Reciprocity Criteria: Intertype Relations as Interaction of Temperaments and Installations

Reciprocity Criteria / Reciprocity Criteria 
Intertype Relationships as Interaction of Temperaments and Attitudes

V.V.Gulenko , Kiev, 07.15.1992

Published: "Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology" , 1996, № 2.

1. Starting position - Point of departure

Attempts to analyze intertype relationships have been made by a number of authors. In addition to the classical description of A.Augustinavichiute [1], which largely relied, apparently, on E. Bern's transactional analysis, and, more specifically, the practical works of L.Stankevichyut [3], an analysis of intertype relationships based on model A is found in N. Medvedev [4 ] and I. Kagantsa [5].

The approach of two types of intertype relationships is distinguished by logical rigor and formal persuasiveness, but it is unlikely that it provides something new for a deep understanding of the laws of typical interaction. It is not even applicable for practical socionic problems, for example, for predicting compatibility in a team.

An original study of this question was conducted by E. Shepetyko, who managed to decompose the whole intertype relationship into 4 simple properties - mutual aid, mutual understanding, control and conflict [6]. Unfortunately, not all conclusions from his theory are supported by the results of our socionic works. Nevertheless, the practical application of his method of simple classification is of great interest - too rare are socionic developments aimed at the real needs of society.

My task was also to set out to avoid the abstractness and mechanism of a purely model approach. In this paper, I tried to give maximum attention to the applied aspect of relationships, first, and rely in their analysis on well-known and widely accessible socionic concepts, and second.

I offer you a systematic description of the relationship between types from the point of view of small groups formed by Jung scales. The article also provides a decomposition of intertype relationships into simple components.

Summary. It has been noted that the analysis of intertypal relations has been carried out. It is a new approach.

2. Small groups - Small groups

In this study, I will first of all use 4 classical Jung scales, combining them in pairs.

With the help of ratio / irrationality and extra / introversion scales, four small groups are formed, which I called temperamental . Their justification and description can be found in my work “Guarantees of productive education” [8], which grew as a result of joint research with my colleagues in Kiev schools.

As a result of the combination of signs of logic / ethics and sensory / intuition, small groups are formed, usually called discussion clubs. I also use the name of the installation group , since each club is focused on one or another kind of activity in society.

There are only four installations - social, managerial, research (scientist) and humanitarian. I examined them in detail in the work “Sociotypes in Communication” [7].

Thus, intertype relationships can be traced through the interaction prism, on the one hand, of temperaments, which corresponds to the behavioral aspect of compatibility, and on the other hand, the attitudes to the type of activity, which corresponds to the informational aspect of compatibility.

I would like to note that the consideration of intertype relationships from the point of view of these very small groups is far from the only possible one even within the framework of Jung scales only. However, it gives the cut of typical reciprocity, which is convenient both for a lecture explanation and for social training, because it allows you to track not only the content of the conversation but also separately - the temperamental dynamics of communication in a pair.

Summary.

Intertypal relations groups of small groups` Temperament groups (choleric, phlegmatic, sanguinic and melancholic) are formed by the ratio / irrationality and extra / introversion. Attitude groups (Socials, Managers, Scientists and Humanitarians) are formed by groups of logic / ethic and sensing / intuition.

3. Interaction of temperaments - Interaction of temperaments

Compatibility between different temperaments is known to us according to the research of V.I. Kulikov [9]. The data he has accumulated over the course of 15 years indicates that the following combinations of temperaments are found in married couples: choleric with phlegmatic and sanguine with melancholic.

3.1.

A phlegmatic person gets along best with a choleric person, because the latter patiently endures the emotional outbursts of the first and, moreover, impresses him with his seriousness, reliability and responsibility.

With a sanguine person, the melancholic feels best of all: the irrational switchings of the first one not only do not irritate him, but, on the contrary, provide him with new interesting impressions and distract from sad thoughts.

This kind of temperament interaction will be called COMFORT.

3.2.

And now about the incompatible temperaments. The melancholic gets on with the choleric worst of all. The choleric sharpness and straightforwardness hurts the sensitive melancholic, and the unmotivated, melancholic mood swings bring about an unbalanced choleric. It turns out a vicious circle of mutual irritations.

A phlegmatic person gets along poorly with a sanguine person. By virtue of its rational inertia, the phlegmatic cannot keep pace with a lively and dynamic sanguine person. On the other hand, the sanguine dynamism in the eyes of the phlegmatic looks like hasty, superficial, not binding. Mutual claims to each other will not slow down to appear.

This kind of temperament interaction will be called RESORT.

3.3.

In addition to the extreme positions of temperamental interaction, there are also intermediate ones. Partially compatible, for example, choleric with sanguine. Tensions may arise, in particular, due to the fact that both extroverts and therefore equally strive to lead. But it can also be removed due to the fact that the sanguine person as a flexible type will simply be able to step aside from the impending collision.

Phlegmatic is partially compatible with melancholic. In such a union, inevitably there will be sympathy and respect for the inner world of another person, but at the same time, estrangement due to lack of initiative will increase.

Both in the first and in the second cases, in order to preserve the balance, it is necessary to adapt to each other, and both parties must do it equally. This kind of relationship will be called FINE.

3.4.

And, finally, how reciprocal it will turn out, if two identical temperaments meet. This type of interaction is characterized by a wide variation in the compatibility index. It is easiest to get along with two sanguine persons, since representatives of these temperaments do not get hung up on disagreements. Patients are phlegmatic in second place, and sensitive melancholic patients are in third place, and two choleracs are hardest of all, because both are active and have poor control over their emotions.

The relationship between two identical temperaments will be called ONE-FORMATION.

Working tests for temperamental reciprocity are given in Appendix N2.

Summary

The best compatibility has been observed between the choleric and phlegmatic people on one side. The middle compatibility is in persons paars choleric-sanguinic and phlegmatic-melancholic (ACCOMODATION). People who turn out to be incompatible are choleric-melancholic and sanguinic-phlegmatic (DESORIENTATION). This is a little informativity (IMMUTABILITY).

4. Set Interactions - Interaction of attitudes

The attitudes to the activity can be compatible or not, depending on whether these areas have common borders. If there are no common borders, then the installations do not overlap and do not contradict each other. Moreover, it is always interesting to know what is happening in the “other dimension”, therefore, the representative of the opposite attitude is accepted as an interesting guest.

4.1.

Cause each other's friendly interest clubs are, firstly, the Managers and the Humanities. Managers invite to their production Humanitarian for psychological training, conflict resolution, exhibitions and concerts. Humanitarians will find out from the Managers about pressing production problems, real human needs, find sponsors among them.

Secondly, friendly Scientists and Socialist clubs are showing friendliness to each other. Scientists offer Socialists interesting ideas and developments about the development of society under the influence of new discoveries and technologies, and Socialists assist Scientists in holding their conferences and symposia, provide advertising and mediation services to bring their developments to social practice.

In both cases, a conflict of interest does not occur. On the contrary, a psychological atmosphere is conducive to friendly communication. This kind of interaction of installations will be called HOSPITALITY.

With hospitality installations partners do not seek to change the behavior of each other, long disputes between them do not arise.

4.2.

With coinciding attitudes to the type of activity, sociotypes interact within the same discussion club. Naturally, such communication generates a large number of discussions and disputes. Each of the partners feels entitled to insist on their opinion and not agree with the interlocutor, who, however, also confidently focuses on the issues under discussion, but speaks from other positions.

I will not deal here with the question of what kind of psychological atmosphere develops in each club and how to manage its work. The reader will find the coverage of these problems in [7]. I can only say that the discussion of the problem of the Humanities is the easiest, the Scientists occupy the second place, the third place is Socials, and the most difficult is to organize a constructive discussion in the Club of Managers - the most volitional and practical sociotypes that reject intuitive hypotheses and emotional appeals.

This kind of interaction will be called DISCUSSION.

With coinciding installations, a crossing of interests occurs, which gives rise to numerous discussions with relative equality of forces. Arguing partners prove their position, but at the same time try to understand the other without interfering with his behavior.

Summary

They are any common borders. Scientists and Socialitarians (HOSPITALITY). The crossing of the interests occurs in the event of a race.

5. Crossing the border

Installations for border labor activities interact in the same way as Bern's cross-transactions [3, p.20], both open in the case of a close location of the border and hidden in the opposite case.

Sociotypes belonging to clubs that have a common border inevitably begin to interfere in the neighboring field of activity, which can not but lead to an increase in the psychological tension between them. Consider for example one of the routes of such intervention.

Managers tend to interfere with the Scientists' activities, as they have a common function of logic with them. By putting work practice above science, they often speak dismissively of scientists, accusing them of being cut off from life, worthlessness, and other intuitive "sins." The managerial sociotype, heading a scientific institute, can turn it into an ordinary production of improvements and additions to the already known, which has nothing to do with fundamentally new discoveries.

Scientists, in turn, tend to interfere in the activities of the Humanities. The common border of these depths passes by intuition. Such intervention is carried out with the best of intentions: from the desire to help build a clear logical scheme of some humanitarian phenomenon, to raise the mathematization and formalization of humanitarian disciplines to the level of natural science, etc.

If a scientist leads a purely humanitarian organization, for example, a theater or a psychological service in an enterprise, then the main specificity of this installation, the sensual soul, the acceptance of human moral problems as its own, begins to disappear in its activities.

Humanities have a common border with the Socialists - ethics. Intervention in the social sphere usually takes place under the slogan of moral rebirth, patriotism, civil feeling, and in the extreme case leads to some form of social demagogy and manipulation of public consciousness on this basis.

The negative consequences of such interventions include distracting people from solving specific social problems, their withdrawal into religion, meditation, self-improvement, or, much worse, their participation in ideological destructive movements that offer simple solutions to complex problems.

Socials, passing the border sensorics, separating them from the managers, intervene in the production sphere. Promising to put the needs of a specific person first, they poorly take into account objective economic laws, according to which unsupported social protection turns into a violation of the necessary proportions of production, without which no social prosperity can be observed.

The social supervising an industrial enterprise risks focusing on social justice issues — bonuses, benefits, tours, trade union and women's issues, and thereby shifting the orientation of the collective from its main task — the production of material goods to their distribution.

Thus, the circle is closed. Such a chain of interventions, of course, can reach in the opposite direction described, i.e. according to the Scientists' scheme -> Managers -> Socialists -> Humanities. In any case, the penetration through the boundaries of neighboring installations is a process that is objectively determined and strongly affects the compatibility of types entering into communication.

The difference between the interaction of installations from the temperamental interaction lies in the fact that for the intersection of the interests of the installation must be clearly manifested in the activity, and this requires a certain time. Temperamental effects occur much faster because they appear immediately after coming into contact.

So, the interaction of temperaments determines compatibility at close communicative distances, and the interaction of settings determines compatibility at far distances.

Summary

It is not clear that there is a difference in the field of social tensions between them. Circle nature: Managers -> Scientists -> Humanitarians -> Socials and vice versa.

6. Psychological expansion - Psychological expansion

Any intrusion into the territory of neighboring installations occurs from an explicit or hidden position of power, but has its own characteristics. It is justified by the fact that the type in question has a developed function that is common with the frontier club. This matching channel can be both the first in the type formula and the second one. For example, the sociotype "Lyrik" (IEI) is associated with the Social Club through the ethics channel E, and with the Scientists club through the intuition of T.

6.1.

A softer invasion is obtained if the expansion is carried out from the second function. In this case, over time, the communication takes the shape of the negotiation process: through discussion and concessions, the partners will try to resolve the contradictions arising from one of the parties (asymmetrical relations) or both of them (symmetrical relations).

This type of communication is explained by the device itself of the second channel, which plays the role of the mental and decisive (decision-making) function. In other words, the intervention practically comes down to attempts to impose one’s opinion when one does not want to delve into the position of the other side. As a rule, the case does not reach behavioral intervention.

This type of interaction of installations is called DANGER. It is most clearly manifested in the fact that partners seek to clarify the relationship, but do not fulfill the commitments made as a result of the negotiations. Knowing this, behave cautiously in relation to each other.

6.2.

But if the invasion occurs from the first function of the sociotype in question, it becomes more rigid - the center of gravity is transferred to the channel of behavioral activity. At the same time, it is not so much internal aspirations that overlap as their external realization.The extension from above becomes a reality, since the first function in the type formula is behavioral-expressive.

Each person, not realizing this, invites others to accept themselves as they are. In a foreign territory, the installation by activity does not change. His style of behavior differs only according to the principle “calm situation, or extreme”. In the case of external resistance leading to stress, the first function of the type is most pronounced, and if a representative of the frontier on this aspect of the club is nearby, there is a clear interference in the affairs of the neighbor.

The interaction of installations on this principle will be referred to as INTERVENTION. It lies in the fact that partners, seeking to change each other's behavior, invade other people's affairs with minimal explanations. Tension in this kind of contact is exacerbated by the fact that both partners are not ready for negotiations - they prefer to solve the issue either from a position of strength, or to break off relations altogether.

The reciprocity of attitudes between sociotypes can be assessed using the tests given in Appendix N2.

Summary

There are two kinds of psychological expansion. First one: the partners aspire to follow the negotiations (CAUTION). Secondly, explaining that (INTERVENTION).

7. Decomposition on scales - Decomposing on scales

The types of interactions described in the previous sections can be represented more formalized - as a decomposition into scales. This method resembles the method of simple classifications (IPC) proposed by E. Shepetko [6], but does not violate, in contrast to him, the developed socionic canons of the structural design of the resulting groups. In this matter, I am a supporter of unification, since any departures away from the system, which is already well-established and convenient, must be justified. The IPC is just another form of the standard combinatorial method used in socionics.

7.1.

The temperamental aspect of the interaction of sociotypes is decomposed into four components already known to us according to claim 3 using two axes, namely:

• “balance-imbalance” axis, reflecting the magnitude of the applied efforts necessary to maintain normal two-way communication and
• the axis of "stability-fluctuation", which transmits the nature of the process of communication in time.

Graphically, this layout looks like this:

                          balance
              ADJUSTMENT | COMFORT
                            |
                            |
         fluctuations - - - - - ---- | -------- stability
                            |
             Monotony | DISORIENTATION
                            |
                         imbalance

1. Comfort is a stable balance of temperaments, where the equilibrium nature of communication is provided by itself and does not require any additional effort.

2. Disorientation is a stable imbalance of temperaments, where there is a continuous imbalance of the sides, and a lot of forces must be applied to maintain a satisfactory degree of reciprocity.

3. Adjustment is an oscillatory balance, i.e. intermittent balance in communication, where both parties must make efforts to return the communication to its original state.

4. Monotony is an oscillatory imbalance, i.e. an emerging equilibrium in communication, where efforts are made to break the usual monotonous state due to a roll in the same temperamental direction.

7.2.

The installation interaction aspect, in turn, can also be represented as a decomposition along two axes. The poles of these axes I call as follows:

• “Tolerance-expansion”, forming a scale for the separation of border installations, encroaching on the scope of each other, from installations that do not have common borders;
• “Dissonance-consonance”, forming a scale of agreement or disagreement of opinions, which is a consequence of the willingness to compromise and, in general, “negotiating” between differently directed installations.

The intersection of these axes gives the following scheme for decomposing an aspect of installations into components:

                      tolerance
                           |
               DISCUSSION | HOSPITALITY
                           |
        dissonance - - - - - --- | - - - - - --- consonance
                           |
           INTERVENTION | Scrutiny
                           |
                       expansion

1. Hospitality - tolerance (tolerance) to each other in terms of consonance (agreement with the other). Socionic analogy of one of the four “life positions” of E. Bern, namely I + You + (positive assessment of yourself and the other) [3].

2. Discussion is tolerance to each other in the context of dissonance (disagreement in opinions). Controversial discussion on topics of common interest. Socionic analogy of the life position of I-Ty- (negative evaluation of oneself and another).

3. Fear , or prudence - is an attempt to expand into the territory of a neighboring facility, which ends with consonance (agreement) as a result of the negotiation process. Since intrusion attempts are in principle not removable, a certain prudence or caution towards a partner arises in a relationship. The socionic analogy of the life position of I-Ty + (negative self-assessment, positive one of another).

4. Intervention is an expansion into the territory of a nearby facility, which leads to dissonance (growing disagreement) when trying to "sit down at the negotiating table." The partner who committed the expansion is genuinely perplexed because of what claims have arisen: from his point of view, he acted quite correctly. Concessions to each other are problematic. Socionic analogy of the life position of I + Ty- (positive assessment of oneself, negative assessment of another).

Summary

There are also more formalities for decomposition on scales. The temperamental aspect of sociotypes' interaction is decomposed by means of balance / disbalance and oscillation / stability. The concept of attitudes' attitudes of the two axes - tolerance / dissonance / consonance.

8. Final Consideration - Resulting consideration

All the considered components of the interactions are summarized in a single table, clearly demonstrating how intertype relationships are formed as a result of the overlay of a temperamental aspect and an installation aspect:

Installation    Temperament	HOSPITALITY  (I + You +)	QUALITY  (I-You +)	DISCUSSION  (I-You-)	INTERVENTION  (I + You-)
COMFORT	1. Duality	2. Semi-duality	3. Redemption	4. Mirage
ADJUSTMENT	5. Activation	6. Reverse order	7. Quasi-identity	8. Order direct
Monotony	9. Superego	10. Business	11. Identity	12. Related
DISORIENTATION	13. Conflict	14. Revision direct	15. Specularity	16. Revision reverse

1. Duality - comfortable hospitality

Interesting welcoming communication that never gets boring. In the behavior of the partners balance each other, creating a sense of psychological "weightlessness." No need to control their actions, you can stay yourself. Due to the fact that responsibilities in any case are distributed almost automatically, a lot of energy is saved for new affairs. Disagreements and disputes are settled not by compromise - finding the middle line, but through cooperation, i.e. opening the true needs of the other, which do not contradict yours, and meeting them.

2. Semi-duality - cautious comfort

Interesting communication, during which the partners are afraid to move closer to a shorter distance, because they feel that thereby comfort will be broken. Having a pleasant chat for a while, the interlocutors do not know what to do next. However, such a hitch is not discussed and attention does not focus on them. At times, unpleasant moments are noted in the behavior of each other. In cases, duties are successfully distributed in accordance with temperament. Differences of opinion are resolved in a compromise way - thanks to mutual concessions.

3. Redemption is a comfortable discussion.

Entering into communication partners are drawn into the discussion, during which they feel comfortable. The more active one expresses judgments, the more restrained one comments on them, introducing his own amendments. Style of behavior impresses each other. It causes a pleasant surprise as a partner thinks in a peculiar way. However, in the presence of third parties, a real redemption occurs - the partner interferes with your attempts to develop a mutually interesting idea, challenging it.

4. Mirage - interference with comfort

Communication is not so much interesting as useful. Comfort is felt only with the calm nature of communication. Disagreements and disputes can arise completely suddenly. When both are in a stressful situation, balancing is disturbed: it is not possible to calm each other down. It is unpleasant that a partner sometimes quite rudely interferes in your business, without warning about it. The result of this can be stormy showdowns. The partner often does not approve of the things that you do with the soul. Discussions are unproductive.

5. Activation - hospitable adjustment

Communication is interesting, but not deep. It is not difficult to make contact, but it is also easy to break off. To maintain attention to the partner for a longer time, you need to make an effort. The desire to enter the discussion does not arise: expressing your opinion, you return to the conversation in a neutral tone. Knowing each other closer, the partners force themselves to communicate on equal terms. Accustomed to commanding reduces the claims, and the inferior feels the increase in their communicative status. Because of this effect, prolonged communication strains both.

6. Reverse order - cautious adjustment

Communication is not so much interesting, as tonic and mobilizing. You are critical of the opinion expressed by the partner, as well as his behavior. If silence comes, you experience discomfort. At times it seems that the partner does not take into account something or does not notice, and then you apply forces to draw his attention to it. You don’t really strive for such a partner, more often he himself offers you this or that business. Depending on how he manages to interest you, the relationship is tied or not. After making sure that the partner provides you with really valuable information, you use it with great benefit for yourself.

7. Quasi-identity - debatable adjustment

Communication is formal, as the information received from the partner, often does not meet your expectations. To lead a tolerable discussion, you need to adapt to the style of the interlocutor. It is very difficult to understand each other at once - the meaning of the statements of the other is revealed after quite a long time, when you return to this problem again. Partners formulate the same thought in different ways. Because of the impossibility to prove something to another, misunderstandings and unproductive disputes arise. As a result of this - underestimation of the partner.

8. Direct ordering - adjustment for intervention

Communication is a bit tense, but attractive, because in a partner you see the realization of your plans. Therefore, you are looking for ways to tune it to gain confidence. This happens only when it is possible to catch him off guard, when he is distracted, relaxed and has little control over his actions by consciousness. After leaving the “hypnosis” partner often understands that it is used to some extent, after which some cooling usually takes place. Finding a weakening of your influence, you are taking steps to fine-tune the adjustment.Communication for this reason becomes pulsating.

9. Superego - hospitable monotony

Communication at first interesting, but too monotonous, tedious. Because of this, one has to make a lot of effort on oneself in order to bring into it an element of novelty and singularity. In this way, it is possible for a while to achieve a fairly large degree of reciprocity.However, over time, you begin to demand from your partner more attention than he usually gives you, and on this basis mutual reproaches and claims appear. Partners are beginning to consider each other egoists. Constant minor disputes are the inevitable companion of these relations in the short run.

10. Business - cautious monotony

Communication is not particularly attractive, but at first there is respect and interest in the partner, albeit with a certain touch of formality. After some time, you find that your partner rates you quite low, without any reason. By answering him the same way, you seek to put it in place, to prove the opposite. Long communication tires, because there is neither the desire nor the strength to somehow diversify the “gray days” that have come. Reciprocity over time is increasingly destroyed.

11. Identity - a monotonous discussion

Communication is productive only with different baggage of knowledge and experience. In this case, an interesting discussion is initiated. With equal levels of intellectual discussion becomes protracted and quickly get bored. Not without pleasure, you are trying to destroy the monotony of relationships, pushing your partner to actions unusual for his temperament. Although there is an understanding, there is no real interest in each other. If you do not disrupt the balance artificially, do not avoid discrepancies with the subsequent clash of interests.

12. Affinity - monotonous intervention

A partner can only attract at a distance. At close contacts after the exchange of information it becomes boring, there is tension due to the inability to destroy the established monotony. In this relationship, it is difficult to reveal yourself. In joint matters, mutual interference occurs, as partners are guided by opposite methods of action. As a result, respect for each other is lost.

13. Conflict - disorienting hospitality

This partner immediately attracts your attention with some unusual effect on you. If the areas of activity are disconnected, then the communication is generally hospitable. Of interest are the methods by which the partner solves his problems. When you try to work closely together, his behavior begins to disorient you more and more. As a result of this dispute, irritation accumulates, which can lead to conflict if one does not disperse in time.

14. Direct revision - fear of disorientation.

Communication is attractive because it gives you a sense of self-worth based on some superiority over your partner. In case of unjustified actions or statements on his part, you involuntarily stop the deviations that seem to you to be unacceptable from the goal.However, you fear that your partner will be offended, and therefore you are trying to restrain yourself. There is a desire to help your ward, to take care of him. If the partner understands that your actions are not caused by personal hostility, but by the fear of disorientation, then he will change his behavior in the direction you want. If not, the relationship may end in a break.

15. Specularity - a disorienting discussion.

An interesting and even exchange of opinions takes place with the mirror partner. However, an increasing struggle for intellectual leadership is planned, which leads in time to the separation of one of them. Subsequent discussions are becoming increasingly controversial and disorienting. But the interest in the opinion of another does not disappear, so the partners force themselves to return to their original positions. A much greater degree of reciprocity is both found in joint affairs.

16. Reverse audit - misleading intervention

The partner is very attracted to his way of thinking and style of behavior. From it comes in general, interesting and valuable information for you, which, however, seems incomplete and requires clarification. When trying to express your comments to a partner, a dispute is usually started, as a result of which your criticism, although not immediately, is largely taken into account. If the partner is trying shamelessly to impose his opinion on you, the relationship may end in rupture. If the relationship is still established, the partner develops the habit of contacting you for advice on issues in which you have demonstrated your competence.

The reader, apparently, is surprised to find new types of them among intertype relationships - reverse order and reverse audit. Their introduction is justified for two reasons. First, the relationship should be sixteen, not fourteen, like Aushra (order-contract, like audit-report are two sides of the same relationship). And secondly, the practice has shown that in the involutionary social progress ring there are inverse laws, by virtue of which the left order and revision are fundamentally different.

If in the evolutionary ring revision is the suppression of deviations, then in the involutionary ring it is just a requirement for clarifications and additions. An evolutionary, or direct order is finding a convenient receiver for your information, and an involutional, or reverse order is choosing a transmitter that provides valuable information for you. With the division of asymmetric relations into two types, this feature is fully taken into account.

Summary

It has been shown that vertical position has been placed. There are intertypal relations built. Finishes with short descriptions of all them. Basically it is possible to build 16 relations:

* duality	* back order
* semiduality	* superego
* extinction	* dealing
* mirage	* mirror-like
* activation	* relationship
* forward order	* conflict
* identity	* forward revision
* quasi-identity	* back revision

Appendix N1. Tests for temperamental reciprocity.

Appendix N2. Tests for the reciprocity of installations.

Attention wishing to become users of our tests! The use of tests developed by us in socionic practice proceeds from the position that any intertype relationships can arise between the two sociotypes . The method is based precisely on taking into account the difference that is found between the theoretical intertype ratio in the test pair, determined according to the intertype relationship table, and the real degree of reciprocity between partners.

Literature

1. Augustinavichute A. The theory of intertype relationships. 1982
2. Bern E. Games that people play. Psychology of human relationships. - SPb .: Lenizdat, 1992, p.
3. Stankevichyute L. At the approaches to socionics. Alytus, 1985, p. 4-12.
4. Medvedev N.N. Psychological essays (the hypothesis of the type of people). Kaunas, 1987.
5. Kaganets I.V. Intertype relationships in terms of systems engineering. Kiev, 1989.
6. Shepetko E. Analysis and classification of intertype relationships. Vilnius, 1990.
7. Gulenko V.V. Sociotypes in communication. Kiev, January 1992.
8. Gulenko V.V. Guaranteed productive learning. Temperamental and stimulus groups - Kiev, June 13, 1992 // SM & CP, 1996, No. 6.
9. Kulikov V.I. Individual test "Verbal portrait." Vladivostok, 1988.