Section 6

Section 6 — WHAT DOES FILATOVA PROPOSE?

(based on the articles “VARIANTS WITHIN A SINGLE PSYCHOTYPE” and “THE ORIGIN OF THE SOCIONIC TYPE”)

A and B sat on a pipe. A fell off, B vanished. What was left on the pipe?

E. S. Filatova was one of the first to write popular books on socionics. To the extent possible, she transmitted what came from Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, and her works played a large role in the spread of socionics. She also made her own contribution to the development of testing methods derived from the Myers-Briggs questionnaire. As became clear later, this questionnaire is not a test but functions as a tuning table for the operator. If one re-reads this text many times, an intuitive image of the four Jungian polarities gradually begins to form, and the operator’s ability to recognize a TIM by intuitively guessed features gradually grows; but if the operator is required to present clearly formulated proof, then in most cases his answer turns out to be unverifiable. Operators who are unaware of the described effect are, as a rule, confident that their diagnostics rest on solid ground. Filatova’s diagnostic developments did not escape this fate either, but this in no way diminishes her efforts to create diagnostic methods in socionics.

Filatova: An experimental result is presented indicating that each Jungian psychotype is a superposition of no fewer than a dozen elementary types.

Commentary: This is what the author Filatova thinks of her own work — she here calls the collection of photo-portraits she assembled an “experimental result,” when in fact these are merely photo-portraits of people, a set which can be regarded as raw empirical data for further work. There is also no theoretical account of what the author calls “elementary types.” What Filatova has presented is empirical material selected by the author in accordance with the notions she holds about TIMs. These notions are intellectual elements of the author’s paradigm, which may precede the construction or extension of an existing theory — but precisely that, it seems, the author does not have. Jung laid the foundations of a fundamental theory of psychological types, but there was much in his own discovery that he never understood, and to a considerable degree he remained at the empirical level [17: vol. 1]. Aušra Augustinavičiūtė found the key theoretical concepts that must lie at the foundation of the prospective fundamental typology — an explicitly formulated positional semantics of the socionic functions, the structure of the socionic model; she introduced the new all-encompassing scientific category of information metabolism (IM) and discovered the elementary informational entities she named information aspects (IA) — and this was a powerful breakthrough into a new field of research. However, what she did was only the next step in the development of a new and promising area of psychological science. A sign of the incompleteness of Aušra’s work is the large number of problems that remain, some of which were never even posed, and many of which began to surface as socionists tried to make sense of this complex and interesting material. The problem of socionic diagnostics — perhaps not the most important, but essential for practice — was also left “hanging in the air.” Given all this, one can say that the author’s intuitive self-assurance in the infallibility of her socionic conjectures is premature, and a great deal of work — both empirical and theoretical — must be done for intuitive conjectures to turn into fundamental results and take their place in the theoretical structure of socionics. A methodological analysis of the theoretical views of several leading socionists — roughly two dozen [17: vols. 1 and 2] — showed that their understanding of socionics can differ so much that it is simply impossible to bring them to a common denominator. Someone might say: “Why is that needed? Let a hundred flowers bloom!” And so they bloom — but socionics itself is thereby carved up into the technological schemes of individual masters, while its scientific quality remains a mere possibility. And someone might again say: “So what — at least freedom and democracy triumph in socionics!” But whoever says or thinks so evidently does not distinguish freedom from chaos, democracy from anarchy — which speaks to his methodological level.

Filatova: Keywords: psychotype, variant of a psychotype, “fine structure” of the Jungian psychotype.

Commentary: The concept of “psychotype” is common to all typologies, each of which has its own term specifying this concept. In socionics it is the TIM. In a scientific text, using the generic concept in place of the specific one is an instance of imprecise terminology and should therefore be corrected in editing. Obviously all beetles are insects, but not all insects are beetles, and the terms are not interchangeable in every context. The same holds for TIM and psychotype. Calling a TIM a psychotype is like calling a wild strawberry a berry — true, of course, but not always appropriate.

Filatova: One of the problematic questions of socionics, not yet fully worked out, is the question of variants within each of Jung’s psychotypes. The creation of Model A brought some clarity to this question. In particular, it turned out that different functions may be strengthened, which cannot fail to affect the distinctiveness of the corresponding psychotype’s behavior. The fewest questions arise with the strengthening of the leading block’s functions — on this, socionists are practically unanimous.

Commentary: Apparently Filatova is not familiar with my works on the problems of the existence, uniqueness, and diversity within the TIM, which is regrettable. The point is that before turning to the theme of diversity within the TIM, one must solve the problem of the TIM’s existence and uniqueness. Without that, the problem of diversity loses sufficient grounds. In particular, the very possibility and concept of “strengthening” some function in the model remains unclear. If a function is an innate element, then one cannot claim that the acquisition of personal experience, of whatever modality, changes or, say, strengthens any function. A function, as a structural element of the TIM, remains equal to itself, in the sense that its functional semantics does not change — although the character of its operation may change, and a scholar may assess this as strengthening or weakening. But of course, a scholar is obliged to distinguish the concepts of type and character.

The concept of a “variant of a psychotype” has likewise not been specified — above all as applied to typologies in general, i.e., as a theoretical construct that could then be extended to socionics. Unfortunately, refinements of this kind remain incomprehensible to many socionists, which is a sign of the insufficiency of their methodological toolkit. Carried away by their intuitive insights, they attach no importance to standard methodological requirements. So if psychotype “A” occurs in combination with two additional features, as “Ab” and as “Av,” is that enough to speak of variants of the psychotype? For that, one must prove that features “b” and “v” have the same typological nature as “A.” Most often in such cases there is an overlaying of different typologies or an appeal to situational or even accidental features. The key requirement in constructing typologies is preserving the criterion by which the transition between typological levels occurs. In socionics the TIM is defined by Model A, which means that only those cases which rest directly on Model A can be considered variants of the TIM.

Filatova: For example, in the structure of the Seeker (ILE), the Program function of the first block — intuition of possibilities — is strengthened. From this it immediately follows that the bearer of such a structure will be especially strongly inclined to search for everything new, unusual, promising thrilling prospects — that which is characterized by extraverted intuition of possibilities. Consequently, extraversion will be especially vividly manifested in his behavior. Moreover, the actions of such people will look strongly irrational, without a thought-out plan. Outwardly these people often give the impression of being scattered; in conversation they sometimes wave their arms about enthusiastically.

Commentary: The author uses the jargon term “intuition of possibilities” instead of the scientific term “introverted intuition” introduced by Jung. It is entirely unclear why one should replace a good term with a bad one — especially since we cannot do without the Jungian concepts of extraversion and introversion, and their derivatives extravert, introvert, extraverted and introverted, in socionics. An even stranger terminological centaur is the phrase “extraverted intuition of possibilities,” where scientific and jargon components are eclectically joined, giving rise to the idea that there must also exist an introverted intuition of possibilities. And, actually — why not? Are possibilities found only in the external world? Why should the inner world be discriminated against in this respect? Such misunderstandings arise from a careless attitude to work with terms — yet terms play an exceptionally important role in establishing the scientific status of socionics.

Apparently the author takes it as self-evident that extraverted intuition in the Program-function position is connected with the search for “everything new, unusual, promising thrilling prospects.” I, for one, consider this a derivative, secondary interpretation of this archetype; its primary meaning is “penetration into the essence, comprehension of lawful regularity in the external world.” And if introverted thinking stands next to it in the block, this will be comprehension of the object; if introverted emoting — comprehension of the person. The abandonment of scientific terminology, the use of defective or downright ugly terms, is one of the signs of a defective methodological toolkit.

Filatova: If, on the contrary, in the same ILE structure the second function of the first block is strengthened — in this case structural logic — then the bearer of such a structure will turn out to be a more rational person and will, moreover, be distinguished by an inclination toward building models, up to and including a model of the Universe. And since structural logic is an introverted function, this fact too will tell on the bearer’s manner of behavior: he will be more absorbed in his own thoughts and, accordingly, less communicative than the representative of the previous ILE variant — in psychology such people are often called “centroverts.” In reality, though, the overall version (vertness) is preserved, since it is determined by the vertness of the Program function; only certain elements characteristic of introversion will appear in the manner of behavior — and nothing more.

Commentary: Here the author again uses the jargon term “structural logic” instead of Jung’s “introverted thinking.” Here the fundamental psychic function of thinking is replaced by one of its particular operators. A person’s logic can certainly be strengthened by studying it, but his thinking type remains unchanged. A feature acquired in this way is not typological but situational. Such a feature could equally be that a person has been to Antarctica or has had hepatitis B. Probably an intuitive-thinking type who has received university training in logic may look more rational, but of course this does not change the semantics of the socionic function (SF) and, accordingly, his TIM. Apparently what is at issue is the subtype of an educated person.

Thus what may really be at issue is the combination of a TIM with certain widespread character traits or even acquired skills, including professional ones. Thus a Don Quixote-athlete will be distinguished by a strengthened musculoskeletal system. Looking closely at footballers, you will see a sizable group of Jacks, which allows one to single out the “subtype” of Jack-footballers. One can speak of subtypes of Zhukov-generals (there are many!), Stierlitz-bureaucrats, Huxley-bribetakers, Napoleon-murderers (though of course not only Napoleons), and even Hamlet-emperors, among whom we would place Nero, Ivan the Terrible, and Hitler. But here we already leave the sphere of the TIM for the sphere of psychotypes. Here one may ask: will these psychotypes have specific bodily features — physiognomic, plastic, kinesic? After all, we do distinguish professional soldiers, variety artists, priests, fashion models, the homeless, top party functionaries of the Khrushchev–Brezhnev–Gorbachev–Yeltsin sort, the subtype of the scoundrel-intellectual, the scientist-fraud. Or disease-linked subtypes — the tubercular Dostoevsky, Zhukovs with heart trouble, dystrophic Robespierres, obese Balzacs, etc.

As for the terms “centrovert” and “ambivert” encountered in psychology, after the discovery of socionics they should be relegated to the category of misunderstandings, since they are the result of a simplified assessment based on a distorted understanding of extraversion and introversion, which turned out not to be as simple as some of Jung’s followers took them to be.

Filatova: Often the strengthening of the corresponding function is clearly visible in the outward appearance of a person of the corresponding psychotype. Below are examples of photographs of representatives of certain psychotypes with strengthened leading-block functions, supplied with commentary. A complete selection for all 16 psychotypes is in my book “Personality in the Mirror of Socionics.”

Commentary: Apparently the author does not notice that “often” is not “always,” which is what it must be if a lawful regularity is present. Of course, in the case of a weakened regularity one can speak only of a statistical predominance — but that must be proven, not invented. Moreover, sufficient grounds have by now accumulated for holding that a person’s appearance must contain complete information about his TIM, since IM, as a constantly operating factor, leaves its traces on all levels of human individuality. However, a person’s appearance also contains other imprints connected not with the TIM but with biographical accident. Not only physical but also emotional experiences leave their traces on the human body. One may suppose that any parts of information metabolism leave their traces in a person’s appearance, since informational processes in the organism are connected not only with typological programs. This, in particular, can mask the typological components in an individual’s appearance.

(Figures: Fig. Fi. 01 — SLE, Zhukov, sensory subtype. Fig. Fi. 02 — SLE, Zhukov, logical subtype. Fig. Fi. 03 — ILE, Don Quixote, intuitive subtype.)

Filatova: Two variants — this is a long-noted socionic observation that no one doubts; but those who work actively and attentively sooner or later come to the conclusion that there are in fact many more variants. Various suppositions about their origin are voiced, hypotheses are constructed. I, however, want to dwell on quite tangible factors, and to that end I want to acquaint readers with my many years of observations concerning the appearance of different psychotypes.

Commentary: The failure to distinguish the concepts of “type” and “character” may well become the basis of a typological illusion, when recurring elements of character are taken for a typological variant. The illusion is further reinforced by the fact that in socionics it is “easy” to justify two “subtypes” — by the first and by the second function. Not all socionists dare to “distinguish” four “subtypes” by correlating these differences with each function of the mental block. Incidentally, the Kyiv socionist Malov has developed a version of socionics in which every person is a bearer of four TIMs. But given desire and enthusiasm one can see all 8 “subtypes.” For example, among Don Quixotes, besides the “extraverted-intuitive” and “introverted-logical,” one could if one wished see “extraverted-sensory” with a “strengthened” ANF, “introverted-sensory” with a “strengthened” ERF, “extraverted-emotional” with a “strengthened” MMF (widespread among women), “introverted-emotional” with a “strengthened” KKF (may appear as a result of meditative practices), “introverted-intuitive” with a “strengthened” IVF (may appear as a result of prolonged isolation), and “extraverted-logical” with a “strengthened” RTF (often observed in Don Quixotes forced by life to engage only in physical labor). The last is that constant toiler performing an enormous amount of physical work — a ploughman in the countryside, say, or a laborer on a construction site. After all, not all Don Quixotes are scientists or work in army headquarters. The same “de-typing” can be applied to all the other TIMs.

(Figures: Fig. Fi. 04 — ILE, Don Quixote, logical subtype (?). Fig. Fi. 05 — ESI, Dreiser, ethical subtype. Fig. Fi. 06 — ESI, Dreiser, sensory subtype.)

However, one can go further — in search of subtype-subtypes, subtype-subtype-subtypes, and so on. Thus one can begin combining the socionic functions in pairs, and then we get C(8,2) = 28 subtype-subtypes in each TIM; combining the “strengthened” functions in triples yields C(8,3) = 56 subtype-subtype-subtypes. The maximum is reached when combining quadruples of functions: C(8,4) = 140 subtype-subtype-subtype-subtypes. Still more complex intuitive-typological variants are possible. But the basic problem remains — the fine differential diagnostics of subtype-subtypes, when there is still no reliable diagnostics of the basic TIM. All of this awaits careful methodological elaboration.

(Figure: Fig. Fi. 07 — EII, Dostoevsky, ethical subtype.)

Filatova: It all began with my ending up, at the close of 1989, in the cardiology ward of a hospital. It was very boring; the patients — myself among them — wandered the corridor between procedures; there wasn’t even a television. And it occurred to me that one could amuse oneself by determining the psychotypes of anyone willing — I had become acquainted with socionics that very spring. There turned out to be no shortage of volunteers; for everyone it was at least some kind of entertainment. With great enthusiasm I talked about socionics and determined psychotypes, to the great delight of the hospital contingent.

Commentary: And so, on a wave of hospital enthusiasm, confidence in one’s own rightness appears — but it is not hard to imagine how approximate that hospital diagnostics was.

Filatova: Having determined the psychotypes of a rather large group of patients, I discovered with surprise that among them two were very similar to each other, and both belonged to the psychotype ILI, the Critic. Looking attentively at those around me, I saw yet another patient who likewise, it seemed, closely resembled that pair. Of course I burned with the desire to test my supposition that the psychotype manifests itself in outward appearance. To my complete delight, I became convinced that this is indeed so — he too was a representative of ILI! Aušra wrote of similar observations, as did certain other socionists. However, nowhere could I find an illustration of this fact in explicit form — in the form of photographs.

Commentary: It may indeed make a strong impression on a person that among people of one TIM there occur individuals who look very much alike; but what made a far greater impression on me is that people who do not look much alike display one and the same typological features. There are, for example, simply no narrow-faced Zhukovs!

Filatova: It seemed — what could be simpler? One need only photograph various people, having first determined their psychotypes, and create a whole atlas of photographs from which one could see at a glance which psychotype stands before you — just as we recognize our acquaintances by their appearance on the street!

But later everything turned out to be far more complicated; I became plainly convinced that among representatives of one type very different faces are also found. Be that as it may, these observations still seemed to me very important.

Commentary: A beautiful passage from the memoirs of a practicing socionist! Yet the one-sidedness of the author’s methodological toolkit is noticeable, owing to intensified empiricism — which it is not hard to connect with sensorics.

Filatova: …the question arose of the number of variants within each psychotype. For the Researchers, of whom I had more than of the other types, I found that the number of variants (rows of faces) was roughly fifteen. This was for those groups where the total number of people photographed exceeded a hundred and fifty. For the Socials, there were somewhat fewer such groups, which is quite understandable. With a larger number of photographs the figure could be established quite precisely. I suppose the total number of variants can be provisionally estimated at 16 — the socionists’ favorite number.

Commentary: Above I showed certain combinatorial possibilities that could explain the presence of variants; but apparently it did not occur to the author that another explanation is possible. The researcher’s empirical dominant is strongly felt — yet theoretical processing of material requires high professionalism, not approximate technological improvisations.

(Figures: Fig. Fi. 09 — men of type LSE, Stierlitz. Fig. Fi. 10 — men of type SLE, Zhukov. Fig. Fi. 11 — men of type EII, Dostoevsky. Fig. Fi. 12 — children of various ages with clear typological features.)

Filatova: So it turned out that for each psychotype one can single out roughly fifteen clusters of faces, very similar to one another within each cluster. Many of them are practically doubles. It is precisely this fact, it seems, that should become the basis for division into subtypes. Here Nature herself has taken care to show us something common within one group of people and differences from other groups. These studies are published in my book “Personality in the Mirror of Socionics” [1], which presents six variants for each of the 16 psychotypes. As an illustration, data for four psychotypes from that book are given below.

Commentary: Filatova’s rich physiognomic experience gives grounds to believe that, contrary to the skepticism of some socionists, diagnostics by external features will sooner or later be created — but much work is needed for that. As for distinguishing subtypes, that depends on how this category is understood. Figs. Fi. 09, 10, 11 present, respectively, men of the types Zhukov, Stierlitz, and Dostoevsky. Clearly there is physiognomic similarity within each group, but describing it in words is very difficult. Fig. Fi. 12 presents children’s photographs with obvious typological features, supporting the idea of the possibility of physiognomic diagnostics. Work in this direction is underway.

Filatova: Of course, it may be objected to me that not all the pairs are very similar; there are some who cannot possibly be called identical. So what? Even if they are not identical, a quite pronounced sameness of type with certain characteristic accents nonetheless shows through in them. It would be good, of course, to find an artist who could render these external accents in expressive drawings, as in friendly caricatures. But everything runs up against the absence of funds for such work and the fact that artists do not know socionics.

Let me note — and this is very important — that I obtained this result entirely unexpectedly for myself, and this result made two obvious facts explicit.

Commentary: Here the concept of “similarity” becomes salient, and of course it must be defined and turned into a scientific construct. Yes, socionists have run into the fact that people of one TIM can be very similar — but they can also be not very similar, or entirely dissimilar. On the other hand, can people of different types be similar? To assert this reliably, TIMs must be determined with great precision. And one more question: can people of one TIM resemble not their own TIM? Is it not one of the causes of diagnostic errors that a person may resemble certain representatives of this or that TIM while belonging to another TIM? Naturally, the imperfection of socionic diagnostics makes answering these questions extremely difficult.

An interesting biographical detail in the paragraph under discussion is Filatova’s remark that the portrait similarity she discovered, sometimes observed between people of one type, came to her “entirely unexpectedly.” It is also interesting that she considers this important. This can be regarded as evidence of the author’s creative state while working with the photographs — but it has no direct bearing on whether the result obtained is scientific or not.

Filatova: The first fact is that each psychotype turned out to consist of a certain number of variants that were definitely differentiated; it was obvious that they differ substantially from one another despite belonging to one type. That is, a “fine structure” came to light, which should now be studied, with theoretical grounds found for such a subdivision. Since this result emerged for all the psychotypes, it is entirely clear that it has a certain fundamental character which must be investigated further.

Commentary: Of course, the idea that each TIM can be represented by several variants is interesting in itself. But as the author presents it, it is no more than a hypothesis, and to turn it into a full-fledged scientific construct requires a great deal of work, not a couple of intuitive insights. In his time A. V. Bukalov advanced the idea of the fractal structure of the psychological field of the personality, and I now make wide use of this idea. According to it, the complex psychological picture arising when observing a personality is effectively structured by the superposition of psychic fractals — relatively independent fields of characterological diversity. When several such fields are superimposed, a complex picture arises describing the personality in detail. I have managed to show that the very first, most fundamental fractal is precisely the socionic typology. Next in fundamentality is the gender fractal. Already their sum yields two variants of the TIM — female and male — where the typological identity of the male and female varieties of a TIM is quite visible alongside their fairly clear difference. If we now add the zodiacal fractal, we will see that, for example, a Don Quixote-Virgo will differ noticeably from a Don Quixote-Aries. The Eastern zodiac makes intelligible the difference between a Don Quixote-Virgo-Pig and a Don Quixote-Virgo-Rooster. The superposition of national, professional, manipulative, and other fractals makes the result so complex that psychologists still cannot sort it all out.

Filatova: And the second fact is the clear similarity of faces we observe among the representatives within each cluster. It seems the basis has at last been found for those very doubles about whom so much is written and said: “Why do doubles occur who are sometimes more alike than blood relatives?” — or again: “American psychologists have established that every person on Earth has a double,” and so on. In reality it is now clear that they are found within Jung’s typology — but only if one moves on from the Jungian types to further, finer investigation of the psychotypes’ particularities.

Commentary: Because of the author’s style of formulating thought, this reasoning is extremely difficult to analyze. I understand the text thus: the author is speaking of her hypothesis on the nature of doubles and holds that typological identity underlies the portrait similarity of certain people. But of course, to assert that it is connected only with Jung’s typology, without deep elaboration of the theme, is impermissible. It is also obvious that the author uses the phrase “in reality” incorrectly here, since the impression may arise that the author has a privileged capacity of direct access to the truth.

Filatova: Examining the photographs presented, most people find them — in the triples and pairs — very similar; but there are also skeptics who see no particular resemblance. To me the resemblance was perfectly clear, and for a long time I could not understand how one could fail to see the obvious.

Commentary: If in research of this kind one relies not on anthropometry but on the method of expert judgment, then one must carry out expert-calibration procedures and work with portrait samples that satisfy the requirements of statistical research.

Filatova: …it is appropriate to discuss whether such an approach might allow one to determine psychotypes. I think that for now there are no grounds for this.

Commentary: Interestingly, the author arrived — on her own — at the physiognomic method, yet doubts it will work. And yet theory provides the direction of the search, asserting that IM encompasses the organism at all levels of its organization: not only the psyche, but also physiology and anatomy fix and preserve bodily traces which can be found in the plasticity of the body, in facial features, in mimicry, in the voice, and in elements of behavior. The only difficulty is that elements of very different levels participate in IM, and their bodily traces may strongly mask the less noticeable typological traces. And yet they exist — which means they can be found.

So now the question is how to identify and isolate those particular features which manifest so vividly in outward appearance.

Filatova: One more conclusion from the fact that a system of elementary types was obtained for each Jungian type is that we thereby receive confirmation of the orthogonality of the axes of the Jungian dichotomies. If the axes (as some socionists suppose) were not orthogonal, the decomposition of each Jungian type into elementary types would not have occurred (in mathematics — the diagonalization of a matrix), since the absence of orthogonality would have “smeared” and mixed them all together.

Commentary: One cannot yet speak of a system of elementary types, since it is unclear what meaning is placed in the concept of a subtype and what the “strengthening” of an IA in a socionic function means.

SOCIONICS AND GENETICS

Filatova: The question is discussed of the period of development in which a person’s psychological type is laid down. Arguments are advanced in favor of the genetic approach.

Commentary: Regarding the TIM one may make the following suppositions: the TIM is formed in the process of a person’s adaptation to the social environment; the TIM is partly determined genetically and partly socially; the TIM is fully formed by the moment of birth. Let us consider these possibilities separately.

The TIM is formed in the process of adaptation to the social environment. This supposition is the simplest, since we observe adults as fully formed, with a concrete character whose traits are easily linked to life circumstances. Assessing athletes, physicians, childcare workers, special-forces soldiers, etc., we can see common traits corresponding to the profession — persistence, attentiveness to people, strength — and naturally connect this with the particularities of their profession. And since the TIM can be strongly masked, it may remain unnoticed and seemingly without significance.

The TIM is partly genetically and partly socially determined. It is relatively easy to agree that sensory and intuitive capacities, being connected with corporeality — ordinary or musical hearing, vision, skin sensitivity, the ability to determine a product’s quality by taste with high precision — are all clearly visible and naturally understood as innate. As for thinking, say, its training in the course of education is obvious.

The TIM is fully formed by the moment of birth. One can arrive at such an idea only through knowledge of the socionic typology, assessing at the empirical level individual capacities that are not the property of all people and that, moreover, can be strengthened through training but cannot be formed if their natural basis is absent.

But note that Filatova poses the question not of the genetic givenness of the TIM but of “the period of development in which a person’s psychological type is laid down.” That is, she speaks of the laying down, not the full formedness, of the TIM. This is certainly an interesting nuance in understanding the TIM’s origin. Apparently it is supposed that up to a certain moment in a person’s development there is no TIM; from some moment it begins to be laid down; at some moment one can say of the TIM that it already exists; later still one will be able to say with certainty that the TIM is formed; and possibly, from some moment on, that a subtype has formed. Such refinements introduce a certain intrigue into the understanding of the TIM.

Filatova: Keywords: socionics, Jungian psychotype, genetics.

Commentary: Socionics has proposed the full-fledged term TIM, and there is no need in this context to appeal to the “Jungian psychotype” — its time has passed.

Filatova: One of the constantly debated questions among socionists and psychologists is the question of when a person’s psychotype is laid down and formed. Are the Jungian psychotypes genetically determined, or are they formed in various periods of development, including the prenatal period, under the influence of environment and upbringing? Various considerations are voiced, reflected in a number of publications [1–3, 5–7, 9–14].

Commentary: Here we have a vivid example of a scholar who, using the dubious expression “when the psychotype is laid down and formed,” provokes a corresponding opinion in the reader: the reader begins to think that the “psychotype” is laid down and formed. Yet this is only a hypothesis, and it should be formulated as a hypothesis.

Zelensky: “Jung objected to the idea that personality is fully determined by its experience, training, and environmental influence. He asserted that each individual comes into the world with ‘a whole personality sketch… present in potentia from birth,’ and that ‘the environment does not at all grant the personality the possibility of becoming one, but merely reveals what was already laid down in it (the personality).‘”

Commentary: Here Filatova cites the text of one of the profound experts on Jung, which is interesting in itself. In this quotation one can see traces of the Freud–Jung-era discussions on what in a person is determined and what is acquired in the course of life. Let us read Jung’s statement closely and clarify what exactly he asserts. The use of the term “grants” in this statement (unless it is a translation error) raises deep doubt. First of all, it is a metaphor, and as such it distorts the possible conception of the environment, which may prove more or less favorable for the formation of the personality (this too requires definition); but to say that it grants something to the personality is to ascribe to the environment a subjective attitude toward living beings, including representatives of the species homo sapiens. This is a variant of animating the environment, which requires a scientific resolution of the problem of the environment’s subjectivity rather than accepting such a possibility by default. The same remark applies to the use of the verb “reveals” in this context, which transforms the environment from a passive agent of the field of human becoming into an active and conscious instance. Such a state of affairs requires paradigmatic clarification. With this in mind, I would propose editing Jung’s assertion as follows: “The human individual, situated in a concrete physical and social environment, strives to realize his potential capacities, part of which is represented by the type of information metabolism.”

Filatova: In this excerpt there is a direct indication of Jung’s position on whether the psychotype is innate or brought up by the environment. This view fundamentally distinguishes Jung’s position from Freud’s, who held that a person is born without any psychological traces, possessing only innate instincts, and that his psyche is formed exclusively under the influence of the environment.

Commentary: In both Freud’s and Jung’s case we can speak only of more or less plausible hypotheses. The scientifically more mature position of socionics sets researchers a more concrete task: to prove or disprove, in a strictly controlled experiment, the genetic determination of the TIM. More complex variants are possible here — for example, as Aušra Augustinavičiūtė thought, that the irrational component is innate while the rational one is acquired in interaction with the environment. There are certain grounds for this. My theoretical work and practical observations lead me to think that the TIM is fully innate and constitutes the human temperament — which, unlike the Hippocratic temperaments common to all warm-blooded animals, is characterized by a significant contribution of the intellectual component. As specifically concerns Freud’s position, from the methodological point of view it is inconsistent. Since he acknowledges the innateness of instincts, the matter comes down to definitions: can temperament be assigned to the category of instinct? At present there are sufficient grounds to redefine the concept of instinct so that the concept of temperament falls under the definition — that is, to consider temperament a variety of instinct.

Let us try. An instinct may be defined as an informational program, recorded on the psychic carriers of a living being, constituting the necessary and sufficient fixation of species adaptation and ensuring the reproduction of species behavior with respect to the animal’s habitat. That instinct is reproduced genetically, biologists do not doubt. Nor is there doubt that animal temperament is genetically reproduced. This is a good basis for carrying out the necessary experimental research with respect to human temperaments — which is what TIMs are.

Filatova: I will say at once: I am a proponent of the genetic approach and am certain that a child is born with already given innate properties, which later manifest under the influence of the conditions of life. The simplest consideration supporting this point of view is this: if a type can be brought up, why not, when necessary, re-educate it? Change the conditions of life, and a different psychotype results! If there is no compatibility in the family — re-educate yourself or your spouse! A person turns out to be in the wrong profession? Again, why change jobs — isn’t it simpler to change the psychotype! Yet such re-education is impossible, and who if not socionists knows this perfectly well from practice. It is precisely the fact of the psychotype’s immutability that lies at the foundation of socionics and of its theory of intertype relations, which distinguishes socionics from all other typologies.

Commentary: In this paragraph Filatova tries to argue for the innateness of the TIM, but what she says is hard to accept as arguments. Filatova appeals to the impossibility of educating or re-educating the TIM — but so far this follows only from observation, which does not guarantee the truth of such assertions, though they are certainly heuristic. And this is a task for experimenters: can they develop a methodology for the experimental proof of the TIM’s innateness? Probably the simplest variant here would be TIM diagnostics in newborns and, better yet, in embryos. And here physiognomic diagnostics could prove a unique instrument.

Look closely at the faces of the children in Fig. Fi. 11 [12]. The boy in the top row — extraversion, sensorics, thinking; probably a Zhukov, hence irrationality. The girl in the bottom row — a Napoleon. In her three-month photograph the innate smile is clearly visible, not yet filled with personal attitude, which is fully switched on in the subsequent photographs. This example leaves hope for the possibility of physiognomic TIM diagnostics already in early childhood — and also that the TIM is innate.

Filatova: When speaking of the innateness of particular features, we as a rule mean their genetic nature. In our time everyone knows well that features such as eye color, hair color, the oval of the face, dimples on the cheeks or chin, predisposition to plumpness, and many, many other physical and physiological parameters depend on one gene or another — more often on a combination of several or even multiple genes. All this has been studied and proven in sufficient detail, and examples may be found in textbooks and in the abundant popular literature on genetics.

Commentary: One wonders — what else, besides the genetic nature of the TIM, could be meant here? At the same time, the reference to genetically predetermined bodily features bears directly on the genetic predetermination of the TIM, since many of them are directly connected with the TIM. Indeed, isolating such features could itself become proof of the TIM’s genetic conditioning.

Filatova: I will venture to assert that a person’s psychotype, like other features (physical, physiological), is genetically determined — that is, it depends on a specific set of genes whose interaction leads to the diversity of psychotypes we observe among people and which socionics has described.

Commentary: Different psychological typologies single out different psychotypes. The incorrect use of the term “psychotype” complicates understanding of the text: are we speaking here of psychotypes in general or only of TIMs? It is doubtful that “psychotype” is opposed to “other features” — physical and physiological — which are so bound up with the psyche that they too must be included in the psychotype. Otherwise, one can agree with Filatova’s approach here.

Filatova: I want to make one thing clear at once: in speaking of the genetic determination of the psychotype, I by no means assert that environmental conditions exert no influence on the formation of a person’s psyche. On the contrary, factors such as upbringing, education, ethnic particularities, and many others are exceptionally important, and their influence on the manifestation of a psychotype has been discussed many times in the socionic literature. At the same time, socionics has demonstrated that all these factors can alter the manifestation of a psychotype only within certain limits, while the psychotype itself remains unchanged throughout our life. It is the same as how the conditions of physical life — diet, life in the countryside or in a polluted city, sport, alcohol abuse and smoking… the reader can easily continue the list — will of course show in a person’s physical appearance, both in outward looks and in the health or ill-health of the internal organs. Yet the bony skeleton and the presence of those very organs are a givenness preserved to the end of life.

Commentary: In the first sentence Filatova specifies that she does not conflate psychotype and psyche. But is that not self-evident? The psychotype indicates a variant of the psyche’s realization, while the psyche is the carrier on which alone a psychotype can be realized. From the second sentence one can gather that a range of environmental factors influences the manifestation of the TIM. Behind this lies a subtle point connected with distinguishing the TIM itself from its manifestations. Are they the same thing, or different? Without appropriate definitions, all reasoning on this theme loses meaning. I hold that if the TIM is genetically given, it will manifest under any environmental conditions — and precisely in such a way that it can be diagnosed by those manifestations.

Filatova: As an argument against the genetic approach to the psychotype’s origin, the fact is cited, in particular, that children of the same parents have different psychotypes [2]. I suppose such an opinion exists solely because the author of that conception has no competent understanding of genetics.

Commentary: This remark of Filatova’s is valuable in that it gives an idea of the erudition of that portion of socionists attempting to build scientific conceptions of the TIM’s origin. I recall how one journalist, carried away by socionics, argued heatedly that a family must necessarily produce either identicals of the parents or their duals.

Filatova: First, the fact that children have different psychotypes testifies, on the contrary, in favor of the genetic approach. How else to explain that children in the identical physical and psychological conditions of their family display different, sometimes completely opposite psychotypes? The conditions of life and upbringing, for all their importance, cannot change a child’s psychotype — just as upbringing cannot change the shape and color of the eyes, the outline of the mouth, the form of the brows, or the oval of the face — features determined by genetics.

Commentary: This is a full-fledged argument in favor of the genetic predetermination of the TIM; however, the expression “display different, sometimes completely opposite psychotypes” requires editing. Of course, TIMs are not displayed — they are possessed. And what meaning the author places in “completely opposite psychotypes” remains unknown. It would have sufficed to write “different,” since even types with the same Program function — kindred types — are considerably opposed in their creative function; as for duals, they of course must be assigned to the opposites. I analyze the text carefully in all respects because subtle theoretical problems must be discussed with the utmost care, and imprecision or carelessness in the formulation of thought sharply lowers an author’s standing in discussion.

Filatova: Second, each child does indeed inherit two sets of genes — one from the mother and one from the father. However, in the process of the formation of the sex cells there occurs the process of so-called genetic recombination, leading to the reshuffling of the paternal and maternal genetic sets. As a result, the greater the number of genes determining a given feature, the greater the number of possible genetic combinations. Multiply this by the number of all features, and you get, at minimum, thousands of different variants. As a result each child receives his own set of genes, differing not only from the parents’ sets but also from those of his own brothers and sisters. The exception is monozygotic twins, developed from a single fertilized egg and therefore possessing identical sets of genes.

Commentary: Here a dubious expression creeps into an almost impeccable paragraph — what does “the process of the formation of the sex cells” have to do with it? Apparently the author means the fusion of the sex cells in the process of fertilization — then that is what should be said. However, a subtler point is present in this reasoning: despite the “thousands of different variants,” the types always come out to exactly 16. This means that if the genome contains a component responsible for the formation of the TIM, then the corresponding parental parts of these components always recombine in such a way that the new combination does not exceed the bounds of typological determinacy — that is, a 17th TIM cannot appear — and this is a problem of gene combinatorics. In particular, it may mean that certain bodily features always appear jointly: thus, cats with red eyes are invariably deaf. One would like to have a list of all linked — and especially typologically linked — bodily features.

Filatova: And now let us consider the data at our disposal which, it seems to me, testify in favor of the genetic nature of psychotypes. To begin, let us return to the result I obtained and set out in the previous article — the phenotypic similarity of people belonging to one elementary type. As we recall, in a number of cases this similarity is so great that they differ little from true doubles. What might this indicate?

Commentary: Apparently by “true doubles” the author means monozygotic twins, although “doubles” denotes any people who are hard to tell apart. I personally do not doubt that very similar people also have the same TIM — but it nonetheless must be proven; otherwise everything remains at the level of hypothesis.

Filatova: First, it says that these people, more alike than siblings (monozygotic twins excepted), have a certain genetic similarity — for phenotypic features are genetically determined.

Commentary: Of course, genetic similarity may also exist between very dissimilar people, as close relatives sometimes are. As for the genetic similarity of similar people, here again one must return to definitions. Are all phenotypic features in different individuals always determined by identical sets of genes? For example, hair color or body dimensions? Is the gene responsible for hair color identical in all natural blondes? If so, they should all be considered genetically similar — yet socionic practice shows that blondes can be of different TIMs.

But the main thing the author fails to take into account is that the socionic function (SF), being an informational program containing algorithms of maximally generalized parameters of behavior, is always identical to itself in all people of one TIM, while differences in behavior arise from other, non-socionic programs.

Filatova: Second, following the logical chain, we may suppose that their genetic closeness may not be limited to the genes responsible for external features. And third, the high correlation of people’s external similarity with their psychological similarity (belonging to one psychotype) indirectly points to the genetic nature of the psychotypes themselves.

Commentary: The logical chain in this case permits only the advancing of a hypothesis. As for psychological similarity, it can be assessed from the standpoint of the most varied typologies — of which psychologists have invented more than three hundred.

It is notable that Jung already remarked on the connection of bodily and psychic features.

Jung: “…the mutual interpenetration of bodily and psychic features is so deep that from the properties of the body we can not only draw far-reaching conclusions about the qualities of the soul, but from psychic particularities we can also judge the corresponding bodily forms…”

Commentary: Of course genetics is not mentioned here — in Jung’s time it was in an embryonic state — but since the genetic component in bodily features is extremely large, the psychic qualities correlating with bodily features may well be understood as genetically determined.

Jung: “…The simple statement that certain people look thus-and-so means nothing at all if it does not allow us to infer the corresponding content. We will be satisfied only when we learn what kind of psychic corresponds to particular physical qualities. The body without the psyche tells us nothing, just as (…) the soul can mean nothing without the body.”

Commentary: This quotation from Jung may well be used as an argument in favor of the genetic underpinning of the TIM.

Filatova: Does not Jung unambiguously connect appearance with a person’s psychic properties? Several years ago, in a personal conversation, the director of the St. Petersburg Institute of Psychoanalysis, Professor M. M. Reshetnikov, told me he had come across the work of some physician in which a study was carried out of various medical parameters of doubles (not twins), and those parameters proved to a significant degree identical. Searching for research on this theme led me to the book of the physician V. I. Kulikov. In the introduction to his book “The Individual Test ‘Verbal Portrait’” Kulikov writes:

“Of undoubted interest are the so-called doubles, who, like monozygotic twins, have an identical antigenic blood composition and a recurrence of morphology and psyche.”

Kulikov is interested in this problem from the standpoint of tissue compatibility; hence he cites, in particular, data on the identity of numerous physiological parameters of doubles:

“In selecting identical phenotypes we have the possibility of selecting practically identical genotypes… And what could be simpler than fixing the homogeneity of genes by identical morphological features? (…) And the tissues of a universal donor can be transplanted to any recipient without a rejection reaction… Thus new and original paths have emerged for solving the problem of tissue compatibility — humanity’s long-standing dream.”

For us the most interesting observations are those of researchers of monozygotic twins who are also involved in socionics. I know of two works in this area whose authors come to absolutely opposite conclusions. In the article “Certain Particularities of Thinking in Twins Suffering from Psychic Infantilism,” the physician D. I. Ivanov reports that the monozygotic twins he studied have identical psychotypes. The work presents data for 7 pairs of monozygotic twins: EII–EII — 4 pairs, IEI–IEI — 1 pair, ILE–ILE — 1 pair, IEE–IEE — 1 pair. On the basis of his research Ivanov writes:

“In all pairs of monozygotic twins there was observed not only a certain identity of the clinical manifestations of psychic infantilism, but also complete similarity of socionic types. The supposition has been voiced of the predominant role of the genetic factor in the formation of the type of information metabolism over the factors of environment and upbringing.”

Commentary: Filatova’s observations strengthen the hope that the TIM is genetically determined — but direct laboratory research into this problem is still needed.

Filatova: …after gathering more statistics, we will be able to describe each of the elementary types in detail; their exact number will be established in the near future. Many discoveries await us, but even now one can say with a large measure of confidence that we are close to understanding what a human being is.

Commentary: As I understand it, by “elementary type” the author means the subtype (podtim), with which I cannot agree, since I hold that the subtype is formed as an adaptation to social conditions, when, owing to special circumstances, one function or another is strengthened or weakened.

Filatova: One of the earliest works on the origin of psychotypes belongs to A. Bukalov, who advanced the hypothesis that the psychotype is formed in the prenatal period of the embryo and, consequently, has no genetic basis in its origin. The idea is very beautiful, of course, but then it is entirely unclear how the elementary types arise and how prenatal matrices influence their external similarity. It is true that this work of Bukalov’s was published before my book came out, where it was noted that the barely fertilized egg already carries certain genetic information which, under normal development of the fetus, does not change and is preserved after the child’s birth.

Commentary: Bukalov’s position by no means contradicts the “genetic” hypothesis, but supplements it with a corrective mechanism of sorts: the particularities of the prenatal existence of the embryo and child may introduce refinements into an already determined TIM — for example, refine its quadra. Thus one may suppose the possible existence of a “pre-TIM” which turns into a TIM after prenatal processing. Despite the difficulty of substantiating such a hypothesis, its unexpectedness and even extravagance, it has a right to exist — but it must be proven in a controlled laboratory experiment. One may well suppose that, for example, a “genetic blank” in the form of a Dumas may, under the influence of a strengthening of the third perinatal matrix (passage through the birth canal in a mode of “volcanic ecstasy”), be transformed into a quasi-identical — a Dreiser.

There is also the hypothesis of E. Olkova, according to which the psychological type is formed in the prenatal period of the fetus’s development. Her research leads to the well-argued conclusion that the TIM of the future child is connected with the psychological state of the mother. It is asserted that the mother’s dominant mood forms the psychological type of the future child — namely: the Jungian function under whose influence the woman was most during pregnancy turns out to be the place of least resistance in the child’s TIM. For example, if during pregnancy the center of the mother’s attention was occupied by problems connected with introverted sensorics — poor health, discomfort, certain problems (not just any, it seems) — this forms the position of s in the critical function, corresponding to the birth of Hamlets and Jacks regardless of the mother’s TIM.

Filatova: Such a hypothesis raises a number of questions. First, any person is daily under the action of all eight functions, depending on circumstances. It suffices to analyze attentively all one’s actions even over a short period. Indeed, literally every day from morning to evening of our ordinary life we are compelled to use all of Jung’s functions: the alarm rings, one must get up, one does not want to. One has to exert an effort of will (S) to shake off sleep and rise. Then we perform the usual morning toilet, breakfast (s)… Leaving the house, we think over what must be done in the day, plan working time, meetings (l). The way to work often turns out likewise “filled” with Jung’s functions — one can barely squeeze into public transport, someone steps on your foot, someone is rude… — here the various functions pour down “as from a horn of plenty,” since one must push through, winning oneself living space; one must also “press” S to end up inside rather than outside the means of transport. And here an “exchange of pleasantries” is unavoidable, capable of spoiling the mood for a long time (E)…

Commentary: The author has enumerated what is essentially the standard aspect background — but Olkova’s hypothesis concerns the dominant background…

Filatova: …you will find that all of Jung’s functions are present daily and hourly in your real life. As for the dominant functions — these will always be the most energetically strong functions, the functions of the leading block.

Commentary: The author’s last argument does not seem convincing — it is quite plausible that any aspect, even a weak one, may prove dominant.

Filatova: Since, by my data, in more than 25% of cases a mother brings her dual into the world — only in this sense can one say that she forms the type of the future child, endowing him with a psychotype that guarantees him the fullest support in childhood, and her in old age. Probably Nature, which always acts toward the preservation of any species, has seen to this.

Commentary: This is a very limited supposition, connected with an exaggeration of the semantics of duality. Why does the author neglect the other synergetic relations: semi-duality, mirage, full parallel, activation, mirror, requital, and kindred? And antagonistic relations too may prove dominant.

Filatova: Doubt is also raised by Ms. Olkova’s assertion that monozygotic twins have different psychotypes. It is reported that the monozygosity of the newborn infants was declared to the mothers by the midwife who delivered them — whereas this fact can be established only by genetic testing. Since that testing is a very costly procedure, until recently it was done in our country exclusively in rare cases and only on medical indications.

I will not even speak of how one could determine without errors the psychotypes of 100 women and their children — that is, more than two hundred people. Practicing socionists know perfectly well how difficult this is to establish; determining the psychotype remains a stumbling block even for experienced specialists. And establishing the dominant mood is a fairly arbitrary procedure, since a person may have any mood, which changes repeatedly even within a day — to say nothing of persisting through all nine months of pregnancy.

Commentary: These considerations of the author must certainly be taken into account when planning the corresponding experiment.

Filatova: I note that all the “non-genetic” versions are based on quite reasonable — but still — suppositions, and that isolated or dubious facts are adduced in their defense.

Commentary: Alas, for now socionists are compelled to make do with speculative considerations.

Filatova: The circumstance that, for my conclusions about the genetic version of the psychotypes’ origin, I carried out an enormous work presented in the form of two hundred photographs gives me grounds for confidence in my approach. I think that sooner or later the genetic approach will be confirmed by other experimental data — at least, I currently find no other explanation for the result obtained.

Commentary: Photographs are serious empirical material, but empiricism alone is insufficient — the interpretation of empirical data depends heavily on theoretical presuppositions.

The genetic hypothesis is also supported, if indirectly, by the results of serious Western psychologists. Here is the opinion of Hjelle and Ziegler, authors of an academic book on personality psychology: “…the achievements of behavioral genetics, biochemistry, and neurophysiology have brought about significant and decisive changes in the theoretical constructs and methods of psychological research… most personologists today agree that individual differences are partly rooted in biological processes and genetic predisposition. As our knowledge of the biological basis of behavior and psychic processes grows, together with the development of sophisticated research designs, it seems that resistance to understanding personality in terms of biology and genetics will be broken.” This is encouraging. And although socionics still lacks the status of a science — above all for internal reasons — clarifying the factors that determine the TIM could become a serious argument in this question.

Filatova: I recall a curious episode when I was once visiting relatives. Present there was a woman — a professional psychologist. Learning that I was engaged in Jungian typology without being a psychologist by training, she pronounced quite categorically on my supposition of the genetic origin of Jung’s psychotypes: “That cannot be; as you bring a person up, such a type you will get. Everything depends on the conditions of life; they alone influence the formation of a person’s character.”

Commentary: This is a remarkable testimony to the poverty of Soviet psychology, whose bosses banned and persecuted socionics “on a materialist basis.”

Filatova: Being by my basic training an experimental physicist, I have been accustomed since my student years to place facts at the head of all theoretical considerations. That is precisely why two of my books — “Socionics in Portraits and Examples” and “Personality in the Mirror of Socionics” — contain a large body of experimental material which allowed me to obtain important data based on real observations. I am certain that only on the results of experiments can various theories be built.

Commentary: This is a positive example of the reader learning about a researcher’s methodological toolkit. Certainly an experimental physicist must be acquainted with the basics of scientific methodology and must understand its significance. And if a scholar places facts “at the head of all theoretical considerations,” that is a good start. But it is equally clear that facts are insufficient for building a theory. For that case the scholar — like all people, incidentally — possesses a complex of innate and acquired intellectual instruments, including COMPARISON, INDUCTION, GENERALIZATION, NAMING, and many others. And with their help, of course, one may obtain something that could become “important data” for some work. But an editor easily discovers a different meaning here. Apparently the author meant “important results,” since “data” is the raw material — for which the author took the facts. Yet the author’s self-assessment of her results as important looks odd in this context. Perhaps these results really are important for the author — but whether they will prove important for socionics is for others to say. And at the paragraph’s close the author makes an entirely intelligible but also entirely banal declaration “that only on the results of experiments can various theories be built.” It is also not very clear what the author here understands by “experiment”: the fact that she gathered a large number of photo-portraits, the photo-portraits themselves, or the interaction with the people whose portraits she gathered? What lets the author down here is her default use of the general scientific term “experiment,” without specifying or defining it in relation to the — unquestionably valuable — work she carried out; but that work precedes the experiment, and its name is “preliminary data collection.” Still, Filatova has undoubtedly done much for the popularization of socionics, and her books enjoy success with ordinary readers.

Filatova: In my view, only by learning to determine psychotypes correctly will socionics become a science in earnest. Could I have obtained the result of the “fine structure” of the Jungian types if I had treated this carelessly?

Commentary: Read the first sentence closely and you may notice that the author attributes to socionics the capacity to learn and to determine psychotypes. Naturally this is a literary device, like metaphor or metonymy. In belles-lettres it might even prove amusing, but in science an author’s fuzzy thought can become a source of serious errors and misunderstandings. But the main error in this sentence is that the author considers the algorithm for determining the TIM the decisive link in turning socionics into a science. Clearly, without defining what a science is, talking about this is simply meaningless.

Filatova: Without such an approach it is easy to end up on the same level as the authors of the book “Your Psychological Type” [8] — our domestic adherents of the MBTI technique, V. Ovchinnikov, K. Pavlov, and I. Vladimirova. That book expounds the position of D. Keirsey [4], in which, besides the technology of determining psychotypes, intertype relations are also considered, and it is asserted that the most comfortable relations are those between people whose four dichotomies are all opposite. And at the same time, the book’s authors claim that all their results conform to Professor Keirsey’s theory and rest on the study of thousands of people! I suppose this claim is, to put it mildly, greatly exaggerated; moreover, if they really did find comfort somewhere in relations where all four dichotomies differ, it follows only that the psychotypes were determined incorrectly.

Commentary: I can only welcome this critical passage from Filatova — a scholar of great life and scientific experience. Here for the first time (excepting, of course, myself), from the standpoint of socionics, an objective critique is given of the dead-end American typology and its Russian enthusiasts — representatives of the dull-witted part of post-Soviet psychology.

Filatova: And what do the authors [8] of that book themselves write of their work?

“…over three years we examined a large number of people (over six thousand in all) — schoolchildren, students and teachers, servicemen, the unemployed, patients with various illnesses — and proved that the questionnaire really does reveal the most essential typological features and allows one to determine the psychological type without particular difficulty.” And further, in the same place: “Our book has essentially nothing in common with socionics.”

Commentary: It is hard to imagine more convincing proof of the authors being apologists of a witty but essentially erroneous direction in psychology, headed by Keirsey — an empirically and practically experienced psychologist, certainly, but one who unfortunately proved incapable of penetrating beneath the terminological surface of Jung’s teaching. My book [18] gives a sufficiently detailed proof of the deficiency of part of Keirsey’s elaborations, though I hold that some of his psychological findings — and they exist! — could find adaptation within socionics.

Apparently the authors of the harmful little book “Determine Your Type” take pride in having nothing in common with socionics — but this precisely confirms their inability to tell truth from falsehood, and incidentally casts a shadow on official psychology, which trains such professionals. What, then, is their great labor worth — using an erroneous direction in psychology to examine several thousand people, to say nothing of the fact that those people were, in essence, deceived.

Filatova: I suppose commentary here is superfluous — any socionist, even a beginner, understands that the authors of the book cited above confused dual relations with conflict relations. And yet — “without particular difficulty” they determined psychological types, and on a base of more than six thousand respondents obtained confirmation of the MBTI technique! And what a blessing that their “book has nothing in common with socionics”! And this, of course, because the authors surely did not take the determination of psychotypes seriously.

Commentary: Here I fully agree with the author.

Filatova: And could I have obtained the “fine structure” of the Jungian types if even one dichotomy in each case had been determined incorrectly? Of course not! After the publication of the book [14] in 2001, I hoped that socionists would be found who, like me, would photograph people whose psychotypes they had determined reliably enough. And by now, ten years on, we could by joint effort have compiled atlases of the faces of the elementary types for all psychotypes, simultaneously establishing their exact number. And we could have presented these atlases to the world public — which would undoubtedly have brought socionics to the leading edge, especially given the interest shown throughout the world in questions of the connection between a person’s appearance and his psychological particularities.

Commentary: Indeed, E.S. did not know that I too collected — and did collect — several thousand photographs, and I never supposed she would find that interesting. Well, such is my TIM! One cannot blame a person for having a TIM unsuited to someone. Surely E.S., an experienced socionist, understands this? But my scientific position is different — I consider that mere albums of photographs are insufficient. A full-fledged theory is necessary, and that is what I did not find in E.S. I do not even quite understand what she is proud of. Yes, she did a great deal of work, and that work can make a strong impression on inexperienced people — but in the theoretical respect it is the most elementary level. Worse still, E.S. propagated in her books the erroneous and harmful terminology of Gulenko, under whose charm she fell in her time.

Filatova: However, there followed not only no responses or reviews, but not even simple references to my book — including in discussions of the origin of psychotypes in various socionic publications.

Commentary: But then, I never saw any reaction from E.S. to my theoretical searches either. Nor did I see it from many socionic masters.

Filatova: Again and again, for ten years now, these questions continue to be discussed, and yet my work goes entirely unmentioned, as if it simply did not exist. When the book is mentioned in references, it is exclusively as a popular exposition of socionics — and no more. But what of my having obtained the “fine structure,” the rows of elementary types? What of my having shown, for the first time in the world, who the doubles are? Are these really such insignificant facts that they do not merit simple mention — even by those who disagree with my interpretation — considering that obtaining this result cost enormous labor which no socionist has yet repeated? Perhaps I explained it all inaccessibly? Perhaps the socionists simply did not understand me? Yet the owners of several websites immediately posted this book on the Internet without my permission.

Commentary: E.S. may consider that her turn has now come, and I have responded to her elaborations. What does she call the “fine structure” and — imitating Vavilov — the “rows of elementary types”? Subtypes, or rather podtims? But Gulenko and Didenko spoke of this first — or rather the reverse: Didenko was the first to utter this word in relation to socionics. Why does E.S. not cite them?

Filatova: The most interesting thing is that I have received a mass of responses, direct and indirect, to this work from those who are merely interested in socionics but do not practice it professionally.

• Academician of the RANS, Professor A. V. Sokolov (St. Petersburg): “You are simply a woman of genius!”
• Doctor of Physical-Mathematical Sciences, Professor B. Z. Olshanetsky (Novosibirsk): “Why, she alone has done the work of an entire institute…!”
• Yekaterinburg, seminar participants: “This work deserves the Nobel Prize.”
• Psychologist-psychoanalyst, author of a series of books, V. N. Zhuravlev (St. Petersburg): “I follow all your publications, I miss not one. If you should need my help — I am ready to treat you free of charge.”
• A citizen of Germany, A. E. Kuk: “Not only do your books contain everything of interest — and what others lack — but it is also described very simply and clearly. So do not think I am approaching you at random; I have carefully analyzed everything on the Internet on socionics and recognize that you are the leading socionist, beyond socionic competition, and precisely this circumstance determined my choice — the proposal of cooperation.”

After I published an article on socionics in the journal “St. Petersburg University,” including just 8 pairs of doubles, I received responses:

• The rector of the university, Professor L. A. Verbitskaya: “If you arrange with any faculty to provide you a chair for a course of lectures — I will secure the salary from the rector’s fund.”
• The director of the Institute of Physiology at SPbSU, Professor I. E. Kanunikov: “I want you to be listed at my institute; unfortunately I cannot pay you, but I am nonetheless ready to enroll you as a senior research fellow so that you have a pass to the Institute and access to the University library” — ten years ago even that could happen in our science.
• Doctor of Biological Sciences S. K. Svitashev, who has worked in genetics for 20 years, seeing me laying out my photographs into rows of elementary types, exclaimed: “Mother, why, this is genetics!” Yes — this is my son, who fully supports me in this conviction. True, he explained that genetics is not yet developed enough to link the psychotype precisely to particular genes, but he considers that in 10–15 years it will be possible — my son, of course, knows socionics perfectly well and accordingly knows what he is talking about.

Commentary: That is just the point — only those “who are merely interested in socionics but do not practice it professionally” could react that way to Filatova’s photographic solitaire. Let us also not forget E.S.’s personal charm; and the positive responses came, by E.S.’s own testimony, only from official bosses of science — and what sort of people those are is well known from Soviet times. As scholars they are most often bureaucratic nonentities who obtained their posts on a corrupt basis, shamelessly exploited and appropriated the ideas of their subordinates; and in E.S.’s work too, most likely without understanding it, they saw a chance to gain something for themselves — such people are hard to suspect of disinterestedness.

Filatova: I could go on for a long time listing all the responses from less titled respondents that came to me concerning the publication of “Personality in the Mirror of Socionics”; I think the list above is quite sufficient.

Commentary: Yes — for official-bureaucratic fame it is sufficient. How is it they have not yet managed to pin some highest scientific stripes on E.S.? Yes, E.S. is a very hard-working person — few have managed to photograph so much and write so much in socionics. Yet the works of Aušra Augustinavičiūtė they not only failed to appreciate on their merits, but branded them! And that is because they proved incapable of understanding them. Yet E.S. they raised on a shield. Why would that be? Might it not be because they saw in her a person of their own circle? That she is the same as they are? Perhaps I am mistaken — but it is quite plausible.

Filatova: I want only to emphasize that I am by no means trying to boast, nor do I take these — certainly flattering — remarks really seriously. Besides, thanks to the Internet all my books immediately appear on various sites (I never gave anyone such permissions; in the end both I and the publishers remain without the corresponding payment), and of world fame I have, as they say, more than enough. The point is different. With such a quantity of positive responses from outside — FOR TEN YEARS, NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE FROM THE SOCIONISTS!

Commentary: Well, thank God! E.S. understands the value of the pronouncements of official bosses of science. It remains only for her to understand that she is at the very beginning of the path, and that it is too early to count on particular raptures from colleagues who understand socionics. When we obtain real results rather than preliminary hypotheses — then…

Filatova: A certain definite tendency shows through in this, as if everyone had conspired to ignore my work. Perhaps I exaggerate? But how then to understand the fact that among the nearly three dozen well-known names of socionists listed by the esteemed Mr. Churyumov in his book “The Smile of the Cheshire Cat,” I did not find my own surname at all?

Commentary: Well, now the turn has come, and “the esteemed Mr. Churyumov” devotes an entire section to Filatova in his two-volume work. In “The Smile…,” however, I investigated serious problems and criticized only the most serious defects of the most serious socionic masters — and E.S. fell into neither the one rubric nor the other…

Filatova: Well then — most people already know Freud’s work on parapraxes and the cause of such actions; that says it all. So perhaps one should remind people of oneself?

Commentary: Well — E.S. has reminded us. But let her know all the same that we all know of her, remember her, and respect her. I, for example, consider that the majority of her photographic TIMs are determined correctly — but her theoretical ambitions do not correspond to her actual results. Much of what she did has caused real harm to socionics — but then, she does not understand this… However, no blame attaches to her here — it is merely the result of the wild growth of the young science that socionics is.

Filatova: I make no claim at all that this piece should be published — I leave that to the discretion of the editors. I simply wanted, at last, to speak out.

Commentary: Well, splendid — she has spoken out… The hypotheses are formulated; and now, E.S., let us begin serious work on physiognomic diagnostics and the theory of subtypes…

References

1. Bukalov, A. On the mechanism of the formation of the functions of information metabolism in the process of an individual’s birth. // Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology, 1996, Nos. 1, 2.
2. Ermak, V. D. Classical Socionics. Moscow: Chornaya Belka, 2009.
3. Ivanov, D. A. Certain particularities of thinking in twins suffering from psychic infantilism. // Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology, 1997, No. 6.
4. Keirsey, D., Bates, M. Please Understand Me. Character and Temperament Types. Gnosology Books.
5. Kulikov, V. I. The Individual Test “Verbal Portrait.” Far Eastern University Press, Vladivostok, 1988.
6. Mitrokhina, A. L. Grof’s matrices and quadra values. // Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology, 2009, No. 3; 2011.
7. Mitrokhina, A. L. General Socionics. Moscow: Chornaya Belka, 2010.
8. Ovchinnikov, B. V., Pavlov, K. V., Vladimirova, I. M. Your Psychological Type. St. Petersburg, 1994.
9. Olkova, E. V. The Origin of the Socionic Type, or Problems as an Inheritance. Moscow, 2007.
10. Popov, I. O. On the inheritance of socionic features. A technological analysis of E. S. Filatova’s statistics. // http://socioniko.net/ru/articles/popov-nasled.html
11. Pyatnitsky, V. V. On genetic determinism in socionics. // Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology, 2009, No. 3.
12. Udalova, E. A. On the study of the origin of the socionic type. // Psychology and Socionics of Interpersonal Relations, 2008, No. 2.
13. Filatova, E. S. Socionic statistics for 299 women, men and their children. // Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology, 2000, No. 6.
14. Filatova, E. S. Personality in the Mirror of Socionics. St. Petersburg: B.S.K., 2001.
15. Hjelle, L., Ziegler, D. Theories of Personality. St. Petersburg: Piter, 1997.
16. Jung, C. Psychological Types. St. Petersburg: Yuventa; Moscow: Progress-Univers, 1995.
17. Churyumov, S. I. The Splendor and Misery of Socionic Metaphysics. Kyiv, 2011. 469 pp.
18. Churyumov, S. I. The Smile of the Cheshire Cat. Drohobych, 2007. 560 pp.

Commentary: And yet not a single reference to my works… but I take no offense.

---

Translator’s notes:

• TIM = type of information metabolism; IM = information metabolism; IA = information aspect; SF = socionic function. Churyumov’s positional abbreviations (ППФ, КЗФ, ККФ, АНФ, ЭРФ, ММФ, ИВФ, РТФ) are his own idiosyncratic function-position labels; where a standard equivalent exists I’ve used it (Program function, creative function, critical function), otherwise the transliterated abbreviation is kept (ANF, ERF, MMF, KKF, IVF, RTF).
• In the ILE passage Churyumov writes “интровертированная интуиция” (“introverted intuition”) where he plainly means “extraverted intuition” — an apparent slip in the original, preserved as written.
• Filatova’s original figure numbering is inconsistent (the children’s photos are labeled both Fi. 11 and Fi. 12 at different points); the source’s labels are kept.