Portrait of a Modern Socionist

From Wikisocion
Jump to: navigation, search
Socionics practicum, 2013


Portrait of a Modern Socionist was a study undertaken by Dmitriy Lytov among Russian speaking socionists and enthusiasts in February-March 2007 and published in May. 49 people (24 men and 25 women, average age 31 years) took part by filling out a rather long questionnaire. All but 3 resided in Russia or Ukraine.

Findings

Most of the findings (the most informative) have been included in this section.

  • 63% had known about socionics for at least 3 years (11 people had known about it for 3-5 years, 9 from 5 to 10 years, and 11 for more than 10 years).
  • 59% learned about socionics by studying books and Internet articles on their own. Nearly a quarter had studied with well-known socionists. 30% of respondents teach or write about socionics.
  • Respondents' types, by dominant pole of dichotomy: extratims - 54%, irrationals - 58%, logicals - 61%, and intuiters - 65%. Alpha quadra types were most common.
  • 47% had been typed by professional socionists, 45% had typed themselves, 29% used tests, 18% were typed at training seminars, and 10% had been typed on socionics forums.
  • 41% had changed their opinion of their type at least once.
  • Those who were most sure of their types (i.e. had changed their opinion least) had discovered their types at trainings and on forums. The other methods mentioned above tended to result in more re-typings.
  • 41 out of 49 respondents said they diagnosed types.

Participants were asked to express their opinions on various questions using a 5-point scale, where 5 meant complete trust and 1 meant a complete lack of trust.

Reliability of typing methods:

  • Live interview method: "mostly reliable"
  • Structured question method (when specific questions are asked and the answers analyzed): "somewhat reliable"
  • Observation of nonverbal reactions: "somewhat reliable"
  • Multi-factor questionnaires: right between "reliable" and "unreliable"
  • Speech content analysis: "more unreliable than reliable"
  • Diagnosis by appearance: "quite unreliable"
  • Simple questionnaires with a few dozen questions: "very unreliable"
  • Bioenergy diagnosis using chakras: "very unreliable"

Reliability of diagnosis criteria:

  • Jungian foundation: "more reliable than unreliable"
  • Identification of base and creative functions: "somewhat reliable"
  • Identification of each function of Model A: "somewhat reliable"
  • Identification of "overall type image": "a little bit reliable"
  • Reinin dichotomies and quadra values: "more unreliable than reliable"

Level of trust towards specific socionic concepts or hypotheses (from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest):

Opinions on less mainstream socionic ideas:

Level of agreement with various statements:

  • Only certain types can be successful in public life (popular in Gulenko's school and works of Meged and Ovcharov): 1.73
  • Types can be assigned not only to people, but to non-living things: 1.41
  • Type is inborn, genetically determined, and gradually "unfolds" over the course of life: 3.38
  • There is a correlation (not necessarily 100%) between a person's type and the types of his parents: 2.74
  • One's type can change over one's life: 1.59
  • Astrological factors contribute to forming one's type: 1.74
  • The types of famous people can be identified relatively accurately without knowing them personally: 2.89
  • Temperament (choleric, sanguine, etc.) correlates more with type than with subtype or non-type factors: 2.60 (very high range of opinions)
  • Masks are visible than types upon first acquaintance: 2.48
  • One's type has big effect on one's handwriting: 2.17
  • With a good knowledge of socionics, even conflicters can have a happy marriage: 1.91
  • A renowned scientist who is sensing and ethical is an impossibility: 1.61
  • A non-dualized typer should not be trusted: 1.45
  • Only an ethical type can accurately diagnose ethics, a logical type — logic, etc.: 1.42
  • Some types are more capable of typing than others: 2.49 (very high range of responses)
  • Intertype relations can be related with types (duality is a "SEI-relationship," etc.; this approach was termed introverted socionics): 1.76
  • A harmoniously developed individual can move from his own type to others: 1.49
  • Mentally ill people don't have types, but only "shards" of types: 1.88
  • Type determines a propensity towards certain mental illnesses: 2.95
  • Myers-Briggs Typology is way behind socionics: 3.40
  • It is unethical to publish studies of the types of people alive today: 1.83

How respondents rate the contribution of various socionists to socionics, on a scale of 1 to 4 (4 being the highest):

(the rest were below 2)

What is socionics? (number of people who agreed with each statement, out of 49):

  • A discipline within psychology adjacent to a number of other disciplines: 29
  • An interesting hypothesis that hasn't yet grown into a science: 24
  • An emerging, comprehensive, multi-disciplinary science: 21
  • Not science, but a highly important field of knowledge: 14
  • A fun and interesting game: 12
  • A psychological technique (like NLP, Gestalt Therapy, etc.): 9
  • A distortion of the ideas of Carl Jung: 3
  • An esoteric cult camouflaged as science: 2
  • A discipline closer to mathematics than to the humanities: 1
  • A pseudoscience based on obviously erroneous postulates: 0
Retrieved from "http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Portrait_of_a_Modern_Socionist&oldid=19164"