERF – IVF (DE, SE): the needs of one partner distract the other from the solution of his own problems. Conditional compatibility. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

ERF – RTF (KF, PK): the resource claimed by one partner does not correspond to the product produced by the other. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

MMF – PPF (AK, PZ): one partner expects that the ideas, programs and abilities of the other will stimulate him and help him mobilise. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

MMF – KZF (DU, MI): one partner expects that the communicative support of the other will stimulate him and help him mobilise. Passive synergy. Compatibility by discomfort.

MMF – ANF (KV, ZK): one partner expects that the other, in a tense situation, will help him mobilise or will exert a stimulating influence on him. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

MMF – KKF (PP, PD): one partner expects that the other will not criticise him for using certain means to mobilise his possibilities, and the latter may well agree. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival.

MMF – ERF (ZE, PK): the resource on which one partner orients himself arouses dislike in the other. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

MMF – MMF (TZh, DE): the partners have different stimuli of mobilisation and find it very difficult to stimulate one another. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

MMF – IVF (KF, KN): the means of mobilisation of one partner distract the other from the solution of his own problems. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

MMF – RTF (RD, SE): the product produced by one partner irritates the other. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

IVF – PPF (PP, MI): the concentration of one partner is supported by the programs of the other. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival.

IVF – KZF (KV, PZ): the concentration of one partner is supported by the communicative acts of the other. Active synergy. Sphere of compatibility: creativity.

IVF – ANF (DU, PD): one partner receives from the other effective support in tense situations. Passive synergy. Sphere of compatibility: survival.

IVF – KKF (AK, ZK): one partner expects that the other will treat with understanding his concentration on performing his work, on solving his existential problems. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

IVF – ERF (DE, SE): one partner, in the process of working concentration, expects that the other will not distract him with his needs. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

IVF – MMF (KF, PK): one partner cannot accept that the emotional elation of the other distracts him from solving his existential problems. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

IVF – IVF (TZh, RD): the partners have different working states, but given interest they could cooperate; if their interests are opposed, they will compete. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

IVF – RTF (ZE, KN): the working state of one partner distracts the other from obtaining his own product, from his own production process. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

RTF – PPF (KV, ZK): the product obtained by one partner becomes a source of new ideas for the other. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

RTF – KZF (PP, PD): the product obtained by one partner finds communicative support from the other. Passive synergy. Compatibility by discomfort.

RTF – ANF (AK, PZ): the product obtained by one partner is regarded by the other as adequate for use in tense situations. Active synergy. Creative compatibility.

RTF – KKF (DU, MI): the product obtained by one partner is assessed with understanding by the other. Passive synergy. Compatibility by discomfort.

RTF – ERF (KF, KN): the product obtained by one partner does not correspond to the resource the other needs. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

RTF – MMF (RD, SE): the product obtained by one partner does not stimulate the other. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

RTF – IVF (ZE, PK): the product obtained by one partner distracts the other from the solution of his own problems. Basic incompatibility. Active antagonism. Sphere of compatibility: law, discussions, negotiations, or by necessity.

RTF – RTF (TZh, DE): the product obtained by one partner is counterposed to the product produced by the other. Passive antagonism. Compatibility by comfort; free-time activity without obligations or by virtue of personal interest.

Even these interpretations make it possible somewhat to correct the notions about the semantics of relations that have become established in socionics. Thus, although types in the PP relation formally look like a complete inversion of one another, one cannot conclude from this that they are incompatible. As the interpretation of the model of this relation shows, such partners may successfully cooperate in tense situations. A comparison of the contacts of the partners’ functions yields the spectrum of their compatibility, which makes it possible to give recommendations on how to behave with a partner in various situations.

Let us also state some additional considerations concerning the assessment of ITR. The Models A of duals differ in that their mental and vital rings are mutually transposed, that is, the mental ring of one of the duals is structurally identical to the vital ring of the other, and vice versa. Proceeding from general psychoanalytic considerations and from practical experience of observing duals, one may suppose that a person will relate to a bearer of the dual type in approximately the same way as he relates to his own subconscious — that is, at the very least, as to something of his own. Moreover, it appears that the colouring of any relation will be connected with the position of the partners’ program blocks in the models of their types. Proceeding from what has been said, one may conclude that partners in whose mental rings the same IAs are present — irrespective of their arrangement — will experience an initial tension. This applies to the following eight ITR: TZh, ZE, SE, KF, PK, DE, KN, RD. Conversely, partners in whom identical IAs are located in different rings will experience an initial favourable disposition. This applies to the following eight ITR: DU, AK, PP, KV, PZ, ZK, MI, PD.

According to the principle of duality, a correspondence may be established between TIMs and ITR, presented in Table 12.03.

Table 12.03. Correspondence of TIM and ITR

TIM	ITR
Il	TZh (identity)
sE	DU (duality)
Es	AK (activation)
lI	ZE (mirror)
Ei	PZ (reception of request)
lS	PK (being supervised)
Sl	DE (business)
iE	MI (mirage)
Li	KV (quasi-identity)
eS	KF (conflict)
Se	SE (super-ego)
iL	PP (opposition)
Ie	RD (kindred)
sL	PD (semi-duality)
Ls	ZK (request)
eI	KN (supervision)

Perhaps the hardest thing to justify is the correspondence of the TIM Don Quixote to the relation of identity. Many times I have had to hear the objection that in fact any type could turn out to be in first place, since there are no sufficient grounds for considering that the socion must begin with Don Quixote — nor, equally, with anyone else. In this connection one may raise the question whether the socion is a strictly ordered set. In the chapter dealing with the problem of differentiating traits, arguments in favour of strict ordering are adduced. There too a scheme of a rigorous mathematical proof of this assertion is given, so that anyone who wishes may satisfy himself of its validity by carrying out all the operations listed in that scheme — all the more so since there are only five such operations.

Below is a sketch of two formalised interpretations of the ITR. Comparing them, one may notice that they do not fully coincide, although they are close in meaning. This is explained by the difficulty and ambiguity of the substantive interpretation of the corresponding symbolic formulas. The constructions given apparently need refinements and additions connected with the difficulty of unambiguously translating symbolic formulas into a language close to the colloquial; therefore they should be regarded as a preliminary sketch offered for discussion and constructive criticism by all interested persons, which the author will consider a form of collaboration in the difficult business of developing a new scientific direction.

In accordance with the hypothesis advanced earlier, the models of the TIM are matched to the corresponding relations, and then their primary interpretation is given. After this a sketch of an expanded description of the relations is given, using secondary and tertiary interpretations. Thus, matching the model of Don Quixote to the hypothetical model of TZh (identity), we obtain the following.

TZh — the relation of identity

SPEAK, I UNDERSTAND YOU

In the cells of the table, in first place stands the IA of the TIM corresponding to the relation being interpreted, and in parentheses are indicated the IAs corresponding to the model of the ILE. Here they indicate the archetypes of the positional semantics of the corresponding functions of Model A. One may also look at the symbols used in the model of the relation somewhat differently. The symbols standing in parentheses may be understood as the aspects of one partner, and the symbols outside the parentheses as the information aspects of the same functions of the second partner. And since the semantics of the ITR at this level of generalisation is determined by the contact of the functions, it is invariant with respect to TIM. Therefore, without loss of generality, as the first partner we here always take Don Quixote. This is convenient above all because the positional semantics of the functions of Model A is directly connected with the IAs of the functions of Don Quixote’s model.

Augustinavičiūtė–Reinin traits of this relation: ex, be, it, ag, po, us, lg, ab, co, le, qu, ad, ta, ir, st (the ARP poles are conventionally designated by two Latin letters, as is done in Chapter 7).

I(I)  l(l)
e(e)  S(S)
E(E)  s(s)
i(i)  L(L)

In terms of relations this model may be described as follows.

PPF: I(I) — identicals intuitively (I) sense one another’s potential possibilities (I), understand the generalised attitude, the course and direction of the partner’s thought.
KZF: l(l) — communication (l) between identicals represents an exchange of concrete information (l).
ANF: S(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner prompts a demonstration of force (S) by the other as well, which makes them capable of jointly withstanding the pressure of the environment, or else of entering into competitive confrontation.
KKF: e(e) — the critical assessment (e), the critical attitude of one partner toward the other provokes the same attitude (e) in the other.
ERF: s(s) — one partner’s notion of the life resource (s) is comparable with the other’s notion of the life resource (s).
MMF: E(E) — the generalised parameters of one partner’s stimuli (E) are close to the generalised parameters of the other’s stimuli (E).
IVF: i(i) — the working state (i) of one partner is comparable with the working state (i) of the other.
RTF: L(L) — identicals have similar requirements as to the end product (L) and the process of obtaining it (L).

This relation belongs to the category of passive antagonism, because in identicals the mental functions of one partner address the mental functions of the other.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS (secondary and tertiary interpretations)

This relation may quite naturally be called the relation of identity, since it is a relation of identical TIMs and identical functions come into contact in it. However, people with the same TIM may possess strongly differing characters, which may greatly alter the picture of interaction in a concrete pair. Socionics deals with generalised characteristics of relations, without going into the concrete details that depend on concrete circumstances.

When bearers of identical types find themselves in one another’s communicative field, they perceive one another with interest but, as a rule, avoid showing initiative, subconsciously expecting it from the other. Both partners subconsciously feel an attraction to one another and display curiosity and readiness to become better acquainted with someone who is so strongly like them in something not always comprehensible. However, the attraction here does not have an emotional character but rests on belonging to one class of objects. Identicals may render one another help and perform work natural to them that the other needs. They may quickly adapt to joint work in one group, including simply as a pair. In this case there is good mutual understanding, especially if they work under the direction of some third person. If, however, owing to the circumstances that have arisen, one of the partners must take on the direction of the joint work, then the work will proceed successfully only if the second consciously takes on the corresponding part of the duties — that is, if they are able to come to an agreement, for which there are typological grounds.

Each of them has his own world, his own affairs, which they cannot sacrifice; but if their concrete life attitudes, goals, ethical norms and interests turn out to be compatible, they may perfectly well unite their efforts. If between them there are differences of view on matters of principle, it is difficult for them to reconcile these, and after clarifying the state of affairs (for example, after lengthy discussions and arguments) they prefer to remain each with his own opinion and not to try to convert the other; but they are able to accept one another as they are. When identicals find themselves in immediate proximity and intuitively, without verbalising it, recognise their identity, they begin to examine one another with interest, as it were probing, checking and clarifying the partner’s characteristics. In this process the logical, formal and evaluative side outweighs the emotional, which undoubtedly may be present in this relation, as indeed in all others, but plays a passive role here. A man and a woman of the same type may of course fall in love with one another, but such love may quickly pass into friendship, which is also not bad, or ripen to a state in which the people are capable of parting with dignity and respect, which will likewise correspond to the TIM.

Thanks to the effect of sufficient mutual understanding predominating in such a pair, it is relatively easy for identicals to exchange mutually useful and, especially, information new to one of the partners — not necessarily but predominantly verbal, which is, incidentally, coloured by the IA of the KZF. Of course, they may transmit to one another information about dancing, dressmaking and sewing, cooking, or talk about new theoretical conceptions, but the verbal, demonstrating, explaining, sign component plays the predominant role in this case. This state of affairs contributes to an identical being, in comparison with other TIMs, the best teacher.

If the flow of new information dries up, identicals fall silent and may calmly increase the distance, since the relation in this case is maintained precisely by the exchange of information. As Aushra says, “to an outsider observing silent identicals it may seem that they are sulking at one another, but they simply have no topics for conversation at the given moment.” For the identicals themselves silence may become tense, since it looks like doing nothing, and the partners may begin to be burdened by one another’s presence, hurrying off to occupy themselves with something useful.

Besides this, identicals may subconsciously regard one another as members, so to speak, of one clone — that is, as a set of fully identical subjects — although between them, given identity of socionic types, there may be very great differences in character.

At long distances identicals, within the bounds of their competence, easily perceive information generated by another bearer of the same type in statements, books, works of art, political activity.

However, between identicals competition, rivalry, struggle, confrontation are potentially possible. At short and at long distances identicals may wage a struggle among themselves, exert force pressure on one another, but always within the bounds of ethical limitations comprehensible to them, going beyond which they count among “forbidden methods”. Very characteristic in this case is discussion aimed at clarifying concepts or positions.

Volitional pressure from one of the partners evokes corresponding pressure from the other, but all this fits within the framework of functional equality, assessing the partner’s behaviour as admissible and comprehensible, which is formalised in the semantics of the corresponding IA. Thus do wolves, grizzly bears, deer or black grouse fight among themselves — it is a duel within the bounds of basic equality and species limitations.

When in any form of confrontation (competition, contest, rivalry) one of the identicals outstrips the other, wins or gains an advantage, the other is capable of understanding and accepting this as a worthy victory. Nevertheless, the emotional reactions may be arbitrarily strong and have any colouring, from sympathy and admiration to hatred and contempt, but in them there will always be present the element of an attitude toward an equal.

Both partners cannot bear limitations in the sphere connected with their attitude to building relations, but the basic identity of this sphere does not permit them to criticise one another’s ethical attitudes, although they are able to assess critically the other’s critical attitude to ethical attitudes in general. The way in which one partner tries to establish relations with the other does not evoke rejection in the latter, since their basic standards of integrity are the same. However one of the partners may act, for the other it will be self-evident, since, owing to the coincidence of their basic notions of integrity, they cannot impose ethical limitations on one another’s relations and behaviour. They are, as it were, embarrassed by this, and skirt round those moments that fall within the sphere of their mutual psychological or social incompetence, feeling that it is absurd to make the other remarks of this kind, since everything is self-evident anyway and applies equally to you personally. Incidentally, they do not cross the barriers natural to them. In the case of identity, it as a rule simply does not occur to the partners to make one another remarks of a generalised ethical character, even if they do form the impression that some act is inappropriate — they may think that the other has sufficient, though perhaps unknown, grounds for it. Between the partners, in the sphere of incompetence common to them, a tacit agreement establishes itself of its own accord, by virtue of which they do not overstep tabooed limits, and a violation of such an unspoken compact is perceived by each of them as the use of a “forbidden method”.

Identicals have a common zone of expected, presumed or actual resource, which may constitute both the basis of an alliance and interaction and the basis of competition. Identicals are tuned to analogous life resources, and this may both unite them in achieving common goals and become the basis of rivalry. Identicals are capable of becoming for one another a source of life resource, and this could constitute the basis of the well-being of such a tandem. However, this is possible only given a conscious attitude to the common cause, when one of them consciously takes the position of leader while the second helps him to arrange the provision of the life resource, thereby dualising his activity.

Since identicals have similar notions of comfort (compatibility by comfort!), it is not difficult for them to be together and successfully spend time under conditions where one can occupy oneself with something interesting, relax, or where there is no need to exert oneself — that is, where their weak functions are not subjected to loads.

Identicals have similar emotional reactions, and they perceive one another in a similar emotional key. Their primary emotional reactions to one another are to a significant degree equivalent, and they require identical stimuli in order to switch into working mode.

The emotions of identicals have similar parameters. They intuitively understand one another’s emotional states. As a result a peculiar emotional stupor may arise, gradually passing into emotional satisfaction from the recognition of the known. Emotional mobilisation in identicals occurs under similar conditions, and they may jointly spend time connected with entertainment or endure circumstances under which significant working loads fall upon them. However, at the basis of their relations lies, after all, not emotional attachment — which may nevertheless be very strong — but informational, cognitive, communicative-logical interest.

Identicals structure their time analogously; they have a similar attitude to the expenditure of time, a close style of acquiring life experience; they may easily take part in similar sequences of events, travel together, go together to lectures, to a club, take up sport.

Identicals may jointly perform work corresponding to the social request they intuitively perceive. This work may be perceived by them as needed by themselves or by someone else; they may work in one brigade, group or team, when they jointly work out the rules of working behaviour or submit to a third person, and they thereby understand the sense and purpose of the work performed in the same way.

Identicals make up stable and capable groups directed at achieving goals whose character corresponds to the IA of their EGO block, especially when such a group is headed by an identical, a dual or an activator.

The background and content of identity relations improve when the partners do not shut themselves up in a narrow circle, do not impose rigid limitations on one another, do not count on a strong emotional bond, and have common goals.

Love and marriage between identicals may contain all shades from eros to pragma (Meged, Ovcharov), and may turn out to be sufficiently stable on condition that their weak functions are covered by some third party, for example parents, or that they have consciously divided the duties. The partners rather easily accept the other’s experience and way of life.

Sometimes in such cases an illusion of complete well-being may arise; for example, the everyday standard of living of two SEEs may be very high — good housing conditions, well-arranged processes of nutrition and rest — but their spiritual level, viewed from outside, may seem primitive. In the case of two ILEs, however, with joint purposeful work, training, attendance at all manner of seminars, domestic life may turn out to be completely neglected. In these cases a subconscious dissatisfaction may accumulate which in the end leads to the cessation of the relations. Identicals may leave one another with full understanding that their union has exhausted its possibilities and that they must continue their further life path alone or with someone else.

An identical may become the best teacher for another because of the readiness to perceive and the ability to understand one another. The information flow coming from an identical is comprehensible, well perceived (often because of the identity of representational systems) and prompts reflection. Between identicals clarifying discussions and topic-developing debates easily arise. They feel and perceive the topic in a similar way and strive for its optimal development. Here in the foreground is the search for truth.

A large role in the character of such communication is played by the similarity of attitude to the problems connected with the KKF. However, in the case of an intersection of interests, competition and a struggle for power with intrigues and manipulations may easily unfold between them. Yet even so they jointly avoid using methods that are considered forbidden for them, that is, connected with the subject matter of the fourth function. If in competitive struggle one of them gains the upper hand, the second accepts this as the result of real superiority.

The Augustinavičiūtė–Reinin traits inherent in the relation of identity allow us to refine certain parameters of the interaction.

The relations of identicals gain if they are open and take place in an environment of numerous friends and acquaintances. Identicals empathically support in one another the confidence that one must take life lightly and look at things simply. The best regime of relations for identicals is creative cooperation. Spontaneity, freedom, ease, scope, the ability to accept the other as he is, the ability to yield. In the relations of identicals the humour available to them works well. Identicals may permit themselves straightforwardness in judgements and statements. Everything must be constructive, logical and unobtrusive. It is important that they have joint prospects and goals of a strategic order. The stability of their life situation has a positive influence on the identicals’ well-being.

DU — relations of dualisation

OASIS

ARP traits: in, be, sn, ag, ne, us, et, ab, em, le, de, ad, sg, ir, di

s(I)  E(l)
L(e)  i(S)
l(E)  I(s)
S(i)  e(L)

PPF: s(I) — the programs, ideas, abilities and possibilities (I) of one partner are perceived by the other as a resource (s).
KZF: E(l) — communicative acts (l) in such a pair evoke emotional elation (E), and this constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.
ANF: i(S) — volitional readiness (S), mobilisation, a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner is perceived by the other with hope (i), inspiration (i) and a sense of prospect (i).
KKF: L(e) — a positive attitude (e) of one partner toward the technological products (L) of the other prompts the latter to productive work (L).
ERF: I(s) — as the life resource (s) which one partner expects from the other, there must be inspiring ideas and programs (I).
MMF: l(E) — the stimulating influence (E) of one partner on the other is exerted by communicative openness and accessibility (l).
IVF: S(i) — under conditions of working concentration (i) duals provide force cover (S) for one another.
RTF: e(L) — the end product (L) of one partner evokes a positive attitude (e) on the part of the other.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

Duals are able relatively easily to become a source of life resource for one another. What in an identical pair can be achieved only given a conscious attitude to the common cause, in duals comes about by virtue of the natural division of labour in accordance with the IAs of their first blocks. Duals, by providing one another with a resource, help to unfold one another’s potential possibilities.

However, in order for the effect of dualisation to set in, the dualisation ring must switch on, and for this specific conditions must arise — the joint overcoming of discomfort, the essential components of which may be described in terms of the IAs corresponding to the duals’ EGO blocks. In this sense one may say that duals are compatible by discomfort. One of the forms of such a condition is rendering help in performing work that is difficult for the other partner. Duals receive emotional satisfaction from communicating with one another, are emotionally mobilised and feel emotional security in one another’s presence. The emotional reactions of one partner provoke communicative attention toward him on the part of the other. Communication is accompanied by an emotional exchange and by the arousal in one another of positive emotions.

A state of volitional mobilisation on the part of one partner is perceived by the other as important life experience. Under a loading influence of the external environment duals plunge into a state of working concentration on eliminating the real or possible threat. They spontaneously allocate and spend the time necessary, by their notions, in such cases and jointly organise the sequence of their own events in resisting negative loads, performing as required the work adequate to the possibilities and abilities of each of them. In such a pair joint resistance to the pressure of the environment, joint struggle against life’s difficulties represents a vitally important event; the vitally important events in this pair are filled with a joint struggle for existence. If external pressure is absent, life in a dual pair may become stagnant.

Each of the partners in this pair perceives positively the other’s ability to perform productive work in which he is competent. In a critical situation this may serve as an occasion for each partner to take on that part of the necessary work in which he feels competent. In this pair an attempt by one partner to establish relations with the other does not evoke rejection if it is based on rendering help in performing work difficult for the other. A dual is ready, even in contradiction with his own convictions, to perform work for his dual and to give him support in that sphere of life where the latter is insufficiently competent, limited in time, or simply in need of help. By changing the modality of the relation, one partner may influence the features of his partner’s end product or his attitude to productive activity.

Although the essence of dual relations is emotional comfort, it is nevertheless not attained automatically. For this the relation must be tuned, which presupposes the ability to come to an agreement with the partner. According to the model, a dual is ready to respond to the corresponding proposals of his partner, since a priori they must correspond to the subject matter of the IA of his ERF. Still, in this way only a necessary but by no means sufficient condition is formulated. Incidentally, various kinds of expectancies on the part of one of the duals may sometimes be perceived by the other as a burden and evoke a desire to increase and maintain distance, which in turn may aggravate the emotional state of the other.

The feeling of emotional cover that arises in the partner’s presence is expressed in a special sense of security and is apparently due to the closing of the informational rings linking the EGO and SUPERID blocks of the duals. This reduces to a minimum the possibility of informational confrontation with the corresponding possible negative emotional tension. In simple words this is expressed in the fact that what one of the partners offers from his EGO, the other expects and accepts by his SUPERID.

Once relations in such a pair are established, they lead to a mutual emotional feeding which gives the partners the strength necessary for mobilisation and the achievement of joint goals. Since emotionality in the given case is connected with the work of the KZF, it above all has a positive character; however, if negative moments arise, this function may also work in a negative key, using sophisticated manipulative moves. Still, since in a dual pair the KZF addresses the MMF, this leads only to the partner’s emotional mobilisation and does not entail hostile embitterment and estrangement, as might be the case with an address to the KKF.

Duals jointly resist the pressure of the environment, performing as required the adequate work corresponding to their possibilities and abilities. In this pair each partner has an imperative impulse to spend his time supporting the other in tense situations. However, since each of the partners has his own spectrum of what constitutes problems for him, while the second partner is precisely a specialist in solving problems of just that kind, the pair turns out to be capable of withstanding a double set of difficulties. This is one of the causes contributing to the stability of the pair. However, the reverse side of stability may turn out to be stagnation and the loss of prospects.

A dual gives his partner the possibility of freeing himself from performing work that slows self-realisation, and this contributes to unfolding the potential possibilities of each of them. The resource provided by one partner to the other contributes to inspiration and the appearance of original ideas in the second partner. Dual relations are comfortable, which is expressed in the natural division of duties, labour and spheres of responsibility, in the absence of typological reasons for the appearance of negative emotional tensions, in the absence of compulsory duties, when there is no need to establish who is in charge here, while possible labour loads and duties are distributed naturally. Each partner himself takes on the manageable part of the work corresponding to his typological competence. Comfort is the potential possibility and the program of this relation; however, this is only a precondition which will become reality other things being equal.

If the need arises, duals are ready to play the role of intermediary in their partner’s affairs, and do this selflessly and effectively, at the level of performing work in which they are competent.

These relations can truly unfold their possibilities only given close emotional communication on the basis of practical mutual aid, and on condition that the duals manage to teach one another complete trust — but in doing so one should act spontaneously, relying on improvisation, and this does not always come off.

The partners are potentially a source of life resource for one another, and in the broad sense of the word each of them is a resource for the other. One partner is ready and able tactfully to render help in the corresponding specific sphere in which his partner does not tolerate limitations but proceeds from his own notions and interests.

In this pair both partners perceive one another’s life programs with interest; for them this is a positive life resource and they find one another interesting. Communicative acts directed from one partner to the other evoke an emotional elation that gives strength for solving life’s problems. Each of the partners mobilises and resists the pressure of the environment differently, and is ready to use his life experience to help the other. This leads to the partners feeling secure in one another’s presence, and they do not strain one another. An area in which one of the partners is not competent, or to which by the features of his way of life he cannot devote sufficient attention, may relatively easily be taken under control by the dual. Each of them does this relatively easily, although a preliminary tuning or training may be required in order to realise the importance of performing the corresponding section of work for the other or for joint survival. A dual does this tactfully and naturally, so that the other partner experiences no counteraction or feeling of becoming a debtor.

Each partner expects the corresponding information and the corresponding communicative acts containing potential possibilities important for him. When this happens, a person experiences deep satisfaction and quickly restores his expended strength, and his psychic state is harmonised.

The relations develop optimally if the partners spend more time in a narrow circle, act spontaneously and unconstrainedly, place the accent on the emotional side of the relations, and strive to achieve concrete pragmatic goals.

AK — relations of activation

LIFE IS A WONDERFUL ADVENTURE

ARP traits: ex, pr, sn, ag, po, up, et, ab, co, ri, de, ad, ta, ra, di

E(I)  s(l)
i(e)  L(S)
I(E)  l(s)
e(i)  S(L)

PPF: E(I) — the potential possibilities of one of the partners (I), his programs (I) and abilities (I) evoke an emotional elation (E) that contributes to increasing the potential possibilities (I) of the other partner.
KZF: s(l) — in the process of communication (l) activators provide one another with a life resource (s), create comfortable conditions (s), naturally show care (l), improving one another’s well-being (s).
ANF: L(S) — a demonstration of will (S), the provision of force cover (S) by one partner in tense situations ensures productive labour and the obtaining of the end product (L) by the other.
KKF: i(e) — a good attitude on the part of one partner (e) inspires (i) the other.
ERF: l(s) — the life resource (s) which one partner provides to the other is communicative contact (l).
MMF: I(E) — the stimulating influence (E) of one partner on the other is exerted by vivid original ideas, unusual programs and potential possibilities (I) of the other.
IVF: e(i) — the working concentration (i) of one of the partners is assessed positively by the other (e).
RTF: S(L) — the performance of productive work (L) by one partner is ensured by volitional (S) support and force cover (S) on the part of the other.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

A high level of positive emotionality is a potential possibility of these relations; the ideas and proposals of one partner, saturated with potential possibilities, evoke emotional elation in the other.

The essence of these relations is the high emotional elation accompanying them, the emotional mobilisation leading to high productivity of joint work, to a significant increase in labour productivity. However, with the same emotional elation they may quarrel, criticise, excite and provoke one another. Nevertheless, such clashes have no deep consequences. The ideas, life goals and attitudes of each of the partners inspire the other, filling his life with meaning. In one another’s presence the partners feel comfortable and themselves try to create comfortable conditions for one another. The partners are potentially a source of emotional stimulation for one another, and, in the broad sense of the word, each of them is a factor motivating the other’s activity.

The communicative acts of one partner are perceived by the second as comfortable, needed, desired, expected, as carrying and providing a life resource. This is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

In this pair the partners feel a strong emotional attraction to one another; they want to spend time with one another. If this side of their relations acquires a positive shade, then correspondingly their life too is filled with positive content and meaning. If, however, their relations acquire a negative shade, it will likewise be difficult for them to part with one another, and they will just as strongly, as in the positive case, excite one another emotionally. In this case such emotionality will also bear a toning and mobilising character, but this will now be a struggle with one another, and each of them will seek new arguments to prove his rightness. Yet in the depths of their souls they will regret that the conflict prevents them from reaching out their hands to one another.

The partners, in a regime of volitional mobilisation, are capable of jointly performing the necessary work directed at obtaining the end product. If problems arise, of any complexity and any scale, the partners instantly switch into work in order to solve them, and do this persistently and stubbornly. The volitional mobilisation of one partner stimulates the working capacity of the other. This is also perceived as the performance of responsible and necessary productive work aimed at overcoming difficulties connected with a loading influence, with the pressure of the environment, with the features of the situation, or with the conscious achievement of the goals set. One partner has the possibility of changing the other’s well-being, which opens to him the path to direct informational influence upon the latter. The life resource generated by one partner is perceived by the other as a normal communicative act. The expectation of a life resource by one of the partners makes it easier for the other to establish communicative contact. The expectation of a life resource by one of the partners gives the other the possibility of building a chain of arguments capable of changing the former’s convictions.

The partners in this pair, by changing the modality of the relation, obtain direct access to one another’s working state. Relations in this pair are perceived as an important life event into which one can and wants to plunge with full commitment, and which is a source of important life experience. The inspiring ideas, life programs and PV of one partner stimulate the other.

An activation pair, given a positive development of the relation, is capable of developing a high working capacity in order to overcome jointly the difficulties that arise. To achieve sensory well-being (increasing material prosperity, acquiring new things, arranging a joint holiday and so on) the partners can work literally without letting up and with their sleeves rolled up. They energetically support one another. Their working capacity, energy and will combine into a single whole. The volitional mobilisation of one partner stimulates the working capacity of the other.

It is important to note that in this pair each of the partners can do something that comes with difficulty to the other — this is determined by the IAs of all the functions — and this creates a special situation of a secured rear. Even when the partners quarrel, grumble or snap at one another, it is still difficult for them to be without one another, and their life too turns out to be filled with meaning — negative, true, and regrettable. In the case of a negative development of the relation the partners, sensing one another’s vulnerable sides well, become ingenious in ways of stinging one another as painfully as possible.

If the results, near or distant, bring material well-being or emotional satisfaction, then each of the partners perceives the communicative acts of the other as comfortable, needed, desired, expected. In the opposite case the emotional elation gives way to deep depression and distress, which the partners are able to compensate by mutual support.

The potential possibilities of this relation can be fully unfolded only if the partners do not shut themselves up in a narrow circle and find a way to plan their joint activity rationally.

In this pair both partners perceive one another’s life programs and ideas with great enthusiasm. The intensity of their communication, including verbal, is very high, which may require going beyond the limits of the pair; otherwise the energetic overload may reach a critical limit. This entails the necessity of rhythmically changing the distance and passing into a recreational regime.

The energy and intentions of both partners are directed at practical affairs, at arranging life. Each of the partners is suited and attracted precisely by the means the other uses to establish communicative contact and organise communication.

Situations in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment are for the other a sphere of working concentration where he feels free and is ready to help the other, silently, without any conditions, to join him.

That which one of the partners does not accept as self-evident, what limits, as he considers, his freedom, that toward which he expresses his unflattering attitude, is for the other part of his life experience, is connected with important life events, an area of acquiring experience, and he is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with his partner in this area, to share important information with him and unobtrusively to support him.

Each of the partners expects from the activator communicative acts corresponding to the informational content of the interacting functions, and his hopes are justified. The relation is distinguished by high intensity.

Each of the partners subconsciously expects messages about new possibilities, and such messages bring him into a positively excited emotional state, stimulate him.

The activator joins in — willingly, or at any rate imperatively — spends his time and turns into a sequence of life events important for himself activity in that sphere of life in which his partner is insufficiently competent.

Each of the partners is ready to render help and stand shoulder to shoulder with his activator, seeing how the latter mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the surrounding environment.

For the optimal development of relations in this pair the partners should widen their circle of communication, orient their activity toward achieving large but fully materialised results whose significance goes beyond the limits of their pair. They should plan their joint activity, but count above all on energetic and emotional support from one another.

ZE — mirror relations

EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS CORRECT, BUT…

ARP traits: in, pr, it, ag, ne, up, lg, ab, em, ri, qu, ad, sg, ra, st

l(I)  I(l)
S(e)  e(S)
s(E)  E(s)
L(i)  i(L)

PPF: l(I) — the partner’s ideas (I), his programs (I) are perceived as communicative (l) material subject to discussion, refinement and logical processing.
KZF: I(l) — the partners’ communicative acts (l) are directed at the logical evaluation of one another’s programs and PV (I).
ANF: e(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner toward the other is perceived by the latter, because of the immediate contact of these aspects in the model, extremely negatively, as manipulation of the relationship, as a violation of ethical norms (e).
KKF: S(e) — the critical assessment (e) of one partner by the other provokes aggression (S) in the latter, shifts him into a state of volitional mobilisation, of volitional confrontation.
ERF: E(s) — the resource (s) of one partner evokes emotional tension in the other (E), which is explained by the immediate contact of these aspects in the model.
MMF: s(E) — the emotional reactions (E) of one partner have a negative effect on the well-being and resource possibilities of the other (s).
IVF: L(i) — the working concentration (i) of one of the partners distracts the other from the technological process of obtaining his own product (L).
RTF: i(L) — the product obtained by one partner (L), because of the adjacency of the functions in the model, distracts the other from the solution of his own problems (i).

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

The partners understand perfectly the information coming from one another, and intuitively discover what can, from their point of view, be improved and perfected in the partner’s position, behaviour and worldview. The potential possibility of this relation is the joint logical processing of what constitutes the potential possibilities of each of them. This may be not only criticism but also logical development of the theme, refinement, commentary, proof, justification, improvement with a view to practical application — but each of the partners takes a position of principle. What such partners talk about is not only mutually comprehensible but also extremely interesting to them — it touches each of them to the quick. Their emotional reactions, their emotional language, are comprehensible to one another. Unlike identicals, where the exchange of information has a teaching character, mirror partners try substantially to change, refine or develop the other’s point of view. In this pair communicative contact arises imperatively as soon as one of the partners voices some original ideas. The partner’s deep and substantial proposals are subjected to all-round discussion, analysis and criticism. A joint verbal processing of one another’s essential life convictions takes place. This is expressed in criticism, logical development of the theme, refinements, explanations. Precisely such behaviour is the potential possibility of this relation. The theme and basic content of the conversations, the object of all-round discussion and analysis, are one another’s potential possibilities, ideas and plans. This is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

Pressure from the partner is perceived as something subject to critical assessment. Criticism in this pair is accompanied by force pressure, and force pressure evokes criticism. In this pair no one wishes to yield, but the confrontation initially has not a hostile but a resource character. The relations develop on the principle “Plato is my friend, but truth is dearer.” In order to reach consensus the partners need to master special psychological techniques, of the kind used in conflict theory, so as to use them rationally and optimise joint behaviour. In any case patience and tolerance are necessary.

Relations between the partners are characterised by restrained force confrontation. The partner’s ethical position, his way of building relations, provokes force resistance. Therefore the way in which each of the partners builds relations is perceived by the other as insufficiently tactful, and sometimes as intrusive.

One partner, by regulating the modality and intensity of his own resource states, gains access to the other’s emotional complex. The partners’ resources evoke in them mutual emotional tension, which in negative cases may acquire the character of envy or competition. A resource in this relation could be mutual emotional support, similarity of emotional reactions, unity of the language of emotional signals; however, in this relation emotions more often become a hindrance.

A change by one partner of the modality of emotional contact affords him access to the other’s resource states; however, in the mirror relation emotionality hardly yields to regulation at all. The emotional climate in the family, at work, in a communication situation, could become an important condition of comfortable well-being, but in variants of spontaneous interaction this resource turns into a source of irritation.

Each of the partners here is concentrated on defending his own position and solving his own problems, while the working concentration of one partner distracts the other from achieving his goals. One partner may voice many remarks concerning the other’s end product, but often these remarks merely irritate the other. The partner’s life position is assessed from the point of view of his productive labour. Joint work is hampered by the partners’ contradictory assessment of its sense, and also by rivalry and struggle for leadership. There is no basis for a natural division of labour, and without conscious correction of individual attitudes or positive external influence joint productive work is extremely difficult.

In order for the partners in this pair to feel comfortable, they must consciously control their emotions, not allowing them to enter the negative zone, or else consciously adjust to the other when he is out of sorts or, for example, experiencing depression. Well-being here strongly influences the character of joint emotions. Emotions in this pair are weakly controlled. Each of the partners waits from the other for a positive emotional response, but meets an emotional barrier.

Material security, the absence of hard-to-remove domestic problems at work and at home, contributes to harmonising the emotional background. Although these partners experience considerable tension, it is interesting for them to work together, but the circle of communication should be minimal — then it will be easier for them to solve the problems that arise. The presence of outsiders intensifies the confrontation, when each begins to depend on the opinion of those around.

In this pair there is a lack of cohesion, but if these are cultured and well-brought-up people, they will be able to optimise their relations by using rational techniques for organising discussions. However, in such a pair it is desirable to do this in a narrow circle, avoiding wide publicity and appeals for support to third parties, which will only aggravate the situation. Good will is essential.

PZ — the relation of reception of a request (reflects the well-being of the receiver)

I REMEMBER A WONDROUS MOMENT

ARP traits: ex, be, it, bd, ne, up, et, ab, co, le, qu, bg, sg, ra, di

E(I)  i(l)
s(e)  L(S)
S(E)  l(s)
e(i)  I(L)

PPF: E(I) — the programs, ideas, abilities and possibilities (I) of the benefactor, because the interacting aspects belong in each of the partners to different rings, act positively on the emotional sphere (E) of the receiver, evoke emotional elation.
KZF: i(l) — the communicative acts (l) of the benefactor are perceived by the receiver as an important life event (i), opening new prospects (i), as something inspiring (i).
ANF: L(S) — the volitional mobilisation of the benefactor (S) in a difficult situation ensures the receiver’s orientation toward productive work (L).
KKF: s(e) — the positive assessment (e) of the receiver by the benefactor is perceived by the latter as a resource, improves his well-being (s).
ERF: l(s) — the resource states of the benefactor (s) prompt the receiver to communication (l).
MMF: S(E) — the emotional excitation of the benefactor (E) stimulates a state of volitional mobilisation (S) in the receiver.
IVF: e(i) — the state of working concentration (i), the benefactor’s structuring of his working time (i), evoke a positive attitude toward him in the receiver (e).
RTF: I(L) — the productive activity of the benefactor evokes in the receiver deep thoughts, new original ideas (I).

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

The life attitudes, ideas and worldview of the benefactor emotionally mobilise the receiver, become a source of inspiration, arouse a striving to work. The programs, ideas, abilities and possibilities of the benefactor evoke a strong emotional elation, a strong emotional reaction on the part of the beneficiary. New possibilities and prospects open before the receiver; habitual ideas and problems receive an original treatment, which is realised as inspiration. The essence of this relation is a vivid positive emotional reaction to the ideas and potential possibilities offered by or associated with the partner. The receiver perceives and evaluates the benefactor above all emotionally, and at the level of the subconscious considers it his duty to satisfy the benefactor’s expectations. Communication with the benefactor is for the receiver an important life experience, a source of life experience. A request, and even a hint — often unconscious — on the part of the benefactor prompts the receiver to perform the corresponding actions or work, since this is connected with a problem situation in the benefactor’s life, or perhaps only appears so in the receiver’s imagination.

An address by the benefactor to the receiver imperatively draws the receiver into communicative contact. The receiver’s attention is concentrated on what the benefactor does and says. Communication with the benefactor is an important experience in the receiver’s life. He perceives this as a source of promising programs, and this constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

The receiver is ready to be useful to the benefactor precisely in that sphere where the latter experiences difficulties and, according to generally accepted notions, is not quite competent.

The receiver values the benefactor and expects that in the process of communicating with him he will obtain valuable support for himself. The benefactor, by regulating the modality of the resource, obtains communicative access to the receiver. The benefactor has the possibility of changing the receiver’s well-being, which opens to him the path to direct informational influence upon the latter. The life resource generated by the benefactor prompts the receiver to communication. The life resource whose source is the benefactor makes the receiver susceptible to informational influence. The receiver’s expectation of a life resource gives the benefactor the possibility of directed influence upon the receiver.

The volitional mobilisation of the benefactor, his volitional cover of the receiver, exerts a stimulating action on the latter and prompts him to productive activity. This is also perceived as the performance of responsible and necessary productive work directed at overcoming difficulties connected with the pressure of the environment, the features of the situation, or the conscious achievement of the goals set. The benefactor, by regulating the modality of his attitude to the receiver, obtains access to his well-being and other resources. The way in which the benefactor builds relations influences the receiver’s well-being and his resource complex. The benefactor, in establishing relations with the receiver, obtains access to his well-being, which is perceived by the latter as a resource in a sphere where he turns out by some parameters to be incompetent or feels limitations.

The emotional excitation of the benefactor shifts the receiver into a regime of volitional mobilisation and readiness to perform work common to them. If problems of any complexity and any scale arise, the receiver impulsively switches into work in order to solve them, and does this persistently and stubbornly. The volitional mobilisation of the benefactor stimulates the receiver’s working capacity. Volitional stimulation in any form (request, hint) on the part of the benefactor prompts the receiver to perform the necessary work, but this is not perceived as compulsion.

The product produced by the benefactor becomes for the receiver a source of essential growth. Any emotional manifestations on the part of the benefactor mobilise the receiver’s will. This may manifest itself both as a readiness for decisive action and as a counterposition to the benefactor’s emotions, a rejection of them in the case of a negative development of relations. If the benefactor shares his life experience or his plans for the future, this disposes the receiver to establish and maintain relations with him. The state of working concentration, the benefactor’s structuring of his working time, the benefactor’s life experience, dispose the receiver to maintain relations with him. When the receiver sees how the benefactor engages in productive activity, deep thoughts arise in him; this makes him advance ideas connected with new potential possibilities for other people, for the nation, for society.

The benefactor’s need for a resource prompts the receiver to maintain positive communicative contact with him. The receiver tries to realise the benefactor’s ideas, supporting them with a high level of emotionality, but for the benefactor this is of no particular interest, since the verbalisation of the idea is in itself self-sufficient for him, after which the idea as it were ceases to interest him^5, because he passes on to the next one.

In order for these relations to develop harmoniously, the partners in this pair should not shut themselves up in a narrow circle but, on the contrary, lead an active way of life, communicating with a large number of people. From the receiver’s point of view, this relation is a source of emotions and creative energy prompting him to creative self-realisation with regard for the temporal prospect.

PK — being supervised (reflects the well-being of the supervisee)

IN THE CROSSHAIRS

ARP traits: in, be, sn, bd, po, up, lg, ab, em, le, de, bg, ta, ra, st

l(I)  S(l)
I(e)  e(S)
i(E)  E(s)
L(i)  s(L)

PPF: l(I) — the ideas and life programs (I) of the supervisor prompt the supervisee to communicative contact with the supervisor and to their logical analysis (l).
KZF: S(l) — a communicative address (l) on the part of the supervisor imperatively mobilises the will (S) of the supervisee and prompts him to resistance.
ANF: e(S) — a demonstration of force on the part of the supervisor in tense situations is perceived by the supervisee negatively, as manipulation of the relationship, as a violation of ethical norms (e).
KKF: I(e) — a critical attitude on the part of the supervisor (e) prompts the supervisee to re-evaluate his ideas, programs and potential possibilities (I).
ERF: E(s) — the supervisor’s resource (s) evokes emotional tension (E) in the supervisee.
MMF: i(E) — vivid emotional manifestations of the supervisor (E) imperatively distract the supervisee from working concentration (i).
IVF: L(i) — the supervisor’s working concentration (i) distracts the supervisee from productive labour (L).
RTF: s(L) — the supervisor’s performance of any productive work (L) distracts the supervisee from obtaining a life resource (s).

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

For the supervisee the ideas, life attitudes and programs of the supervisor are in themselves no better and no worse than other analogous information, and he is capable of analysing them with interest, subjecting them to logical processing, discussing them from all sides. However, when the supervisor begins in one form or another to communicate to the supervisee his views on life, the latter reacts to this as to an attempt to impose on him too rigidly certain rules, norms of behaviour or principles, as a result of which he takes up a defensive position. Since in the supervisee the defence of his own views on life is connected with the KZF, he does this creatively, flexibly, consciously, skilfully manipulating force pressure. In the case of a positive development of the relation this occurs with observance of the rules of morality and of playful forms of exit from tense situations. However, in the case of a negative course of affairs the supervisee may behave in the highest degree unceremoniously and rudely. Much here depends on how the supervisor behaves. This contact may be valuable, may be dangerous for the supervisee, but it is difficult to evade, since it has an imperative character. An address by the supervisor to the supervisee provokes in the latter a readiness for immediate decisive action, which in particular may manifest itself as volitional resistance on the part of the supervisee. Communicative initiatives on the part of the supervisor are capable of evoking a reaction of force rebuff and volitional counterposition from the supervisee. Any attempt by the supervisor to explain something to the supervisee evokes resistance in the latter, and this constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

The supervisee relates tensely to the supervisor’s requests or orders, presuming that he is abusing the situation or exceeding his authority. Even in the case where the supervisor is the immediate superior, his orders and instructions are perceived as tactless, offensive, biased, rude. Pressure on the part of the supervisor is perceived by the supervisee as something subject to critical assessment. Volitional pressure (request, instruction, order) on the part of the supervisor evokes displeasure and condemnation on the part of the supervisee.

Regulation, a change of the modality of the relation by the supervisor, initiates in the supervisee a creative process of advancing original ideas and programs, which, for example, may find expression in the search for convincing counter-arguments or in a wish to reflect on the meaning of life. An attempt by the supervisor to establish relations with the supervisee is perceived by the latter as manipulation directed at changing his life attitudes, as an attempt to criticise his abilities and talents. A change of the modality of the relation, a critical attitude on the part of the supervisor toward the supervisee, becomes for the latter a source of new creative ideas and designs, a stimulus to changing his life attitudes and programs. The supervisor, by regulating the modality and intensity of the life resource, obtains access to the emotional structures of the supervisee. A resource for the supervisor in this relation is the emotional reaction on the part of the supervisee. A change by the supervisor of the modality of emotional contact distracts the supervisee from concentration on the solution of his own problems. The emotional mobilisation of the supervisor is for the supervisee a source of acquiring negative life experience, is for him a tense event. A change by the supervisor of the modality of his own working state opens to him access to the supervisee’s productivity. A demonstration by the supervisor of his own life experience distracts the supervisee from obtaining his end product.

The supervisee feels that his ideas and life programs are perceived by the supervisor critically, with suspicion. When, however, the supervisor willingly or unwillingly displays incompetence in some sphere of life (from the point of view of public morality), the supervisee may criticise him rather sharply, but does this, as a rule, outside direct contact with him. An attempt by the supervisor to establish relations with the supervisee is perceived by the latter as manipulation.

If the supervisor, trying to help the supervisee, provides him with a life resource, this evokes an inadequate emotional response on the part of the latter. When, however, the supervisor becomes emotionally excited and against this background begins to do something, this distracts the supervisee from his own goals. This combination of symbols may also be interpreted in the sense that, in order to teach the supervisee something, the supervisor must do so against a background of positive emotions, wishing him well and in fact doing him good — but it is very difficult for him, if possible at all, to find an adequate tonality for this. The supervisor tries to appeal to his own life experience in order to prompt the supervisee to occupy himself with productive labour or at least simply to “get down to business”, as the supervisor conceives it, but this only distracts the supervisee from his business. If, however, the supervisee is a witness of the supervisor engaging in productive labour, this worsens his resource complex.

This relation calls into question the supervisee’s life positions. It can unfold optimally only at close distance, without witnesses. The supervisor touches the supervisee’s life principles and tries to “set him on the true path”. The best strategy for the supervisee consists in agreeing on the basis of some rational procedure, in finding a common language with the supervisor, in planning his relations with him. The potential possibility of the given relation is the acquisition of useful practical knowledge directed at improving the well-being of the pair.

If the supervisee owes something to the supervisor or depends on him, then, reluctantly, he carries out the order or somehow satisfies the request; if, however, there is no definite dependence, the supervisee tries to be outside the field of the supervisor’s influence.

The supervisee perceives the supervisor’s programs as a problem and a challenge, as something to which one must react actively and creatively, discuss, process, accept or not accept for execution, which he does in accordance with the information aspects of his type. The supervisor’s characteristic manner of communication, his manner of behaving during conversation, evoke force resistance on the part of the supervisee — it strains him, irritates him, evokes a desire to break off relations, which may find expression in irony, sarcasm, rudeness. Pressure on the part of the supervisor is for the supervisee something that limits his freedom, that touches and shocks him. What is unacceptable for the supervisor constitutes an essential part of the supervisee’s life programs, as a result of which tension is formed between the partners. The supervisor expects the supervisee to be loyal toward him, but this emotionally strains the latter. The supervisor subconsciously expects the supervisee to be accessible and open before him, but this touches the latter to the quick. The supervisor is ready and even feels an impulse to intervene or to render help if asked, to set an example in the corresponding specific sphere in which, as it seems to him, the other needs support — but he runs up against incomprehension.

DE — business relations

IN THE SAME HARNESS

ARP traits: ex, pr, sn, bd, ne, us, lg, ab, co, ri, de, bg, sg, ir, st

S(I)  l(l)
e(e)  I(S)
E(E)  i(s)
s(i)  L(L)

PPF: S(I) — the ideas and PV (I) of one partner collide with the volitional counterposition (S) of the other.
KZF: l(l) — communication in this pair (l) is predominantly verbal (l) in character, with the accent on a sober and uncompromising logical (l) discussion of the subject matter proposed.
ANF: I(S) — volitional mobilisation (S), a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner prompts the other to seek adequate (I) means at the level of high technologies (I) for resisting the pressure of the environment and supporting the other.
KKF: e(e) — the critical assessment (e), the critical attitude of one partner toward the other provokes the same attitude (e) in the other.
ERF: i(s) — the life resource (s) on which one partner orients himself arouses doubt (i) in the other.
MMF: E(E) — the emotional mobilisation (E) of one partner needs to be concorded with the conditions of the other’s emotional mobilisation (E). Both partners need emotional stimulation (E) from outside and cannot be a source of emotional stimulation for one another, which considerably complicates their everyday communication.
IVF: s(i) — the working concentration (i), the life experience (i) of one partner needs to be concorded with the life resource (s) and the analogous parameters of the other.
RTF: L(L) — the productive labour (L) of one of the partners, his end product (L), needs to be concorded with the partner’s attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

The ideas, life positions and programs of one of the partners are counterposed to the will of the other and to his volitional mobilisation. The partners have no basis for emotional attraction, and if they see no practical benefit for themselves in interacting with one another, they simply go their separate ways. Communication is predominantly verbal and at the same time creative in character. It is an interested discussion on the subject matter of the IA, an intellectual structuring of the subject matter discussed, its rational criticism. In a tense environment the volitional readiness of one partner becomes a source of essential ideas and inventiveness in the other, which contributes to finding a way out of the situation. The partners have similar spheres of life in which they do not allow themselves to be limited in questions of ethics and relations, and the partners, subconsciously sensing this, avoid touching provocative and dangerous themes or do so very cautiously. The resource on which each of the partners orients himself evokes rejection in the other, and each of them prefers to content himself with his own notions of comfort and quality of consumption. The partner seems strong-willed, inclined to dominance, and one is left with the impression that he will start unceremoniously interfering in your affairs. However, if your original proposals suit him, he may become a reliable support, and with his help it will be possible to realise your programs and life attitudes. The partner is treated soberly, but one is ready to consider his proposals attentively, and if they turn out to be promising he will be supported by all available means. The useful ideas of one partner become the basis of readiness for decisive action in the other; the useful ideas and life programs of one partner give birth to a volitional impulse in the other. The volitional readiness of one partner becomes, in a tense environment, a source of essential ideas and inventiveness in the other, which contributes to finding a way out of the situation.

This is an interested but critical discussion on the subject matter of the IA, an intellectual analysis of the subject matter discussed, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair. Both partners cannot bear limitations in the sphere connected with their attitude to building relations, but the basic identity of this sphere does not permit them to criticise one another’s ethical attitudes, although they are able to assess critically the other’s critical attitude to ethical attitudes in general. A change of the modality of the relation by one partner is assessed by the other from the point of view of his own ethical complex, and if for some reason this does not suit him, he will consciously and calmly refuse the presumed or already existing communication. Since the partners have a similar attitude to limitations in questions of ethics and relations, they, subconsciously sensing this, avoid touching provocative and dangerous themes between themselves, or do so very cautiously.

Both partners need similar emotional stimulation from outside and cannot be a source of emotional stimulation for one another, which considerably complicates their everyday communication. Such a barrier may partly be removed by a joint meal with drinks, but this helps only if a joint business interest appears. Positive emotions find a response in the form of the same emotions. Correspondingly negative ones too. The humour of one of the partners evokes a positive response in the other.

In this pair, given common interests, the partners naturally distribute their functional duties: one provides volitional support and cover, while the other forms the programs of joint activity, as a result of which each turns out to be leader in his own sphere and no grounds arise for a struggle for leadership — but a struggle may arise over the size and proportion of the reward.

Communication in this pair is predominantly verbal and low in emotion, while the partners carefully study one another’s proposals and positions, trying to get to the essence of the matter, criticising or, where appropriate, developing one another’s ideas. The partners try to present themselves in the best light, to show their advantages and to gain recognition, respect and support from the other. On the whole the relation has an irrational character, in which the partners take decisions on the principle “yes — yes, no — no”, and there is no sense in trying to talk one another round here.

In the case of a positive development of the relation the partners show tact and skirt round those spheres of life in which they do not allow their notions of interpersonal relations to be limited. Therefore, however either of them may act, for the other it will be something self-evident, provided only it does not touch what they have accepted as the basis of their joint interest. They do not impose limitations on one another’s relations and behaviour, being as it were subconsciously embarrassed to do so, feeling that it is absurd to make the other remarks of this kind, since everything is self-evident anyway, and you yourself in analogous cases act in exactly the same way, make the same blunders and errors. However, in the case of hostile confrontation they may violate this tacit prohibition and may begin to project their own shortcomings onto one another, and each of them will accuse the other of what is characteristic precisely of himself and not at all of the partner.

One partner, by changing the modality of his emotional manifestations, obtains access to the other’s mechanisms of mobilisation. Attention from one partner influences the other’s well-being. The partners spend their time on the sensory arrangement of joint life, on creating comfortable conditions, take care of their state of health, and, given a common interest, try to provide one another with various possibilities.

The provision of information about personal life experience is perceived tensely, as incomprehensible and at times as senseless or strange, which in the case of a negative development of events may be used against him.

The partners relate tensely to violations of ethical norms on one another’s part, and at the same time they are strained and constrained by the fact that in the other’s presence one must constantly keep oneself under control. With prolonged joint work, growing used to one another, such people may work “without ties and jackets”, and elements of familiarity may appear.

If one partner provides the other with certain possibilities, the latter perceives this with a certain degree of awkwardness, as something unforeseen or inappropriate. In one another’s presence such partners tune themselves as necessary to a working mode, and if the details are agreed they work productively; therefore such partners may work in a team, group or brigade, but under the direction of some third person.

This relation will develop more favourably if the partners do not shut themselves up in a narrow circle but act jointly on a wide public arena. At the basis of this relation lies a practical approach to solving life’s problems; therefore, for example, a married couple with such a relation will turn out to be stable and successful if the spouses pursue concrete goals connected with material well-being, expansion of production, increase of their influence. Here pragmatics and sober calculation predominate, while emotions and lyricism recede into the background, though of course they are not excluded.

MI — mirage relations

AT A PICNIC

ARP traits: ex, be, it, ag, po, us, lg, gd, em, ri, de, bg, sg, ra, di

i(I)  E(l)
L(e)  s(S)
l(E)  S(s)
I(i)  e(L)

PPF: i(I) — the ideas and life programs (I) of one partner are perceived as an important life event (i), inspire (i), give birth to plans for the future (i) and a vision of life prospects (i) in the other partner, evoke in him a feeling of freedom and emancipation (i).
KZF: E(l) — communicative attention (l) on the part of one partner evokes a surge of positive emotions (E) in the other, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.
ANF: s(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner is perceived by the other as a life resource (s).
KKF: L(e) — a positive attitude (e) of one partner toward the technological products (L) of the other prompts the latter to productive work (L).
ERF: S(s) — as the life resource (s) which one partner expects from the other, there must be force cover (S), a feeling of security (S).
MMF: l(E) — the stimulating influence (E) of one partner on the other is exerted by his communicative accessibility (l) and openness.
IVF: I(i) — the working state (i) of one partner prompts the other to offer original ideas (I), life programs (I) and possibilities.
RTF: e(L) — the end product, the productive activity (L) of one partner evokes a positive assessment and a positive attitude (e) on the part of the other.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

In this pair the partners exchange life experience important to them, perceived by the other as interesting, inspiring information giving birth to original ideas and a sense of prospect. Such information may entertain and maintain recreational tone, but may also prove useful for practical application. With such an interlocutor one is not bored; he does not look like a bore; one can spend time pleasantly with him. In his presence one feels light and unconstrained. Such communication commits one to nothing, and parting with the partner remains without any dramatic consequences whatever. One partner’s exposition of his programs to the other emancipates him, prompts him to dream of the future, to make plans.

The ideas and life programs of one partner are perceived by the other as valuable experience. A story about one’s life, the unfolding of a series of events, a description of one’s own experience by one partner is perceived by the other partner as something essential, enriching in life experience.

Force cover of one partner by the other is perceived by the latter as the provision of a life resource.

Each of the partners in this pair looks favourably on the other’s ability to perform productive work. In a critical situation this may serve for each partner as a natural occasion to take on that part of the necessary work in which he feels competent. In this pair an attempt by one partner to establish relations with the other does not evoke rejection if such an attempt is based on rendering help in performing work that is difficult or uncharacteristic for the other. In this relation one partner is ready, in accordance with his convictions, to perform work for the other and to give him support in that sphere of life where the latter is insufficiently competent, limited in time, or simply in need of help, which in tense situations leads to a rapid division of labour by the criterion of typological competence. By changing the modality of the relation one partner may influence the features of his partner’s end product or his attitude to productive activity.

The partners receive emotional satisfaction from communicating with one another, are emotionally mobilised and feel emotional security in one another’s presence. The emotional reactions of one partner provoke communicative attention toward him on the part of the other. The recollections, dreams and plans for the future of one partner, his emancipation, are perceived by the other as valuable ideas, original programs, as a guide to action, as something inspiring.

In the process of communication the partners exchange emotional remarks and, so far as possible, entertain one another, cheer one another up and joke. Such relations may attract the partners, and even given strong pressure from those around them both sides may find satisfaction in such relations. In communication both partners display elements of artistry, as a result of which it affords both of them aesthetic satisfaction as well; it often resembles a theatrical performance and is, in essence, an undemanding and pleasant way of passing the time.

As a life resource the partners are ready to provide one another with force cover, and such a pair under conditions of pressure from the environment turns out to be a viable fighting unit. An essential concern in this pair consists in stocking up the necessary resources in case of unfavourable circumstances.

In performing joint work such partners display sufficient tact, which has a favourable influence on the productivity of each of them. Joint work does not evoke tension and is perceived as free creativity.

The partners may demonstrate, and often sincerely, a display of care for one another’s well-being, trying to do something concrete and practical for one another, to provide the other with the resource he needs.

In this pair the partners are able to satisfy one another’s essential needs connected with their socionic type, and offer one another not only unobtrusive everyday care but also situational force support, which in tense situations proves extremely necessary. The partner’s behaviour is perceived as inspiring and encouraging, and in tense situations as adequate support. The partners expect force support in the defence of their living space and the provision of a domestic rear in everyday life, when the circumstances for coming closer turn out to be most favourable.

Emotional manifestations on the part of one of the partners attract the communicative attention of the other. The level of communication here, without changing the quality of the synergy, may vary within a wide range from light flirtation to stable partnership, may be superficial, short-lived, or may reach the level of serious intentions without demonstrative obligations.

A demonstration of potential possibilities by one partner is perceived by the other as an essential life event, as something that rivets attention, that is interesting to watch and listen to, that may be of practical use but may also entertain, and about which one may on occasion tell others as of something essential. A kind, sensitive attitude on the part of the partner evokes a desire to do something for him, to help and support him.

This relation is irrational, introverted, ethical, intuitive, and for its optimisation the partners must be in a narrow circle, be spontaneous, avoid pedantry, fault-finding, grumbling. Both the emotional side of communication and its possible practical results are important here. The transmission of information essential to oneself, of one’s life experience, stories about one’s life by one partner is perceived by the other as something interesting, entertaining, amusing, enriching in life experience; something about which it is interesting to talk, which represents a definite value of communication. The exchange of life experience and emotional support constitute the essence, the basic potential of this relation.

KV — relations of quasi-identity

MY, HOW ORIGINAL YOU ARE!

ARP traits: ex, be, it, ag, po, us, lg, gd, em, ri, de, bg, sg, ra, di

L(I)  i(l)
s(e)  E(S)
S(E)  e(s)
l(i)  I(L)

PPF: L(I) — the ideas and life programs (I) of one partner are perceived by the other as a basis for developing new technological schemes (L), as an inspiring impulse (I) for productive work (L).
KZF: i(l) — communicative attention (l) on the part of one partner inspires (i) and evokes in the other a desire to share his life experience, his plans, his vision of the future (i), and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.
ANF: E(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner evokes a positive emotional elation (E) in the other.
KKF: s(e) — a favourable assessment (e) by one partner of the other’s needs (s) is perceived as natural and necessary support.
ERF: e(s) — as the life resource (s) which one partner expects from the other, there must be a kind, understanding attitude (e).
MMF: S(E) — the stimulating emotional influence (E) of one partner on the other mobilises his will (S).
IVF: l(i) — the working state (i) of one partner imperatively shifts the other into a positive communicative regime (l) adequate to the situation.
RTF: I(L) — the productive activity (L) of one partner gives birth to original ideas (I) in the other.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

Force presence on the part of the partner is not perceived by the other as pressure but rather as a game or an invitation to dance, and evokes emotional elation, excites and tones, which may unfold into a broad interaction with large goals. If the periods of close communication of such partners are relatively short and their spheres of interest are well demarcated, then the partners do not greatly burden one another, and their communication easily becomes exceptionally productive.

The partners see the possibility of practical use of one another’s ideas, and try in every way to help one another in this. One partner’s story about his life, the description of his life experience and plans for the future, prompts the other to communication and to all-round discussion of what he learns in the process of communication. The partners are ready to spend their capacity for structuring space and time on making the environment of their habitation more potential, more saturated with possibilities.

This relation is extraverted, logical, rational, intuitive, and for optimal development it needs a wide circle of communication, where all sides of the problems of interest to the partners can be successfully discussed, and where one can also act on a large scale. It is desirable here to use rational procedures for reaching consensus. It is also important that the discussion be conducted in a forward-looking key, with an emphasis on practical use, although theoretical variants — especially within the development of a concrete scientific idea — are also possible; but in any case one should act on a contractual basis, clearly distributing and stipulating rights and duties, without limiting one another’s freedom.

KF — the relation of conflict

AND WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU?

ARP traits: in, be, sn, ag, ne, us, et, gd, co, ri, qu, bg, ta, ra, st

e(I)  S(l)
I(e)  l(S)
i(E)  L(s)
E(i)  s(L)

PPF: e(I) — the ideas and life programs (I) of one partner are assessed above all from an ethical (e) point of view and are immediately subjected to harsh criticism (e) if they do not satisfy ethical (e) criteria.
KZF: S(l) — a communicative address (l) on the part of one partner imperatively strains the will (S) of the other. Communicative contact (l) in this pair is based on volitional (S) confrontation.
ANF: l(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner is perceived by the other as a communicative provocation (l), as tactlessness, and is subjected to criticism (l).
KKF: I(e) — the critical assessment (e) of one partner by the other is perceived by the latter as something essential (I), fundamental (I), requiring a serious (I) answer.
ERF: L(s) — as the life resource (s) which one partner expects from the other there must be productive labour (L) bringing a real product (L), which is counterposed to useless conversations.
MMF: i(E) — the emotional reaction (E) of one partner to the other distracts the latter from his working concentration (i).
IVF: E(i) — the working concentration of one partner, his life experience (i), plans for the future (i) evoke a negative emotional reaction on the part of the other.
RTF: s(L) — the productive labour and end product (L) of one partner is perceived by the other as a defective or insufficient source of life resource (s).

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

In this pair it is difficult for the partners from the very beginning to accept one another’s basic values, and quite quickly they discover that their life positions are scarcely compatible. Given an unconscious (natural) attitude to the situation, they discover in themselves a striving to expose the partner’s “erroneous”, as it seems to them, notions of life, which leads to an ever-accumulating irritation, ending in estrangement and counterposition. A critical vision of the other’s situation is the potential possibility of this relation.

Both partners are capable of demonstrating principled irreconcilability and of displaying open and almost unmotivated aggression toward the other, which in this case constitutes the basic content of the communicative acts. The partners constantly, as it were, keep one another in the crosshairs, and this forces each of them to display tact and caution in order to avoid complications. The relation may develop in a positive key if both sides display tolerance toward one another’s life attitudes, avoid criticising one another’s ideas and programs, and also adhere to rational rules of behaviour. In particular, in such a pair it is better not to use humour, since it is incomprehensible to the other.

The valuable and essential ideas of your partner you perceive as a challenge, as an encroachment on your notions of the permissible and the impermissible. You express your unflattering attitude toward your partner’s life programs, subject them to criticism. These relations touch the potential possibilities of both sides. The partners have to find a precise balance in their relations on the basis of their life programs and potential possibilities. Between the partners relations connected with definite rules of behaviour must be clarified and established. If these rules are accepted and the sides adhere to them, then, although this strains the partners, the relations become productive. Clarifying the ethical adequacy of the other’s potential possibilities is the potential possibility of this relation.

Communicative contact in this pair is based on volitional confrontation. When one of the partners attempts to explain something to the other, he runs up against decisive rebuff. Both sides exchange force influences; force confrontation in this relation represents a communicative act, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

A change of the modality of the relation by one partner initiates in the other a creative process of advancing original ideas and programs, which, for example, may find expression in the search for effective counter-arguments or in a prompting to reflect on the meaning of life. An attempt by one partner to establish relations with the other is assessed by the latter as manipulation directed at changing his life attitudes, as an attempt to criticise his abilities and talents.

The partners expect deeds from one another, not words. It would be convenient for each of them if the other simply worked, brought in money, provided the material side of life.

This relation is optimised if the partners provide one another with concrete life resources, take care of one another’s well-being, state of health and comfort, and talk less.

When, however, one of the partners begins to unfold his programs, the other has a reaction of rejection — one’s own programs are nearer the skin.

If the partner, using various approaches, tries to reduce the distance too quickly, then this is perceived as intrusiveness, manipulation, for the partners as it were “see right through one another” and use any opportunity to say everything they think about the partner. From the very first meeting the partners exert volitional and ethical pressure on one another, presume and expect from one another the observance of ethical norms, demand that in their behaviour they not go beyond certain limits, which are defined by them subjectively within the bounds of their cultural level and the features of the environment in which their interaction takes place.

Any free statement, without particular control of one’s own actions, by either side in this pair evokes a tense attitude, a negative assessment, condemnation, criticism, which is justified by a conscious or subconscious appeal to certain socially sanctioned norms. In a neutral setting this manifests itself in a tensely wary, suspicious and biased perception of the other’s ideas, programs, life attitudes and intentions. In a tense setting it leads to open confrontation, conflict, an unflattering and at times unceremonious settling of accounts.

It seems to the partners that they must settle their accounts, put everything in its place, obtain a just — as each of the partners subjectively understands it — attitude toward themselves. But given an unconscious perception of themselves and of their own actions, this does not come off very successfully for them.

The partners in the given case expect from one another direct material support and everyday provision, which would allow each of them to realise his possibilities and look into the future without apprehension; whereas any abstract conversations divorced from practice lead in this pair to tension. Both partners find the other’s personal life experience interesting, but not his views; and if they manage to find a way of taking this into account, they will only marvel at the inexhaustible source of strong and positive emotions that may open before them. The partners sense well one another’s emotional state and emotional pressure. The relation is oriented toward great emotional tension, toward the display of enthusiasm in the effort to remake one another.

The relation is optimised if the partners render one another concrete material and everyday help, take care of one another’s well-being, state of health and comfort.

It is easier for the partners to find the right tonality in communicating with one another if they are alone, without witnesses. The partners should use rational procedures for establishing consensus, and agree on the distribution of duties. So far as possible one should avoid abstract conversations and orient oneself toward concrete results.

SE — the super-ego relation

I AM YOUR CONSCIENCE

ARP traits: in, be, sn, ag, ne, us, et, gd, co, ri, qu, bg, ta, ra, st

S(I)  e(l)
l(e)  I(S)
L(E)  i(s)
s(i)  E(L)

PPF: S(I) — the ideas and PV (I) of one partner collide with the volitional counterposition (S) of the other.
KZF: e(l) — communication in this pair (l) has the character of ethical manipulation (e), in which persuasion, compliments, blackmail, lies and so forth are brought into play.
ANF: I(S) — volitional mobilisation (S), a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner prompts the other to seek adequate (I) means at the level of high technologies for resisting or for supporting the partner, since both cases are possible.
KKF: l(e) — there is a critical assessment (e) by one partner of the communicative means and abilities (l) of the other.
ERF: i(s) — the concern of one of the partners with satisfying his life needs (s) activates the other toward achieving his own goals (i).
MMF: L(E) — the emotional reactions (E) of one partner worsen the productive work (L) of the other.
IVF: s(i) — the working concentration (i) of one partner has a negative effect on the physical tone (s) and working capacity of the other, creating a situation of “bodily tracking”, when the partners feel one another “with their gut” (s).
RTF: E(L) — the productive labour, the end product (L) of one partner evokes negative emotions (E) in the other.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

In this pair both sides perceive one another as very strong, dominating leaders, as equal in strength and influence. At first glance they feel a hard-to-explain attraction to one another and a peculiar barrier hindering rapid and easy rapprochement. The partner is perceived as a person who has something you lack, who could become a good complement to you and on whom one could lean in order to achieve one’s goals.

The very appearance of the partner suggests the necessity of being polite and tactful in communicating with him. The partners mutually sense one another’s strength, and neither of them would wish to fall victim to some manipulation, although each willingly tries to manipulate the other, trying to talk him round or charm him, without resorting to logical arguments, which are useless here.

The partner seems strong-willed, inclined to dominance; there is an impression that he could become a reliable support, that with his help it will be possible to realise one’s programs and life attitudes; the partner is interesting, his possibilities seem promising. The ideas of one partner become the basis of readiness for decisive action in the other, but this decisiveness may turn out to be directed against his ideas and against the partner himself; the ideas and life programs of one partner give birth to a volitional impulse in the other. To the ideas of one partner the will of the other is counterposed.

The partners, so far as possible and in accordance with the circumstances, are tactful and cautious in dealing with one another, try to build their relations carefully, but at the same time try to avoid or neutralise the presumed and possible manipulation on the part of the other, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

The volitional abilities of one partner become, in a tense setting, attractive to the other, who begins to generate original ideas and displays inventiveness in order to find a way out. In a calmer setting this may be realised as a business proposal to a person whose volitional abilities could ensure the advancement of the initiator’s ideas. In the case of mutual agreement and success, the partners’ contribution to solving the problem is a worthy one.

The communicative acts of one partner, the features of his verbal communication, vocabulary, logic, argumentation, may seem to the other doubtful, inappropriate or incorrect. His communicative actions directed at establishing relations are perceived as suspicious, manipulative, limiting freedom and sovereignty; they put the other on his guard and provoke caution in communication.

The concern of one of the partners with satisfying his life needs strengthens the other’s striving to achieve his own goals. The provision by one partner of a life resource to the other seems to the latter inadequate, not corresponding to his notions of his own plans for the future, forces him to plan his life differently, gives rise to a feeling of restricted freedom. The partner’s work, his end product, evokes negative emotions, something like envy. The emotional reactions of one partner have a negative effect on the productivity of the other.

The working concentration of one partner has a negative effect on the physical tone (s) and working capacity of the other, creating a situation of “bodily tracking”, when the partners feel one another “with their gut” (s), which may find expression in jealousy and envy.

The partners spend their time on arranging their joint life, creating comfortable conditions, take care of their state of health, try to provide one another with various possibilities — but this strangely leads to a loss of life prospects.

The partners feel an obligation to show one another new possibilities, to open up prospects, to widen horizons, but this comes off rather clumsily and without particular success and, at best, finds expression in an ever greater increase of material resources, in a striving to lead a glamorous way of life that merely masks spiritual emptiness and dissatisfaction.

The partners expect support from one another, a demonstration of personal example, are interested in the other’s life experience, but in the end come to disappointment. The business qualities of one disappoint the other.

If the partners manage to establish personal relations, to conclude an alliance, then they achieve the greatest success in the sphere of arranging their joint life, creating comfortable conditions, caring for their state of health. In this sphere the partners are ready and try to provide one another with various possibilities, but this is insufficient for spiritual self-realisation, which pushes them toward an increase of illusory effects.

However, if one of the partners tries to play a double game, takes a manipulative position, “pulls the blanket over to his own side”, the second reacts instantly and with all possible directness and passion exposes such behaviour as unacceptable, and this resounds painfully in the soul of the “violator”.

The relation is optimised, its development takes a favourable course, if the partners do not restrict themselves to a narrow circle but are among a large number of other people. Less planning, more spontaneity, openness, directness, no intrigues. Joint actions should be directed at obtaining a practical result. Of great value in this pair are the emotional forms of life.

PP — relations of opposition

WE ARE TWO BANKS OF ONE RIVER

ARP traits: in, pr, it, ag, ne, up, lg, gd, co, le, de, bg, ta, ir, di

i(I)  L(l)
E(e)  s(S)
e(E)  S(s)
I(i)  l(L)

PPF: i(I) — the ideas and life programs (I) of one partner are perceived as a source of inspiration, as an important life event (i) helping one to concentrate on the prospect (i); they evoke in him a feeling of freedom and emancipation (i).
KZF: L(l) — communication (l) in this pair is based on performing productive work (L), on obtaining a product useful to the sides.
ANF: s(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner is perceived by the other as a life resource (s).
KKF: E(e) — there is a positive assessment (e) by one partner of the emotional reactions (E) of the other, an understanding of his emotional manifestations.
ERF: S(s) — as the life resource (s) which one partner expects from the other, there must be force cover (S), a feeling of security (S).
MMF: e(E) — the stimulating emotional influence (E) of one partner on the other is exerted by his kind attitude (e).
IVF: I(i) — the working concentration of one partner prompts the other to generate new valuable ideas (I).
RTF: l(L) — the productive labour (L) of one partner disposes the other to positive communicative support (l) of his activity.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

The partners are attracted by one another’s life experience. The study of another’s experience in this pair is the potential possibility, the basic value of this pair. This is so interesting that it is capable for a long time of compensating for domestic discomfort. A story about one’s life, the unfolding of a series of events, a description of one’s own experience by one partner is perceived by the other partner as something essential, enriching in life experience, inspiring, painting prospects. The partners relatively easily find a common language if they manage to do something useful for one another, jointly to perform some practically important work. This comes about especially naturally in tense situations. Communicative acts in this relation are everything connected with performing concrete work useful to both partners, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

A demonstration of force in tense situations by one partner is perceived by the other as a source of protection, as a life resource. The provision by one partner to the other of a definite life resource evokes on the other’s part a volitional mobilisation directed at supporting the partner in difficult situations.

Excessively stormy and immediate emotional reactions are perceived in this pair as inappropriate, as not corresponding to the view of a sage who understands the vanity and transience of human life. Each of the partners intuitively senses this and they do not cross the corresponding boundaries, restraining their emotions, which, incidentally, comes to them in this case without particular difficulty.

Force cover of one partner by the other is perceived by the latter as the provision of a life resource.

From time to time the partners may demonstrate inflexibility of will, exceptional obstinacy; sometimes their behaviour may be provocative, teasing, but this is perceived rather as permissible originality and a lawful right than as a wild escapade, and as something interesting, capable of entertaining and encouraging, though possibly superficial or accidental.

Even the fact that these partners manage to establish contact is in itself an astonishing fact and evokes in both sides deep, hard-to-express emotions. The emotional reactions and emotional manifestations of either partner are perceived with understanding by the other, but the partners do not cross the corresponding boundaries even without that, since they are able to control their emotions while in contact with a bearer of the TIM opposite to theirs. Of course this must apply not only to logical types but to ethical ones as well. It may seem strange that, for example, bearers of the TIM Es or Ei should restrain their emotions; but on coming into contact with bearers of the opposite TIMs eS or, correspondingly, eI, likewise capable of high emotionality, they subconsciously shift into a “low-emotional” regime, empathically sensing the necessity of more restrained behaviour in the given case.

The very establishment of relations, simply an open attempt on the part of one partner to establish any relations at all, evokes an emotional response in the other. To talk, to communicate with the other — this is already work; such a form of social occupation ought to be paid, as, for example, is done in the case of teachers or medical personnel.

The partners subconsciously expect from one another force cover and an attitude acceptable to them on the part of the other, which is naturally achieved in this pair thanks to typological specialisation. Let us note, incidentally, that Aushra gave this relation the name “full opposition, extinguishment” on the formal ground of the heterovertedness of identical functions, but this does not correspond to the psychological essence of this relation, which belongs to the group of passive synergy, where there is a mutual usefulness of the partners connected with complementary typological features. A more suitable name here might be “heterovert complement” or “working complement”, as distinct from duality, where the complementarity is predominantly emotional.

The partners may discuss quite abstract problems connected with general principles in a sphere that interests them both, and their positions complement one another well.

The relation develops optimally if the partners impose no conditions on one another, behave spontaneously, preserve a sufficient psychological distance, spend more time alone with one another, and for the most part perform mutually useful work.

RD — kindred relations

YOU AND I ARE OF ONE BLOOD, BUT…

ARP traits: ex, be, it, bd, ne, up, et, gd, em, ri, de, ad, ta, ir, st

I(I)  e(l)
l(e)  S(S)
L(E)  s(s)
i(i)  E(L)

PPF: I(I) — the partners intuitively (I) sense one another’s potential possibilities (I).
KZF: e(l) — communication in this pair (l) has the character of ethical manipulation (e), in which persuasion, compliments, blackmail, lies and so forth are brought into play.
ANF: S(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner prompts the other to mobilise (S), which makes them capable, when interests coincide, of jointly resisting the pressure of the environment, or else, when interests do not coincide, of competing with one another.
KKF: l(e) — there is a critical assessment (e) by one partner of the communicative means and abilities (l) of the other.
ERF: s(s) — the partners have similar notions of the life resource (s), which may be good well-being (s) and high physiological tone (s), which may easily become a cause of disagreements.
MMF: L(E) — the emotional reactions (E) of one partner distract the other from his productive work (L).
IVF: i(i) — the working state (i) of one partner is counterposed to the working state (i) of the other.
RTF: E(L) — the productive labour, the end product (L) of one partner evokes negative emotions (E) in the other, to compensate for which a heightened interest is needed.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

In this pair the partners instantly catch the general course of one another’s thoughts and the possible features of their behaviour. The ideas, potential possibilities and life programs of one partner the other partner senses intuitively. The partners understand one another’s generalised attitude, the course and direction of thought; they understand one another, but do not necessarily accept.

The partners are tactful and bold in dealing with one another, try to build their relations carefully, but at the same time avoid the presumed and possible manipulation on the part of the other, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

The communicative acts of one partner, the features of his verbal communication, vocabulary, logic, argumentation, seem to the other works of art, and often are such. Communicative actions directed at establishing relations are perceived in this pair as very emotional, although they often turn out to be manipulative, limiting freedom and sovereignty.

Kindred types have a common zone of expected, presumed or actual resource, which may constitute both the basis of an alliance and interaction and the basis of competition. Kindred types are tuned to analogous life resources, and this may both unite them in achieving common goals and become the basis of rivalry. Kindred types are capable of becoming for one another a source of life resource, and this could constitute the basis of the well-being of such a tandem. However, this is possible only given a conscious attitude to the common cause, when one of them consciously takes the position of leader while the second helps him to arrange the provision of the life resource, thereby dualising his activity.

Since kindred types have similar notions of comfort (compatibility by comfort!), it is not difficult for them to be together and successfully spend time under conditions where one can occupy oneself with something interesting, relax, or where there is no need to exert oneself — that is, where their weak functions are not subjected to loads. For kindred types similar conditions and situations are comfortable; they may spend time together in comfortable conditions when there are no aggravating circumstances.

At first it is not even clear how the partner’s work can evoke tense emotions and wariness; but in the case of kindred relations the partners do not understand one another when one of them tries to perform physical work. This puts them on guard and strains them. It seems to one partner that the other is too unsuited for such work, that he would do better to occupy himself with something else.

The partners try so far as possible to entertain one another, to teach and to learn from the other what he can do.

If the development of events in this pair takes on a negative character, the partners may enter into a struggle of force in which any means may be employed — mockery, insults and even slander — but this is always very witty. It is very difficult for the partners to trust one another completely, since each of them has his own notions of what must be done and how one should behave. Any actions of one partner, if they are in one way or another directed at the second, may be assessed as manipulative.

If the partners’ programs coincide, they consider it their duty to defend one another, to help in structuring space and information, and here they may attain heights of mastery.

The partner’s professional activity, his special abilities, may evoke a restrained or tense emotional reaction. The partners expect from one another the performance of practical work directed at improving well-being and conditions of existence, but they cannot fully provide this for one another. They may easily take part in similar sequences of events, travel together, take part in club activity — everywhere they can feel sufficiently light and unconstrained.

The partners try to inspire one another, providing each other with information connected with life experience, but very often behind this stands manipulation.

In order for this relation to develop optimally, the partners should spend more time among other people, in the presence of acquaintances and relatives, be spontaneous, not plan joint actions, not demand pragmatic returns from joint actions, and appeal to the other’s emotions and emotional experience.

PD — the semi-dual relation

FEDOT — BUT NOT THAT FEDOT

ARP traits: in, be, sn, bd, po, up, lg, gd, co, ri, qu, ad, sg, ir, di

s(I)  L(l)
E(e)  i(S)
e(E)  I(s)
S(i)  l(L)

PPF: s(I) — the programs, ideas, abilities and possibilities (I) of one partner are perceived by the other as a resource (s).
KZF: L(l) — communication (l) in this pair is based on performing productive work (L), on obtaining a concrete product.
ANF: i(S) — volitional readiness (S), mobilisation, a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by one partner is perceived by the other as force cover, inspires the other (i), instils hope in him (i).
KKF: E(e) — there is a benevolent attitude (e) of one partner toward the emotional states (E) of the other.
ERF: I(s) — as the life resource (s) which one partner expects from the other, there must be inspiring ideas (I).
MMF: e(E) — the stimulating influence (E) of one partner on the other is exerted by his positive attitude (e).
IVF: S(i) — the state of working concentration (i) of one partner is supported by the volitional mobilisation (S) of the other.
RTF: l(L) — the productive labour (L) of one partner disposes the other to positive communicative support (l) of his activity.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

Semi-dual relations are potentially comfortable; in them there is no need to establish who is in charge here, while possible labour loads and duties are distributed naturally, since each partner himself takes on the manageable part of the work. Comfort (s) and positive well-being (s) are the potential possibility (I) of this relation. The partners take care of one another, protect and use one another’s life resource. Communicative acts in this relation are everything connected with performing concrete work useful to both partners, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

A state of volitional mobilisation on the part of one partner is perceived by the other as important life experience. Under a loading influence of the external environment the duals plunge into a state of working concentration on eliminating the real or possible threat. They spontaneously allocate and spend the time necessary, by their notions, in such cases and jointly organise the sequence of their own events in resisting negative loads, performing as required the work adequate to the possibilities and abilities of each of them. In such a pair joint resistance to the pressure of the environment, the joint struggle against life’s difficulties, represents a vitally important event; the vitally important events in this pair are filled with a joint struggle for existence.

Like dual relations, semi-dual relations may likewise turn out to be comfortable, to ensure rapid restoration of working capacity and life resource, to improve well-being and to promote everything that helps to ensure the realisation of life programs. Here there is no need to struggle for leadership or to presume manipulation. Each in the pair preserves for himself, and tries to provide the other with, the necessary freedom. Work and duties here are distributed naturally, since each partner himself takes on the manageable and natural part of the work. The partners not only feel the necessity of caring for one another but also apply the efforts necessary, by their notions, to maintain one another’s life resource in good order.

One another’s emotional reactions may evoke tension, and the partners, sensing this, do not cross the corresponding boundaries, restraining, masking, concealing their emotions. Emotional reactions to one another in this pair are limited, restrained, perceived as not entirely tactful and, at any rate, as not subject to emphatic demonstration.

Excessively frank emotions the partners perceive as not entirely appropriate. In this pair the partners are more restrained and more demanding toward one another than in dual relations. The theme of an advance of possibilities is expressed here more vividly. Here there exist tacitly presumed rules which the partners do not consider it permissible to violate. A violation of such rules may lead to a cooling and a rupture of relations, which may nevertheless not have a scandalous character but reduce to an increase of distance — which, incidentally, may prove no less dramatic. The partners expect a sensitive and attentive attitude toward their potential possibilities and await from one another the provision of the necessary life resources.

Semi-duals, by providing one another with a resource, help to unfold one another’s potential possibilities. They listen with pleasure to messages about potential possibilities, share dreams and fantasies, working out joint programs and programming one another.

The very establishment of relations, simply an open attempt on the part of one partner to establish any relations at all, evokes an emotional response in the other.

The partners are ready to mobilise their will to support one another; they defend one another and give one another concrete force support; this is vitally important for them, this constitutes the basic content of their relations. Communicative acts in this pair have the character of work and in fact represent physical work; conversations and communication have a pragmatic character. To talk, to communicate with the other, to give him concrete advice so that he can sort out his problems and solve them — this is already work; such a form of social occupation ought to be paid. Such, for example, is the work of a doctor, a nurse, an attendant, a nanny and others.

In the process of these relations the partners perform actual work for one another; for them this is natural, it is done at the level of a communicative act. The work they perform for one another is performed creatively and is directed at maintaining the partner’s life resource, improving his well-being, his conditions of existence. In this pair the partners take care of one another’s well-being and find concrete ways to ensure the achievement of the objective goal of this relation.

The partners consider it their duty to remove tension from one another and from those in their immediate vicinity. They try to demonstrate ease and humour in difficult situations; however, this comes off only conditionally, since behind the deliberate ease and humour real emotional tension is concealed.

The pair is characterised by a striving to entertain one another and those around them with ease and humour, to remove or reduce anxiety and emotional tension; however, this comes off only conditionally, since behind the deliberate ease and humour real emotional tension and a notion of the real state of affairs are concealed.

The partners try to help unfold one another’s potential possibilities, listen with great interest to messages about new possibilities, share dreams and fantasies, working out joint programs and programming one another with the aim of optimising the relations.

In this pair relations are not established so easily, since the partners strive to subordinate emotional self-expression to conscious control. The product of the given relation is the directed use of one’s own will for the joint structuring of space.

This relation is irrational, sensory, logical, introverted. Its characteristics improve if it unfolds in a close circle without the involvement of helpers, witnesses, observers. A third is superfluous — he immediately draws attention to himself, leads one of the partners away, and they accept this as self-evident, since they do not consider it possible to limit the other’s freedom, and they suppress the emotional impulse that arises. The relation has a pragmatic character and is directed at obtaining a materialised result. Spontaneity in this relation contributes to its optimal development.

ZK — request (the well-being of the benefactor in this relation)

A PLEASANT SURPRISE

ARP traits: ex, pr, sn, bd, ne, us, lg, gd, em, le, qu, ad, ta, ra, di

L(I)  s(l)
i(e)  E(S)
I(E)  e(s)
l(i)  S(L)

PPF: L(I) — the ideas and life programs (I) of the receiver are perceived by the benefactor as a basis for creating productive technological schemes (L).
KZF: s(l) — the receiver, communicating (l) with the benefactor, becomes for the latter a source of resource (s).
ANF: E(S) — the volitional mobilisation (S) of the receiver in tense situations evokes a positive emotional reaction (E) in the benefactor.
KKF: i(e) — the benevolent attitude of the receiver (e) toward the benefactor inspires him, is perceived by him as an important life event.
ERF: e(s) — the life resource (s) of the receiver is positively assessed (e) by the benefactor.
MMF: I(E) — the emotional mobilisation (E) of the receiver prompts the benefactor to generate original ideas and programs (I).
IVF: l(i) — the working concentration (i) of the receiver prompts the benefactor to positive contact (l) with the partner.
RTF: S(L) — the productive labour (L) of the receiver is supported by the positive volitional mobilisation (S) of the benefactor.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

The ideas and life programs of the receiver are perceived by the benefactor as a basis for productive work and prompt the benefactor to occupy himself with creating productive technological schemes directed at securing life. The receiver, by changing the modality of his PV, obtains direct access to the benefactor’s productive sphere. It is interesting to note that in the interpretation made above of the PPF of the reception of a request, the active source of information turns out to be the receiver and not the benefactor, since the receiver’s programs are used by the benefactor in order to do something. If such an interpretation is correct, then the sense of this relation loses the straightforward unambiguity that ought to be presupposed by the scheme benefactor–beneficiary, in which the first always performs the dominant role while the second turns out to be merely the executor of the first’s designs.

Comparing the two halves of the relation request–beneficiary, one may see that the benefactor’s ideas, having evoked the emotional mobilisation of the receiver and having passed through a complex transformation in the partners’ psychic structures, become a source of the receiver’s original ideas, which the benefactor turns into technologies, while the benefactor’s productive activity again becomes a source of the receiver’s original ideas. If this is so, then such a scheme of information processing by the partners turns out to be pragmatically effective.

That the receiver, communicating with the benefactor, becomes for the latter a source of resource, is not difficult to understand in the sense that the benefactor not only has the possibility of asserting himself in communicating with the receiver, but also receives the initial material which he may turn into a technology and further use it to obtain a life resource. We see also that in this scheme of interaction the receiver, obtaining his share of the resource, is not left short-changed. For example, in the pair Ls–Il the ideas of the first inspire the second, as a result of which he discovers certain laws on the basis of which the first develops a new technological scheme and obtains a new product. Therefore one may doubt that “the relation is based on the one-sided provision by the receiver of the life resource that the benefactor needs”. Yes, the roles of the partners here are asymmetrical, but it does not follow from this that the receiver experiences a basic discomfort. The resource provided by the receiver to the benefactor represents a relation based on a respectful attitude to the partner — that is, the receiver relates to the benefactor with respect, and the benefactor perceives this positively.

That the volitional mobilisation of the receiver in tense situations evokes a positive emotional reaction in the benefactor allows them jointly to resist tense situations. Both partners in this pair relate to one another positively — this follows from the fact that functions from different rings enter into contact; but perhaps somewhat unexpected is the fact that the benevolent attitude of the receiver toward the benefactor inspires the latter. Incidentally, this is not difficult to understand as a demonstration, a teaching or an opportunity to assert oneself.

The life resource of the receiver, his needs and expectations, are positively assessed by the benefactor, which makes it possible to see the benefactor as a mentor, and a friendly-minded one at that. Now it is no longer difficult to understand that the emotional mobilisation of the receiver, his emotional elation, prompts the benefactor to generate original ideas and programs. Now the ring of positive feedback in this pair closes — the ideas of one inspire the other, and the inspiration gives birth to new ideas.

That the working concentration of the receiver prompts the benefactor to a positive discussion of his situation may be understood in the sense that the benefactor helps the receiver with advice, and this advice is not only useful and appropriate to the latter, but is also communicative contact. The receiver’s working concentration accompanies his obtaining of the end product, which in turn leads to the positive volitional mobilisation of the benefactor, energetically ensuring the productive labour of the receiver.

In the receiver the benefactor acquires a grateful listener. To appreciate this side of the given relation it is enough to imagine a person expounding his ideas with inspiration to an audience consisting of his pupils and admirers. The receiver, communicating with the benefactor, tries to create comfortable conditions for him. The receiver, maintaining communicative contact with the benefactor, improves his well-being. The communicative acts of the receiver are perceived by the benefactor as comfortable, needed, expected, as carrying and providing a life resource. The communicative acts of the receiver become for the benefactor a source of resource. An address by the receiver to the benefactor becomes for the latter a source of self-assertion. This is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

The benefactor, by changing the modality of the relation, obtains direct access to the receiver’s working state. Relations in this pair are perceived as an important life event into which one can and wants to plunge with full commitment, and which is a source of important life experience.

The given relation will develop optimally if both partners do not restrict themselves to a narrow circle of communication and adhere to a rational style of behaviour. It is best for the receiver from the very beginning to be in the position of pupil, and for the benefactor in the position of teacher or instructor. The relation will only gain if the partners direct their efforts at achieving a practical result.

KN — supervision (reflects the well-being of the supervisor)

EVERYONE ON EDGE

ARP traits: in, pr, it, bd, po, us, et, gd, co, le, de, ad, sg, ra, st

e(I)  I(l)
S(e)  l(S)
s(E)  L(s)
E(i)  i(L)

PPF: e(I) — the ideas and life programs (I) of the supervisee, his life positions, evoke a critical attitude (e) on the part of the supervisor.
KZF: I(l) — the communicative behaviour of the supervisee (l), his way of reasoning and building argumentation, are in contradiction with the programs and potential possibilities (I) of the supervisor.
ANF: l(S) — a demonstration of force (S) in tense situations by the supervisee is perceived by the supervisor as a communicative provocation (l).
KKF: S(e) — the supervisee critically assesses (e) the force pressure (S) on the part of the supervisor.
ERF: L(s) — as the life resource (s) which the supervisee expects from the supervisor, there must be productive labour (L) bringing a real product (L).
MMF: s(E) — the emotional mobilisation (E) of the supervisee is in contradiction with the supervisor’s notions of the life resource (s).
IVF: E(i) — the working concentration of the supervisee (i) is in contradiction with the emotional mobilisation of the supervisor.
RTF: i(L) — the productive labour of the supervisee, his end product (L), is in contradiction with the working tone (i) of the supervisor.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

The supervisor is on principle not satisfied by the ideas of the supervisee and by his life positions. When the supervisee enters into immediate communication with the supervisor, the latter imperatively comes up with essential remarks which he would like to communicate to the supervisee so that he might optimise his behaviour (“for his own good”). The supervisor has other values, which makes him fastidious toward what the supervisee does and says. However, this fastidiousness is entirely purposeful. The supervisor wants the supervisee to change in the main thing — in his attitude to life.

The communicative behaviour of the supervisee, his way of reasoning and building argumentation, are in contradiction with the programs and potential possibilities of the supervisor. The supervisor comes up with original ideas concerning the supervisee, which the former tries to bring home to the latter, and this is what constitutes the basis of communication in this pair.

The force resistance of the supervisee, his displeasure, his evasion of contact, his reaction to the pressure which, as it seems to him, the supervisor exerts upon him, evoke on the latter’s part reproaches, irony, exhortations, all-round discussion. The supervisor relates critically to the fact that the supervisee tries to resist attempts to help him, to set him “on the true path”, and senses well the restrained displeasure of the supervisee expressed in force confrontation, which may manifest itself in both open and veiled forms.

The supervisee expects deeds from the supervisor, not words. It would be convenient for him if the supervisor simply worked, created values, provided the material side of life, and talked less.

The emotional mobilisation, the emotional excitation of the supervisee is in contradiction with the supervisor’s notions of the life resource. The working concentration of the supervisee is in contradiction with the emotional mobilisation of the supervisor. The productive labour of the supervisee, his end product, is in contradiction with the supervisor’s working regimes.

When the supervisee expresses displeasure at concrete actions of the supervisor, which the former perceives as pressure, the supervisor responds by trying “for educational purposes” to bring the supervisee to reason, reproaching, exhorting, ironising over him, appealing to his conscience, and so forth.

When the supervisee refuses to act in accordance with the supervisor’s notions and, so far as possible, behaves independently, this evokes a negative reaction on the part of the supervisor, since he considers that his demands, criticism and proposals ought to be taken into account by the supervisee; and his behaviour may become aggressive over a wide spectrum — from grumbling, reproaches and criticism of varying sharpness and irony to direct force pressure and physical violence.

In the case of a negative development of events, when the supervisee for some reason cannot escape direct contact with the supervisor, he finds himself in a difficult emotional position. He is threatened by depression, loss of optimism, reduction or loss of working capacity, disturbance of mental equilibrium up to psychic disorder of varying degree.

In the case of a positive course of affairs, however — which depends on the level of development of each of the partners — when the supervisee, on the one hand, is capable of accepting the challenge coming from the supervisor, and the supervisor, on the other hand, is able to control his behaviour and takes account of the supervisee’s state, the latter may in a short time master regimes of behaviour that had been inaccessible to him and thereby widen the range of his adaptation.

Everything in the supervisee — his past, life experience, plans for the future — finds in the supervisor an emotional response manifesting itself in incomprehension, irritation, indignation, bewilderment and so forth, which tells on the supervisee’s state.

This relation is distinguished by ethical sharpness and tension. Given an optimal development it is capable of leading to an increase in the supervisee’s potential possibilities, but it can become effective only in the case of rational behaviour by both sides and a minimisation of the sphere of communication (it is desirable to communicate one to one).

If anyone should need to obtain the 256 interpretations of the pairwise relations of all the types of the socion, then for this one may substitute in the models obtained, in place of the IAs of Don Quixote in parentheses, the IAs of all the other types in turn.

Let us consider two very similar models — activation and request. Despite the external similarity, it is not difficult to discover that their structure differs in a definite way.

In the AK model one may discover four short symmetric cycles: E(I) – I(E), i(e) – e(i), s(l) – l(s), L(S) – S(L). In the ZK model, however, there are two long asymmetric cycles: E(I) – S(E) – L(S) – I(L) and i(l) – l(s) – s(e) – e(i). In symmetric cycles the aspects in each pair are represented on an equal footing, which finds its correspondence in the interpretation of such a cycle. For example, the expression E(I) – I(E) may be understood in such a way that the ideas of one partner evoke emotional elation, stimulate the other, while the emotions of the second partner inspire the first to creativity in which new ideas are born.

Considerably more complicated is the interpretation of a long asymmetric cycle. For example, the expression E(I) – S(E) – L(S) – I(L) may be understood in such a way that the ideas of the first evoke the emotional elation of the second; the emotional elation of the second leads to the volitional mobilisation of the first; the mobilisation of the first, in its turn, stimulates the productive labour of the second; and finally the products of this labour inspire the first to creativity in which new ideas are born.

The indicated difference makes it possible to divide relations into symmetric and asymmetric ones. A certain theoretical significance attaches to the question of how internal structural differences can appear in the relatively simple structure of a model of a relation. The nature of this phenomenon is connected with the combinatorics of the functions in the model of the relation. Regarding a relation as an operator transforming the addresses of the functions, it is not difficult to notice that the whole set of addresses is obtained as the result of four groups of cyclic permutations, four functions in each group, which corresponds to the structure of each of the rings of Model A (see Table 12.04).

Table 12.04. Permutations corresponding to the relations


1234 TZh	5678 DU	6587 AK	2143 ZE
2341 KN	6785 ZK	5876 PD	1432 RD
3412 SE	7856 PP	8765 KV	4321 KF
4123 PK	8567 PZ	7658 MI	3214 DE

Comparing the resulting permutations in pairs, one may see that in some pairs the numbers of the functions are placed in such a way that the number of one function coincides with the number of the position in which the other function is located, and vice versa, while in other pairs this is not so. The first case corresponds to models with short symmetric cycles, the second to those with asymmetric long ones. Structural features of this purely formal kind have their projections in the semantics of the relations. In particular, this manifests itself in the fact that relations with short cycles are symmetric, whereas those with long cycles are not.

2. Description of intertype relations on the basis of the model of contact of functions with identical information content

For convenience in modelling the ITR let us make use of the representation of the model of the TIM as a vertical column, in which the functions follow one another in order. We shall not draw lines of interaction, but shall consider that each relation transforms the sequence of functions of one TIM into the sequence of functions of the other, which sharply simplifies the representation of the contact of functions and gives an adequate apparatus for a full description of relations. Such an approach makes it possible to evaluate a relation as an operator⁴ transforming one sequence of functions into another.

The complete table of contacts of functions in the ITR will look as shown in Table 12.05.

The figures before the symbols of the IAs indicate the number of the partner’s function with which, in the given relation, the corresponding function of Don Quixote’s model is in contact. For example, 5s for the dual relation (DU) means that Don Quixote’s first function is in contact with the fifth function of Dumas, and the letter s is the IA of Dumas’s first function, which is at the same time Don Quixote’s fifth function. All this may be understood in the sense that Dumas’s 1s interacts with Don Quixote’s 5s.

In order not to tie the model of the relation to Don Quixote’s model, it is sufficient to remove the letter designations of the IAs from Table 12.05, and then we obtain Table 12.06.

Table 12.05. Contact of functions in the relations (IA symbols shown)

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1I	5s	6E	2l	8L	4e	3S	7i	8L	4e	3S	7i	1I	5s	6E	2l
2	2l	6E	5s	1I	5s	1I	2l	6E	7i	3S	4e	8L	4e	8L	7i	3S
3	3S	7i	8L	4e	6E	2l	1I	5s	6E	2l	1I	5s	3S	7i	8L	4e
4	4e	8L	7i	3S	7i	3S	4e	8L	5s	1I	2l	6E	2l	6E	5s	1I
5	5s	1I	2l	6E	4e	8L	7i	3S	4e	8L	7i	3S	5s	1I	2l	6E
6	6E	2l	1I	5s	1I	5s	6E	2l	3S	7i	8L	4e	8L	4e	3S	7i
7	7i	3S	4e	8L	2l	6E	5s	1I	2l	6E	5s	1I	7i	3S	4e	8L
8	8L	4e	3S	7i	3S	7i	8L	4e	1I	5s	6E	2l	6E	2l	1I	5s

Table 12.06. Contact of functions in the relations of TIMs, without IA symbols

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1	5	6	2	8	4	3	7	8	4	3	7	1	5	6	2
2	2	6	5	1	5	1	2	6	7	3	4	8	4	8	7	3
3	3	7	8	4	6	2	1	5	6	2	1	5	3	7	8	4
4	4	8	7	3	7	3	4	8	5	1	2	6	2	6	5	1
5	5	1	2	6	4	8	7	3	4	8	7	3	5	1	2	6
6	6	2	1	5	1	5	6	2	3	7	8	4	8	4	3	7
7	7	3	4	8	2	6	5	1	2	6	5	1	7	3	4	8
8	8	4	3	7	3	7	8	4	1	5	6	2	6	2	1	5

Translator’s note. In the source, the PZ/ZK and PK/KN column labels of Tables 12.05–12.06 are interchanged relative to the per-relation blocks given later in this same section (e.g. the column headed PZ reproduces the mapping 1→8, 2→5, … which the later block gives for ZK, and vice versa; likewise for PK and KN). The columns are reproduced above exactly as printed. Either labelling preserves the four structural groups, but the two conventions cannot both be right; the reader should fix one before using the table.

The table is arranged so that by comparing the column of identity with the column of any other relation we see which functions are in contact with one another in that relation. Thus, in the dual relation the first function of one partner interacts with the fifth function of the other, the second with the sixth, the third with the seventh, and so on.

If, however, the column of the identity relation is compared with itself, we obtain the model of the identity relation, in which functions with identical numbers interact.

From Table 12.06 it is not difficult to derive an important corollary connected with the fact that relations are not entities independent of one another — or, in other words, in mathematical terminology, they are not orthogonal, and consequently each of them may be expressed by a linear combination of the others. Comparing the contacts of functions for different relations, we see that one half of their contacts is analogous to the contacts of some one function and the other half to those of another, which must be taken into account in the interpretations of relations. In general this means that any two functions have properties in common.

Thus, if we compare TZh and RD, we see that all the odd functions are designated identically: 1, 3, 5, 7. At the same time the designations of the even functions of TZh coincide with the designations of the even functions in DE. This makes it possible to unite the functions of TZh, RD and DE into one linearly dependent group. On the other hand, RD will link TZh and SE with one another. Analogously, DE will have properties in common with SE and TZh, and SE with DE and RD. Such structural features of the models of relations manifest themselves in the fact that each of the relations considered possesses the properties of some two others. These correspondences are presented in Table 12.07.

Table 12.07. Dependent triples of relations


TZh	DU	AK	ZE	ZK	KN	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	PZ	PK
RD	PD	ZK	KN	AK	ZE	SE	PP	PZ	PK	DE	MI	TZh	DU	KV	KF
DE	MI	KV	PK	KV	KF	TZh	DU	ZK	KN	RD	PD	SE	PP	AK	ZE

At the same time we see that if every three relations are linked to one another by a closer connection, then all the relations may be divided into groups of four such that mutual transitions may be discovered between them. Thus, into one group fall TZh, RD, DE, SE. And although in this group, for example, TZh and SE have no common elements, they turn out to be linked to one another by dependence on the same two others; that is, TZh and SE are expressed through RD and DE, but differently: TZh is composed of one set of functions of RD and DE, and SE of another.

The reasoning given makes it possible to divide all relations into four structural groups: 1) TZh, DE, SE, RD; 2) DU, MI, PP, PD; 3) AK, ZK, KV, PZ; 4) ZE, KN, KF, PK.

As it is not difficult to verify, the result obtained fully coincides with the result presented in Table 12.05.

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTACTS OF FUNCTIONS IN THE RELATIONS OF TIMs

TZh (identity relations)

1 – 1 = the programs (1) of one partner are counterposed to the programs (1) of the other.
2 – 2 = the communicative attitudes (2) of one partner are counterposed to the communicative attitudes (2) of the other.
3 – 3 = the way in which one partner resists the loading influence (3) of the environment has the same generalised parameters as that of the other.
4 – 4 = the generalised parameters of the notion of integrity in both partners are counterposed to one another.
5 – 5 = the generalised parameters of the resource of both partners are counterposed to one another.
6 – 6 = the generalised parameters of stimulation of both partners are counterposed to one another.
7 – 7 = the generalised parameters of the working (7) regimes of both partners are counterposed to one another.
8 – 8 = the generalised parameters of the productive activity (8) of both partners are counterposed to one another.

DU (dual relations)

1 – 5 = the programs (1) of one partner are perceived by the other as a resource (5).
2 – 6 = the communicative abilities (2) of one partner stimulate (6) the other.
3 – 7 = the regime in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure (3) of the environment is for the other connected with the regime of working concentration (7).
4 – 8 = the notions of integrity (4) of one partner correspond to the parameters of the productive activity (8) of the other.
5 – 1 = one partner expects (5) program (1) support from the other.
6 – 2 = one partner is stimulated (6) by communication (2) with the other.
7 – 3 = one partner in a state of working tuning (7) is ready to support the other in a tense situation (3).
8 – 4 = the parameters of the productive activity (8) of one partner correspond to the other’s notions of integrity (4).

AK (relations of activation)

1 – 6 = the programs (1) of one partner are perceived by the other with emotional elation (6).
2 – 5 = the communicative attitudes (2) of one partner correspond to the needs (5) of the other.
3 – 8 = the way in which one partner mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3) corresponds to the parameters of the end product (8) of the other.
4 – 7 = the notions of integrity (4) of one partner correspond to the parameters of working concentration (7) of the other.
5 – 2 = the needs of one partner correspond to the communicative abilities (2) of the other.
6 – 1 = one partner is stimulated (6) by the life programs (1) of the other.
7 – 4 = the working regime (7) of one partner does not contradict the notions of integrity (4) of the other.
8 – 3 = the parameters of the end product (8) of one partner correspond to the way in which the other resists the loading action (3) of the environment.

ZE (mirror relation)

1 – 2 = the programs (1) of one partner are, in the process of communication (2), subjected by the other partner to logical analysis (2).
2 – 1 = the communicative acts (2) of one partner are perceived by the other as filled with deep sense (1).
3 – 4 = the way in which one of the partners resists the pressure (3) of the environment is perceived by the other as something that contradicts his notions of integrity (4).
4 – 3 = the notions of integrity (4) of one partner come into contradiction with the way in which the other resists the pressure of the environment (3).
5 – 6 = the needs of one partner (5) are not a factor stimulating (6) the other.
6 – 5 = the parameters of mobilisation (6) of one partner do not correspond to the needs of the other.
7 – 8 = the working concentration (7) of one partner distracts the other from performing productive work (8).
8 – 7 = the productive work (8) of one partner distracts the other from working concentration (7).

PZ (reception of a request; the beneficiary’s relation to the benefactor)

1 – 6 = the programs (1) of the benefactor activate the receiver (6).
2 – 7 = the benefactor’s readiness for communication and all-round discussion contributes to the receiver’s working concentration.
3 – 8 = the way in which the benefactor resists the pressure of the environment (3) ensures the productive labour of the receiver (8).
4 – 5 = the notions of integrity (4) to which the benefactor adheres correspond to the needs (5) of the receiver.
5 – 2 = the benefactor awaits (5) positive communication (2) from the receiver.
6 – 3 = a stimulating action (6) is exerted on the benefactor by the way in which the receiver resists the loading influence (3) of the environment.
7 – 4 = the working regimes (7) of the benefactor do not contradict the notions of integrity (4) held by the receiver.
8 – 1 = the productive labour (8) of the benefactor inspires the receiver (1).

PK (being supervised; the supervisee’s relation to the supervisor)

1 – 2 = the programs (1) of one partner are, in the process of communication (2), subjected by the other partner to logical analysis (2).
2 – 3 = the communicative attitudes (2) of the supervisor provoke the volitional counterposition (3) of the supervisee.
3 – 4 = the way in which the supervisor mobilises in tense (3) situations and resists when it is necessary to withstand the pressure of the environment is for the supervisee unacceptable, touches and shocks him (4).
4 – 1 = the notions of integrity (4) to which the supervisor adheres are in contradiction with the programs (1) of the supervisee.
5 – 6 = the needs (5) of the supervisor do not stimulate (6) the supervisee.
6 – 7 = what stimulates the supervisor hinders the supervisee from concentrating.
7 – 8 = the working concentration (7) of the supervisor distracts the supervisee from productive labour (8).
8 – 5 = the end product (8) of the supervisor does not correspond to the needs (5) of the supervisee.

DE (business relations)

1 – 3 = the programs (1) of one are counterposed to the will (3) of the other.
2 – 2 = the communicative attitudes (2) of one partner are counterposed to the communicative attitudes of the other (2).
3 – 1 = the way in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3) is counterposed to the program attitudes (1) of the other.
4 – 4 = the notions of integrity to which one partner adheres are counterposed to the notions of integrity to which the other adheres.
5 – 7 = the needs (5) of one partner are counterposed to the working concentration (7) of the other.
6 – 6 = the generalised parameters of stimulation of the partners are counterposed to one another.
7 – 5 = the parameters of working concentration (7) of one partner are counterposed to the needs (5) of the other.
8 – 8 = the generalised parameters of the productive activity (8) of the partners are counterposed to one another.

MI (mirage relations)

1 – 7 = the programs (1) of one partner correspond to the parameters of the working regimes (7) of the other.
2 – 6 = the communicative abilities (2) of one partner stimulate (6) the other.
3 – 5 = the way in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3) corresponds to the needs (5) of the other.
4 – 8 = the notions of integrity (4) of one partner correspond to the parameters of the productive activity (8) of the other.
5 – 3 = the needs (5) of one partner correspond to the way in which the other resists the pressure of the environment (3).
6 – 2 = one partner is stimulated (6) by communication (2) with the other.
7 – 1 = the parameters of working concentration (7) of one partner correspond to the programs (1) of the other.
8 – 4 = the parameters of the productive activity (8) of one partner correspond to the other’s notions of integrity (4).

KV (quasi-identity)

1 – 8 = the programs (1) of one partner correspond to the end product (8) of the other.
2 – 7 = one partner’s readiness for communication and all-round discussion helps the other to concentrate.
3 – 6 = the way in which one partner resists the pressure of the environment (3) corresponds to the parameters of mobilisation (6) of the other.
4 – 5 = the notions of integrity (4) to which one partner adheres are concordant with the needs (5) of the other.
5 – 4 = the needs (5) of one partner are concordant with the notions of integrity (4) to which the other adheres.
6 – 3 = a stimulating action (6) is exerted on one partner by the way in which the other resists the loading influence (3) of the environment.
7 – 2 = the regimes of working concentration (7) of one partner are concordant with the communicative attitudes of the other.
8 – 1 = the productive labour (8) of one partner inspires the other to advance valuable ideas (1).

KF (conflict relations)

1 – 4 = the programs (1) of one partner come into contradiction with the notions of integrity (4) of the other.
2 – 3 = the communicative attitudes (2) of one partner contradict the way in which the other mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3).
3 – 2 = the way in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3) is in contradiction with the communicative attitudes (2) of the other.
4 – 1 = the notions of integrity (4) to which one partner adheres are in contradiction with the programs (1) of the other.
5 – 8 = the needs (5) of one partner do not correspond to the parameters of the end product (8) of the other.
6 – 7 = the parameters of mobilisation (6) of one partner are in contradiction with the working regimes (7) of the other.
7 – 6 = the working concentration (7) of one partner is in contradiction with the parameters of mobilisation (6) of the other.
8 – 5 = the end product (8) of one does not correspond to the needs (5) of the other.

SE (super-ego relation)

1 – 3 = the programs (1) of one are counterposed to the way in which the other resists the pressure of the environment (3).
2 – 4 = the communicative attitudes (2) of one partner correspond to the other’s notions of integrity (4).
3 – 1 = the way in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3) is counterposed to the program attitudes (1) of the other.
4 – 2 = the notions of integrity to which one partner adheres are counterposed to the communicative attitudes of the other (2).
5 – 7 = the needs (5) of one partner are counterposed to the working concentration (7) of the other.
6 – 8 = the generalised parameters of stimulation of one partner are counterposed to the parameters of productive activity (8) of the other.
7 – 5 = the parameters of working concentration (7) of one partner are counterposed to the needs (5) of the other.
8 – 6 = the generalised parameters of the productive activity (8) of the partners are counterposed to one another.

PP (relation of opposition)

1 – 7 = the programs (1) of one partner correspond to the parameters of the working regimes (7) of the other.
2 – 8 = the communicative acts (2) of one partner are oriented toward a positive discussion of the productive activity (8) of the other.
3 – 5 = the way in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3) corresponds to the needs (5) of the other.
4 – 6 = the notions of integrity (4) of one partner correspond to what might turn out to be a stimulus (6) for the other.
5 – 3 = the needs (5) of one partner correspond to the way in which the other resists the pressure of the environment (3).
6 – 4 = that by which one partner is stimulated (6) corresponds to the notions of integrity (4) of the other.
7 – 1 = the parameters of working concentration (7) of one partner correspond to the programs (1) of the other.
8 – 2 = the parameters of the productive activity (8) of one partner prompt the other to discuss it positively (2).

RD (kindred relation)

1 – 1 = the programs (1) of one partner are counterposed to the programs (1) of the other.
2 – 4 = the communicative acts (2) of one partner are counterposed to the notions of integrity (4) of the other.
3 – 3 = the ways in which the partners resist the loading influence (3) of the environment are counterposed to one another.
4 – 2 = the notions of integrity to which one partner adheres are counterposed to the communicative attitudes of the other (2).
5 – 5 = the generalised parameters of the partners’ needs are counterposed to one another.
6 – 8 = the generalised parameters of stimulation of one partner are counterposed to the parameters of productive activity (8) of the other.
7 – 7 = the generalised parameters of the working (7) regimes of the partners are counterposed to one another.
8 – 6 = the generalised parameters of the productive activity (8) of the partners are counterposed to one another.

PD (semi-dual relation)

1 – 5 = the programs (1) of one partner are perceived by the other as a resource (5).
2 – 8 = the communicative acts (2) of one partner are oriented toward a positive discussion of the end product (8) of the other.
3 – 7 = the regime in which one of the partners mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure (3) of the environment is for the other connected with the regime of working concentration (7).
4 – 6 = the notions of integrity (4) of one partner correspond to what might turn out to be a stimulus (6) for the other.
5 – 1 = one partner expects (5) program (1) support from the other.
6 – 4 = that by which one partner is stimulated (6) corresponds to the notions of integrity (4) of the other.
7 – 3 = one partner in a state of working tuning (7) is ready to support the other in a tense situation (3).
8 – 2 = the parameters of the productive activity (8) of one partner prompt the other to discuss it positively (2).

ZK (request; the benefactor’s relation to the beneficiary)

1 – 8 = the programs (1) of the receiver correspond to the end product (8) of the benefactor.
2 – 5 = the communicative attitudes (2) of the receiver correspond to the needs (5) of the benefactor.
3 – 6 = the way in which the receiver resists the pressure of the environment (3) corresponds to the parameters of mobilisation (6) of the benefactor.
4 – 7 = the notions of integrity (4) of the receiver correspond to the parameters of working concentration (7) of the benefactor.
5 – 4 = the needs (5) of the receiver correspond to the notions of integrity (4) to which the benefactor adheres.
6 – 1 = the receiver is stimulated (6) by the life programs (1) of the benefactor.
7 – 2 = the regimes of working concentration (7) of the receiver correspond to the communicative attitudes of the benefactor.
8 – 3 = the parameters of the end product (8) of the receiver correspond to the way in which the benefactor resists the loading action (3) of the environment.

KN (supervision; the supervisor’s relation to the supervisee)

1 – 4 = the programs (1) of the supervisee come into contradiction with the notions of integrity (4) to which the supervisor adheres.
2 – 1 = the communicative acts (2) of the supervisee come into contradiction with the programs of the supervisor (1).
3 – 2 = the way in which the supervisee mobilises when it is necessary to resist the pressure of the environment (3) is in contradiction with the communicative attitudes (2) of the supervisor.
4 – 3 = the notions of integrity (4) held by the supervisee come into contradiction with the way in which the supervisor resists the pressure of the environment (3).
5 – 8 = the needs (5) of the supervisee contradict the parameters of the end product (8) of the supervisor.
6 – 5 = the parameters of mobilisation (6) of the supervisee do not correspond to the needs of the supervisor.
7 – 6 = the working concentration (7) of the supervisee is in contradiction with the parameters of mobilisation (6) of the supervisor.
8 – 7 = the productive work (8) of the supervisee contradicts the working concentration (7) of the supervisor.

If one looks attentively at the two approaches to modelling relations presented above, one may notice that in essence they are identical. This makes it possible to construct a pure model of a relation, independent of the model of the TIM — although this model, of course, also fully permits one to describe relations. Let us take the numerical blocks stretched out in a vertical column and fold them into Model A, placing the functional half-strokes in their proper places. Then the two columns presented on the left will turn into the vertical model of identity presented on the right.

By folding the vertical sequences of functions into rings, we obtain the substitution models of the relations (see Table 12.08). These models may be called substitution models in the sense that here the second column of symbols represents the substitution defined by the relation. In a substitution model the first figure is the number of a function of Model A, and the second figure is the result of transforming that number by the operator of the relation. It is clear that the identity relation gives the identity substitution.

Table 12.08. Substitution models of the relations

TZh: (1–1) (2–2) / (4–4) (3–3) / (6–6) (5–5) / (7–7) (8–8)

DU: (1–5) (2–6) / (4–8) (3–7) / (6–2) (5–1) / (7–3) (8–4)

AK: (1–6) (2–5) / (4–7) (3–8) / (6–1) (5–2) / (7–4) (8–3)

ZE: (1–2) (2–1) / (4–3) (3–4) / (6–5) (5–6) / (7–8) (8–7)

MI: (1–7) (2–6) / (4–8) (3–5) / (6–2) (5–3) / (7–1) (8–4)

ZK: (1–6) (2–7) / (4–5) (3–8) / (6–3) (5–2) / (7–4) (8–1)

KN: (1–2) (2–3) / (4–1) (3–4) / (6–7) (5–6) / (7–8) (8–5)

DE: (1–3) (2–2) / (4–4) (3–1) / (6–6) (5–7) / (7–5) (8–8)

PP: (1–7) (2–8) / (4–6) (3–5) / (6–4) (5–3) / (7–1) (8–2)

KV: (1–8) (2–7) / (4–5) (3–6) / (6–3) (5–4) / (7–2) (8–1)

KF: (1–4) (2–3) / (4–1) (3–2) / (6–7) (5–8) / (7–6) (8–5)

SE: (1–3) (2–4) / (4–2) (3–1) / (6–8) (5–7) / (7–5) (8–6)

RD: (1–1) (2–4) / (4–2) (3–3) / (6–8) (5–5) / (7–7) (8–6)

PD: (1–5) (2–8) / (4–6) (3–7) / (6–4) (5–1) / (7–3) (8–2)

PZ: (1–8) (2–5) / (4–7) (3–6) / (6–1) (5–4) / (7–2) (8–3)

PK: (1–4) (2–1) / (4–3) (3–2) / (6–5) (5–8) / (7–6) (8–7)

(Fig. 12.06. Transfer of control in the structure of relations — the same sixteen patterns rendered graphically on Model A.)

If the addresses of the functions in each ITR are expressed graphically, tying them to Model A, we obtain the schemes presented in Fig. 12.06. As we see, each relation has an individual pattern of such addressing. Examining these schemes, it is not difficult to notice that in TZh and DU the order of address of the functional half-strokes has a form that may be called parallel. In AK and ZE the order of address has a pattern mirror-symmetric to the pattern of TZh and DU. However, between these patterns there is also a similarity, which is precisely what is revealed by the mirror symmetry. The same may be said of the pairs ZK, KN and DE, MI; KV, KF and SE, PP; RD, PD and PZ, PK — which unquestionably unites these pairs of relations into quadra groups. In such groups of relations the vital and mental rings turn out to be pairwise identical. Presumably these identities point also to a semantic commonality both in the groups of relations and in the groups of types corresponding to them.

In the relations ZK and KN the order of address begins at the end point of each ring, while its direction is the same. In the relations KV and KF the order of address begins at the end point of each ring, is directed to the opposite side, and finishes at the starting point. Analogous observations may be made in connection with all the models of relations. One would like to hope that the schemes of the order of address have a definite heuristic sense which still awaits its interpretation.

The interpretation of the models of relations proposed above should be regarded as preliminary and admitting various refinements, which is connected with the insufficient unambiguity and elaboration of the mechanisms of interpretation. As these mechanisms are perfected, the possibility will also appear of refining the decoding of the models of a relation.

Let me note that of all the descriptions of relations known to me, the most brilliant in the literary sense belongs to V. Shlaina [7]. Superb poetic language, refined metaphors, subtle comparisons, three-storey epigraphs — all this produces an irresistible impression and speaks of an extraordinary literary talent. This gives grounds for foreseeing the unconditional success of her texts with prospective readers. However, from the point of view of logic, everything written in V. Shlaina’s article follows from nothing. That is, partly it follows from everything that others, and of course Aushra, have written on this subject. But Shlaina has no justification of her own for the structure of the relations, and therefore the descriptions she proposes are perceived as beautiful but of little reliability. Despite this, however, the very reading of such a text has a therapeutic significance. Read, for example, the description of duality, and you will feel a surge of strength and inspiration, and your faith in people will grow stronger. And that is worth a great deal.

Conclusions to the twelfth chapter

A principle of duality with respect to TIMs and ITR has been proposed, according to which the structure of a TIM is isomorphic to the structure of an ITR.
A review has been made of part of the existing work in socionics on the theory of relations.
Two types of models of the ITR have been presented and their essential identity shown.
Structures of the ITR expressed through the contacts of functions have been constructed.
Certain principles of interpretation of relations have been formulated.
Preliminary primary interpretations of all the functions of the ITR have been made, and secondary descriptions of all the ITR proposed.

Literature

Churyumov S. I., The R-model of the TIM and the principle of duality of TIMs and intertype relations, paper at the conference in Vilnius, 1991.
Churyumov S. I., Two formal approaches to the description of relations, SMiPL 5, 1999.
Gulenko V. V., Introverted socionics. Internal relations in a group as a reflection of its integral type. Kiev, 12.07.1994.
Medvedev N. N., On the possibilities of constructing a model of interpersonal relations, SMiPL 4, 1998.
Aushra Augustinavičiūtė, The theory of intertype relations, Socionics, St Petersburg, 1998.
Filatova E. S., The art of understanding oneself and those around one, St Petersburg, 1998.
Gulenko V. V., Binary traits of intertype relations, Kiev, 07.01.1995.
Nemirovsky A. A., A new way of matching the set of socionic types and the set of intertype relations, Socion 1, 1997.
Medvedev N. N., On the possibility of constructing a model of interpersonal relations, SMiPL 4, 1998.
Filatova E. S., Intertype relations in theory and in life, SMiPL 4, 1998.
Shlaina V. M., The deep potential of relations, SMiPL no. 3, 2005.
Tsypin P. E., Encyclopaedia of relations. — Moscow: Dobroe slovo: Chernaya belka, 2005. — p. 208.
Churyumov S. I., Two approaches to the formal description of relations, SMiPL no. 4, 2001.
Gut M., A mathematical representation of relations, paper, 1998.

(Note: the numbering of the reference list and the in-text citation numbers do not fully agree in the original — for example, [3] and [4] are cited in the text as Gulenko’s article and Nemirovsky’s article respectively, whereas the list assigns those numbers to Gulenko 1994 and Medvedev. Reproduced as printed.)

Notes

Here “obviously” is used as an adverb and not as a parenthetical word, and therefore is not set off by commas. (A remark on Russian punctuation in the original.) ↩
Strictly speaking, the eye does not see but looks. It is the subject who sees, while the eye only prepares visual information for its perception by the subject. ↩
Of course, conclusions of this kind must be verified in a strictly controlled experiment. ↩
An analogous approach was developed by M. Gut, but signs of it may be found in N. Medvedev. ↩

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1I	5s	6E	2l	8L	4e	3S	7i	8L	4e	3S	7i	1I	5s	6E	2l
2	2l	6E	5s	1I	5s	1I	2l	6E	7i	3S	4e	8L	4e	8L	7i	3S
3	3S	7i	8L	4e	6E	2l	1I	5s	6E	2l	1I	5s	3S	7i	8L	4e
4	4e	8L	7i	3S	7i	3S	4e	8L	5s	1I	2l	6E	2l	6E	5s	1I
5	5s	1I	2l	6E	4e	8L	7i	3S	4e	8L	7i	3S	5s	1I	2l	6E
6	6E	2l	1I	5s	1I	5s	6E	2l	3S	7i	8L	4e	8L	4e	3S	7i
7	7i	3S	4e	8L	2l	6E	5s	1I	2l	6E	5s	1I	7i	3S	4e	8L
8	8L	4e	3S	7i	3S	7i	8L	4e	1I	5s	6E	2l	6E	2l	1I	5s

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1	5	6	2	8	4	3	7	8	4	3	7	1	5	6	2
2	2	6	5	1	5	1	2	6	7	3	4	8	4	8	7	3
3	3	7	8	4	6	2	1	5	6	2	1	5	3	7	8	4
4	4	8	7	3	7	3	4	8	5	1	2	6	2	6	5	1
5	5	1	2	6	4	8	7	3	4	8	7	3	5	1	2	6
6	6	2	1	5	1	5	6	2	3	7	8	4	8	4	3	7
7	7	3	4	8	2	6	5	1	2	6	5	1	7	3	4	8
8	8	4	3	7	3	7	8	4	1	5	6	2	6	2	1	5


TZh	DU	AK	ZE	ZK	KN	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	PZ	PK
RD	PD	ZK	KN	AK	ZE	SE	PP	PZ	PK	DE	MI	TZh	DU	KV	KF
DE	MI	KV	PK	KV	KF	TZh	DU	ZK	KN	RD	PD	SE	PP	AK	ZE

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1I	5s	6E	2l	8L	4e	3S	7i	8L	4e	3S	7i	1I	5s	6E	2l
2	2l	6E	5s	1I	5s	1I	2l	6E	7i	3S	4e	8L	4e	8L	7i	3S
3	3S	7i	8L	4e	6E	2l	1I	5s	6E	2l	1I	5s	3S	7i	8L	4e
4	4e	8L	7i	3S	7i	3S	4e	8L	5s	1I	2l	6E	2l	6E	5s	1I
5	5s	1I	2l	6E	4e	8L	7i	3S	4e	8L	7i	3S	5s	1I	2l	6E
6	6E	2l	1I	5s	1I	5s	6E	2l	3S	7i	8L	4e	8L	4e	3S	7i
7	7i	3S	4e	8L	2l	6E	5s	1I	2l	6E	5s	1I	7i	3S	4e	8L
8	8L	4e	3S	7i	3S	7i	8L	4e	1I	5s	6E	2l	6E	2l	1I	5s

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1	5	6	2	8	4	3	7	8	4	3	7	1	5	6	2
2	2	6	5	1	5	1	2	6	7	3	4	8	4	8	7	3
3	3	7	8	4	6	2	1	5	6	2	1	5	3	7	8	4
4	4	8	7	3	7	3	4	8	5	1	2	6	2	6	5	1
5	5	1	2	6	4	8	7	3	4	8	7	3	5	1	2	6
6	6	2	1	5	1	5	6	2	3	7	8	4	8	4	3	7
7	7	3	4	8	2	6	5	1	2	6	5	1	7	3	4	8
8	8	4	3	7	3	7	8	4	1	5	6	2	6	2	1	5


TZh	DU	AK	ZE	ZK	KN	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	PZ	PK
RD	PD	ZK	KN	AK	ZE	SE	PP	PZ	PK	DE	MI	TZh	DU	KV	KF
DE	MI	KV	PK	KV	KF	TZh	DU	ZK	KN	RD	PD	SE	PP	AK	ZE

Socion Archive

Explorer

Chapter 12

Chapter 12. Two Approaches to the Formal Description of Socionic Relations

Translator’s conventions

1. Description of intertype relations on the basis of the principle of duality of types and relations

Table 12.01. Interaction of functions and the relations associated with them

Table 12.02. Generalised assessment of the interaction of functions

Principles of interpretation of relations

Primary interpretations of all possible contacts of two functions

Table 12.03. Correspondence of TIM and ITR

TZh — the relation of identity

SPEAK, I UNDERSTAND YOU

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS (secondary and tertiary interpretations)

DU — relations of dualisation

OASIS

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

AK — relations of activation

LIFE IS A WONDERFUL ADVENTURE

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

ZE — mirror relations

EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS CORRECT, BUT…

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

PZ — the relation of reception of a request (reflects the well-being of the receiver)

I REMEMBER A WONDROUS MOMENT

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

PK — being supervised (reflects the well-being of the supervisee)

IN THE CROSSHAIRS

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

DE — business relations

IN THE SAME HARNESS

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

MI — mirage relations

AT A PICNIC

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

KV — relations of quasi-identity

MY, HOW ORIGINAL YOU ARE!

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

KF — the relation of conflict

AND WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU?

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

SE — the super-ego relation

I AM YOUR CONSCIENCE

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

PP — relations of opposition

WE ARE TWO BANKS OF ONE RIVER

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

RD — kindred relations

YOU AND I ARE OF ONE BLOOD, BUT…

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

PD — the semi-dual relation

FEDOT — BUT NOT THAT FEDOT

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

ZK — request (the well-being of the benefactor in this relation)

A PLEASANT SURPRISE

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

KN — supervision (reflects the well-being of the supervisor)

EVERYONE ON EDGE

CONCLUSIONS ON THE WHOLE SET OF FUNCTION INTERACTIONS

Table 12.04. Permutations corresponding to the relations

2. Description of intertype relations on the basis of the model of contact of functions with identical information content

Table 12.05. Contact of functions in the relations (IA symbols shown)

Table 12.06. Contact of functions in the relations of TIMs, without IA symbols

Table 12.07. Dependent triples of relations

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTACTS OF FUNCTIONS IN THE RELATIONS OF TIMs

TZh (identity relations)

DU (dual relations)

AK (relations of activation)

ZE (mirror relation)

PZ (reception of a request; the beneficiary’s relation to the benefactor)

PK (being supervised; the supervisee’s relation to the supervisor)

DE (business relations)

MI (mirage relations)

KV (quasi-identity)

KF (conflict relations)

SE (super-ego relation)

PP (relation of opposition)

RD (kindred relation)

PD (semi-dual relation)

ZK (request; the benefactor’s relation to the beneficiary)

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1I	5s	6E	2l	8L	4e	3S	7i	8L	4e	3S	7i	1I	5s	6E	2l
2	2l	6E	5s	1I	5s	1I	2l	6E	7i	3S	4e	8L	4e	8L	7i	3S
3	3S	7i	8L	4e	6E	2l	1I	5s	6E	2l	1I	5s	3S	7i	8L	4e
4	4e	8L	7i	3S	7i	3S	4e	8L	5s	1I	2l	6E	2l	6E	5s	1I
5	5s	1I	2l	6E	4e	8L	7i	3S	4e	8L	7i	3S	5s	1I	2l	6E
6	6E	2l	1I	5s	1I	5s	6E	2l	3S	7i	8L	4e	8L	4e	3S	7i
7	7i	3S	4e	8L	2l	6E	5s	1I	2l	6E	5s	1I	7i	3S	4e	8L
8	8L	4e	3S	7i	3S	7i	8L	4e	1I	5s	6E	2l	6E	2l	1I	5s

	TZh	DU	AK	ZE	PZ	PK	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	ZK	KN
1	1	5	6	2	8	4	3	7	8	4	3	7	1	5	6	2
2	2	6	5	1	5	1	2	6	7	3	4	8	4	8	7	3
3	3	7	8	4	6	2	1	5	6	2	1	5	3	7	8	4
4	4	8	7	3	7	3	4	8	5	1	2	6	2	6	5	1
5	5	1	2	6	4	8	7	3	4	8	7	3	5	1	2	6
6	6	2	1	5	1	5	6	2	3	7	8	4	8	4	3	7
7	7	3	4	8	2	6	5	1	2	6	5	1	7	3	4	8
8	8	4	3	7	3	7	8	4	1	5	6	2	6	2	1	5


TZh	DU	AK	ZE	ZK	KN	DE	MI	KV	KF	SE	PP	RD	PD	PZ	PK
RD	PD	ZK	KN	AK	ZE	SE	PP	PZ	PK	DE	MI	TZh	DU	KV	KF
DE	MI	KV	PK	KV	KF	TZh	DU	ZK	KN	RD	PD	SE	PP	AK	ZE