Marlane Miller is president of the BrainStyles consulting firm, and author of Brainstyles: Be Who You Really Are (with David Cherry, creator of the BrainStyles System), Brainstyles for Lovers: Create Partnerships That Change Your Life Without Changing Who You Are, and Brainstyles: Change Your Life Without Changing Who You Are (Cherry & Miller, 1992; Miller, 2004; 1997). The BrainStyles System emphasizes that certain strengths and problem-solving preferences within us will always remain strong points for us. The same applies to our various non-strengths. Becoming aware of our styles allows us to play to our strengths, rather than losing time in unproductive efforts in areas of non-strength. This awareness also lets us work to the strengths of people around us, building better and more successful teams.


Our dominant styles are often invisible to us. We focus on the more effortful aspects of our working experience, rather than things we do well effortlessly. However, when unique events occur that require unique responses rather than old solutions, our hard-wired problem-solving styles are most often activated. Again, knowing the styles of different team members can help settle who should lead solution efforts for different kinds of these "time-zero events".


The four BrainStyles are listed below in PAEI order.


P – Deliberators: Balanced, rational and practical, willing to win points using intimidation. Tend to be uninterested or unaware of emotional issues surrounding decisions. Deliberators stick closely to known solutions, favoring clear logic, conventional reasoning and established facts. They enjoy being challenged, and prefer to discover that they are wrong rather than being told so. They are steady producers who tolerate routine well.


A – Knowers: Logical, analytical, orderly. Can delay or drag out decision making by over-examining each option, or come to very fast decisions based on knowledge or mastery of systems. These fast knowledge-based decisions can seem cold and unemotional, since they exclude the human element and prioritize rules above the particulars of any one case. Knowers thrive on research and planning, and they dislike messy executions, successful or not.


E – Conceptors: Insightful, original, using both structured thinking and emotion. Conceptors favor unconventional thinking and try to persuade others to do the same. They thrive on chaos, tolerate risk well, and change their interests often. Their contributions are not always understood by other styles, but teams often adjust their direction anyways after conceptors speak. Conceptors often feel isolated and misunderstood, and they need recognition. They can become very frustrated when they are unable to communicate their ideas in a way that motivates their co-workers to follow them.


I – Conciliators: Socially skillful and empathetic networkers. Conciliators love encountering new people, new situations, and new challenges. They seek harmony and mutually successful outcomes. They prefer make commitments with care, and if they are hurried then they will often go along with it only to experience serious misgivings, anguish and regret later. Conciliators tend to focus their interest, creativity and inventiveness on the here-and-now. They require approval, social support and shared victories to remain highly motivated. Attending to their interpersonal needs can be energy-consuming.


Most people can identify their dominant style fairly easily. Mature individuals may recognize a base of two of three styles. Typically, one style will be weak, and that will be the style that requires the most effort to understand, appreciate and deal with. That is the area where it most helps to learn tolerance and respect for the different strengths of other BrainStyles.

Four Quadrants: The Social Styles

David Merrill & Roger Reid - Social Styles

David Merrill & Roger Reid – Social Styles

The four quadrants that the two dimensions of assertiveness and responsiveness create, give the four social styles.




The analytical style of interaction asserts itself by asking, rather than telling. It is also characterised by a high level of emotional control. It values facts, logic and accuracy, presenting a disciplined and unemotional – some would say cold – face to the world. This manifests in a deep need to be right about things, and therefore a highly deliberative, data-driven approach to decisions. As with all styles, there is a weakness, which is a lack of willingness to state a position until the analytical person is certain of their ground.




The driving style is the typical task-oriented behaviour that prefers to tell rather than ask and shows little concern for feelings. It cares more about results. This is a fast-paced style, keen to make decisions, take power, and exert control. Often unco-operative, this is an efficient, results-driven behaviour, the inevitable compromise of which is to sacrifice personal relationships in the short term and, in extremis, in the long term too. The weakness of this style is evident: a frequent unwillingness to listen and accommodate the needs of others.




The expressive style is also assertive, but uses feelings to achieve its objectives. The behaviour is highly spontaneous and demands recognition and approval, and favours gut instinct in decision-making. At its best, this style comes across as charismatic, enthusiastic and idealistic. At its worst, however, the expressive style can be seen as impulsive, shallow and even manipulative.




The amiable style expresses concern for people above all else. Keen to share emotion and not to assert itself over others, building and maintaining relationships dominate behaviour. These concerns manifest a slow, deliberate pace, coming across as sensitive, supportive and dependable. The corollary is a certain nervousness about, and even a resistance to, change. This arises from a deep need for personal security. The weaknesses of this style are the reverse of the strengths of the opposite quadrant: a low willingness to initiate change, and take action.


Having now in theory founded the ideal state, Socrates proceeds to try to determine the essential virtues that may be said to characterize it (the Four Cardinal Virtues): wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. (See Analysis, Book I, Section One) Socrates first seeks to identify wisdom in the state.


Wisdom in the state must be said to reside in the class of rulers, for, by definition, they rule by counseling the other classes and themselves. They are the best of the Guardians, having all their lives been nurtured and educated to assume their place as rulers, and they are the most experienced and oldest of the citizens. It is they who judge their fellow citizens and themselves. The wisdom of the state is found in their counsels.


The second virtue, courage, may best be found in that class which has specifically been inculcated with courage during the entire career of the members of that class: These are the auxiliaries, who in their capacity as soldiers have become, to reflect Socrates' comparison, "dyed in the wool" carriers of courage. The courage of the state is reflected in their very being.


The third virtue, temperance (discipline) is a bit more difficult of analysis because it seems to permeate the other virtues. Temperance is found in the ordering or controlling (tempering) of certain pleasures or desires in the individual; the temperate man is said to be master of himself. If we extend this to the state, in order for it to regulate itself, we see that the state has to run harmoniously. Every class in the state has to cooperate with the other classes; the classes agree with and actively endorse the functions of all classes in the state. Thus the state may be said to be master of itself, in that the three classes will function smoothly as a whole (the state) because of concord and harmony among the classes. The class of rulers, wherein the virtue of wisdom in counsel is to be found, agrees to rule in the service of the other classes and of itself; the ruled classes agree to serve and to be ruled wisely. Thus the virtue of temperance in the state is attained.


Having determined three of the four virtues, only the fourth virtue, justice, remains. We recall that the responsibility of each member of each class is that he attend strictly to the business of that class, that each member fulfill the job assigned him. Since we have determined that each citizen is rewarded within the confines of his class by the very virtue of his patriotically performing his class duty, it follows that no other citizen may by force deprive him of the rewards guaranteed him by his class. When we protect a member of a given class by upholding his "rights" as a matter of course, or we protect him by securing his "rights" in the event that someone attempts, by whatever means, to deprive him of his "rights," then we have effected justice and may recognize it as justice in the state.


In Socrates' further instancing the existence of justice in the state, he argues that a choice example of injustice would ensue if members of a given class, or classes, should by force attempt to seize the "rights" of some other class. However and for whatever cause this forcible violation of class rights might be achieved, if it were to go unreproved, dissension and disharmony would fragment the state. In reproving the evil that is occasioned by the doing of violence to another's rights, justice is attained.


If each member of a given class attends strictly to his own job, and if he recognizes that his rights as a citizen cease when they encroach upon the rights of another citizen, we call this state of affairs a just state.


We may now proceed to demonstrate what it is for a man to be just.




As we noticed quite early in our attempt to define what constitutes the dialogue in hand, or any Socratic dialogue, the method of argument adopted is very like that of a debate. It is symptomatic of a person engaged in systematic thought that he or she perceives that the point under discussion is so general that it would be useful to divide the point of the discussion into more manageable particulars, the better to arrive at logical conclusions about the point of the discussion. In formal discussions having to do with questions brought before legislative bodies of citizens, this method of seeking knowledge about particulars is known as dividing the question, or dividing the motion under debate. This is the method Socrates employs in his discussion of the cardinal virtues. In other words, Socrates' method of thinking, here and earlier, is to divide the discussion of the virtues generally and to seek to define each virtue singly. In so doing, Socrates employs a process of elimination: Having discovered and defined three of the four virtues, it follows logically that the fourth virtue is the one remaining.


As observed in the summary, the various classes of the state must agree to be temperate (disciplined) and to live in harmony with one another. This agreement of fixing harmony-in-the-state is one of the earliest examples, if not the earliest, of what is called Social Contract Theory; it is the theory advanced by philosophers in the Western world throughout its history. Jean J. Rousseau, in France, advances Plato's theory (Du Contract Sociale, 1762), and Plato's theory is reflected in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776). The citizens of Jefferson's ideal state argue, in a very Socratic fashion, that they number among their rights the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For Jefferson's ideal to be realized, his citizens, like Socrates', must agree that their right to their pursuit of happiness must cease when that pursuit begins to encroach upon the rights of others. The perception of this truth is contingent upon the exercise of temperance and justice, as in Socrates' ideal state.


At this point in the discussion of the ideal state, we should recognize that Plato perceives the state not simply as a random collection of human beings; rather, Plato thinks of the state as comprising a sort of being, a kind of entity in and of itself — we may say a kind of organism. The ideal state, comprised of its various parts (classes), itself possesses the several virtues we have thus far discussed. And we might anticipate, now, that having divided the ideal state into its several parts (in pursuit of the virtues), Socrates may seek the same division in the individual citizen.



Bernice McCarthyThere are lots of models for how to improve learning and, in the management training arena, The Kolb learning cycle and the work of Peter Honey and Alan Mumford on learning styles are well known. Less so is the work of American educationalist, Dr Bernice McCarthy.


McCarthy taught at all grade levels, including special education, and went on to study for her doctorate at Northwestern University. There, she developed her model to help design instructional programmes for all types of learners. She drew on research by Carl Jung, Jean Paiget, Lev Vygotsky, John Dewey, Kurt Lewin and David Kolb to create a system that moves learners through the complete learning cycle using strategies that would appeal to all learners. Her business is called About Learning.




McCarthy developed her system to format a lesson according to how the needs of learners changes as they go around the learning cycle, so she called it the 4MAT System (get-it?). The 4MAT System began in education but she quickly spread it into adult training in the corporate and government sectors.


Relationship to other models


4MAT shares with Kolb the idea of a learning cycle with distinct modes of learning at each stage. It also recognises, as the Honey and Mumford model does, that we each learn in a number of ways and that we may have preferences for one or more styles.


The 4MAT System


The 4MAT System is based on two continua: perceiving and processing. The processing continuum ranges from reflection to action; whilst perception runs from direct experience to abstract conceptualisation.






We want to understand meaning and purpose, and the instructor’s role is to make connections between the material and the learners, to engage their attention.




Only when we are satisfied about relevance are we ready to know ‘What?’ At this stage, the trainer provides information and satisfies our desire for facts, structure and theory.


These first two phases represent instructor-led learning. Now the learner takes over.




Once we have the knowledge, we ask ‘How?’ and we want to understand how we can apply our new insights to the real world. We focus on problems and how we can use our learning to solve them.


What if?


Finally, we want to try it out, so we ask questions like ‘What if?’ ‘What else?’ or ‘What next?’ This is when we engage in active experimentation, trial and error, pushing at the boundaries – learning by doing.




Why? (again)


Good instructional design challenges learners to reflect on the outcome of their trials and ask ‘Why?’ about the results.


Why did it not go as I expected?

Why did it seem harder than it should?

This is the entry into another cycle.


So here’s the deal


The 4MAT System is helpful in designing training, planning a coaching process, and influencing.

Honey and Mumford learning styles were developed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford in 1986. Their work is inspired from and built upon Kolb’s learning styles model (Leaver, 2005). however, they produced their own Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) because it was found that Kolb’s LSI had low validity with managers.

Therefore instead of asking people directly how they learn, as Kolb’s LSI does, Honey and Mumford gave a questionnaire that probes general behavioral tendencies. The rationale behind this is that most people have never consciously considered how they really learn. And to be an effective learner, individuals must know about their learning styles or preferences and find ways to learn using those methods.

To help with finding the correct learning style or preference, Honey and Mumford have developed a questionnaire built on a continuum as the figure shows below. Knowing your learning style helps individuals to make smarter decisions in adjusting the learning opportunities and your preference of best learning, increases the range and variety of experiences which are potential learning opportunities, improves learning skills and awareness (Zwanenberg, 2016).

Learning styles:

The four learning styles are (Mobbs, 2010):

Activists: Activists are those individuals who learn by doing. Activists need to get their hands filthy. They have a receptive way to deal with learning, including themselves completely and without inclination in new encounters. The learning activities can be brainstorming, problem solving, group discussion, puzzles, competitions, role-play etc

Theorists: These learners get a kick out of the chance to comprehend the hypothesis behind the activities. They require models, ideas and truths with a specific end goal to participate in the learning procedure. Like to break down and integrate, drawing new data into a methodical and consistent ‘hypothesis’. Their choice of learning activities includes models, statistics, stories, quotes, background information, applying concepts theoretically etc.

Pragmatists: These individuals have the capacity to perceive how to put the learning into practice in their present reality. Conceptual ideas and recreations are of constrained utility unless they can see an approach to put the concepts practically in their lives. Experimenting with new ideas, speculations and methods to check whether they work is their mode of action. They learn better through taking time to think about how to apply learning in reality, case studies, problem solving and discussion.

Reflectors: These individuals learn by watching and contemplating what happened. They may abstain from jumping in and prefer to watch from the sidelines. They want to remain back and see encounters from various alternate points of view, gathering information and using the opportunity to work towards a suitable conclusion. They like paired discussions, self-analysis questionnaires, personality questionnaires, time out, observing activities, feedback from others. coaching, interviews etc.


Mind Styles Model and Gregorc Style Delineator[edit]

The Gregorc Style Delineator is a self-scoring written instrument that elicits responses to a set of 40 specific words.[3] Scoring the responses will give values for a model with two axes: a "perceptual space duality," concrete vs. abstract, and an "ordering duality," sequential vs. random[4] The resulting quadrants are the "styles":


Concrete Sequential

Concrete Random

Abstract Sequential

Abstract Random

Descriptions of the characteristics of these styles can be found in the materials available from Gregorc Associates.


A similarly structured (two-axis, four-style) learning style model with rather different axes and interpretation can be seen in the Kolb LSI.



Scheme of a "two-channel" Bell test

The source S produces pairs of "photons", sent in opposite directions. Each photon encounters a two-channel polariser whose orientation (a or b) can be set by the experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel are detected and coincidences of four types (++, −−, +− and −+) counted by the coincidence monitor.


The Bell states are a concept in quantum information science and represent the simplest examples of entanglement. They are named after John S. Bell because they are the subject of his famous Bell inequality. An EPR pair is a pair of qubits (or quantum bits) that are in a Bell state together. Because of the entanglement, measurement of one qubit will assign a value to the other qubit immediately in one of four ways, where the value assigned depends on which Bell state the two qubits are in. This behaviour is not subject to relativistic limitations such as the speed of light, but the no-communication theorem prevents this behaviour to be used to transmit information faster than light. The phenomena can be used to agree upon random numbers in less time than it would take to communicate the numbers at the speed of light over the distance between the peers – this was believed to be a result of an error in quantum physics and was named the EPR paradox. Originally, the paradox was resolved by giving up the assumption that the principle of locality is true, but other interpretations have also emerged.


Four specific two-qubit states with the maximal value of



2{\sqrt {2}} are designated as "Bell states". They are known as the four maximally entangled two-qubit Bell states, and they form a convenient basis of the two-qubit Hilbert space:


The Bell measurement is an important concept in quantum information science: It is a joint quantum-mechanical measurement of two qubits that determines which of the four Bell states the two qubits are in.


If the qubits were not in a Bell state before, they get projected into a Bell state (according to the projection rule of quantum measurements), and as Bell states are entangled, a Bell measurement is an entangling operation.


Bell state measurement is the crucial step in quantum teleportation. The result of a Bell state measurement is used by one's co-conspirator to reconstruct the original state of a teleported particle from half of an entangled pair (the "quantum channel") that was previously shared between the two ends.


According to Betty Lou Leaver, Madeline Ehrman, and Boris Shekhtman, like the MBTI, socionics is a sixteen-type derivative of Jung's work. Unlike MBTI, which is widely criticized[20] for the lack of validity and utility,[21] the socionics model, which is in some use in Eastern and Western Europe, as well as throughout Eurasia, Central Asia, and the Baltic nations,[22] strives to stay very close to the original descriptions and type labels suggested by Carl Jung.[23] According to Betty Lou Leaver, "today's concepts of personality emanate most frequently from the work of Carl Jung, whose theories and research have blossomed into a juncture of philosophical and sociological inquiry. This field of inquiry has been called socionics."[13]


In addition to Model A, two other models are in wide use[citation needed] by socionists. Model B, created by Aleksandr Bukalov, is designed to reconcile the socionics standpoint with the so-called "Model J" (Jung's outlook) and uses sixteen functional components instead of eight. The model uses the same eight functions as Model A, but further differentiates them by attributing positive and negative polarities to each.[153] Model B also refines Model A's strong/weak concept by attributing vectors of dimensionality to each function.[148] This allows it to describe with precision why some functions are relied on more than others.


The four dimensions are


Globality (also thought of as "time")


Cultural normatives


Experience is the lowest dimension; globality is the highest.[citation needed] The importance of the dimension system lies in its clarification of the differences between strong and weak functions. Although any type may learn information specific to any function with adequate study, only the strong functions have the vectors of situation which are required to create new knowledge. The types are thus reliant on each other in their search for understanding.[citation needed]


Socionists[who?] have equated these information elements with their definition and according to fundamental physical concepts as well (Matter-Time-Energy-Space) (N. Medvedev,[136] V. Ermak[137]). Matter is compared to Thinking, Energy to Feeling, Space to Sensing, and Time to Intuition. Given the division of aspects of the absolute between Extroverted ("black") and Introverted ("white"), being four times two, their number is eight.


The 16 types[edit]

Socionics divides people into 16 different types, called sociotypes. They are most commonly referred to by their two strongest functions, which in socionics are called the leading function (Jung's dominant) and the creative function (Jung's auxiliary). The creative function is opposite to the leading function in extraversion and rationality. For example, if the dominant function is introverted logic (a rational and introverted function), the secondary function must be irrational and extraverted, which means it must be either extraverted sensing or extraverted intuition.[citation needed]


Aušra Augustinavičiūtė usually used names like sensory-logical introvert (SLI) to refer to the types. In SLI the leading function is introverted sensation and the creative function is extraverted logic. She also introduced the practice of referring to types by the name of a famous person of the type (although types of these persons are not universally agreed upon, with the old name Napoleon for the SEE being replaced by Caesar after being deemed an inaccurate type assignment). For example, she called the SLI Gabin and the SEI Dumas. Also sometimes names such as Craftsman or Mediator are used to express the social role of the type—a convention introduced by socionist Viktor Gulenko in 1995.[141] Given the formal similarities present between Socionics and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) abbreviations frequently used in English, some prefer to distinguish socionic type names from Myers–Briggs' names by writing the last letter (J or P) in lower case (for example, ENTp, ESFj)—a practice introduced by Sergei Ganin.[142] This is because the relationship between socionics and Myers–Briggs and Keirseyan types is controversial.


Dmitri Lytov and Marianna Lytova state that "main spheres of application of socionics are almost the same as for the Myers–Briggs Type Theory", and that observed differences in correlation "represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology.[143] Others state that MBTI and socionics "correlate in roughly 30% of cases," and that "there are many subtle differences".[144][clarification needed] J and P in Socionics and Myers–Briggs are completely different:[145] in Myers–Briggs, J and P stands for the first extraverted function (J—extraverted thinking or feeling, P—extraverted sensing or intuition); in Socionics, J and P stands for the first function (J—rational (thinking and feeling), P—irrational (sensing and intuition)). This formal conversion is carried out in accordance with the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator.


In dividing the socion according to the four Jungian dichotomies, from this is formed 16 socionic types. The following tables provide a list of types with the names most commonly used in socionics:



type acronym

(socionics) Four functions

(Jung[146]) Model A

Two functions

(socionics) Formal name Type alias Social role

ESTj Socionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svg P1 S2 E3 T4 R5 I6 L7 F8 Socionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Si.svg Logical Sensory Extravert (LSE) Stierlitz Administrator / Director

ENTj Socionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svg P1 T2 E3 S4 R5 F6 L7 I8 Socionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svg Logical Intuitive Extravert (LIE) Jack London Enterpriser / Pioneer

ESFj Socionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svg E1 S2 P3 T4 L5 I6 R7 F8 Socionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Si.svg Ethical Sensory Extravert (ESE) Hugo Bonvivant / Enthusiast

ENFj Socionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svg E1 T2 P3 S4 L5 F6 R7 I8 Socionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svg Ethical Intuitive Extravert (EIE) Hamlet Mentor / Actor

ESTp Socionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svg F1 L2 I3 R4 T5 E6 S7 P8 Socionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svg Sensory Logical Extravert (SLE) Zhukov Legionnaire / Conqueror

ESFp Socionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Ni.svg F1 R2 I3 L4 T5 P6 S7 E8 Socionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svg Sensory Ethical Extravert (SEE) Napoleon Politician / Ambassador

ENTp Socionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Si.svg I1 L2 F3 R4 S5 E6 T7 P8 Socionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svg Intuitive Logical Extravert (ILE) Don Quixote Seeker / Inventor

ENFp Socionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Si.svg I1 R2 F3 L4 S5 P6 T7 E8 Socionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Fi.svg Intuitive Ethical Extravert (IEE) Huxley Psychologist / Reporter

ISTp Socionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svg S1 P2 T3 E4 I5 R6 F7 L8 Socionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Te.svg Sensory Logical Introvert (SLI) Gabin Craftsman / Mechanic

INTp Socionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Se.svg T1 P2 S3 E4 F5 R6 I7 L8 Socionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Te.svg Intuitive Logical Introvert (ILI) Balzac Critic / Mastermind

ISFp Socionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svg S1 E2 T3 P4 I5 L6 F7 R8 Socionics symbol Si.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svg Sensory Ethical Introvert (SEI) Dumas Mediator / Peacemaker

INFp Socionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svgSocionics symbol Te.svgSocionics symbol Se.svg T2 E2 S3 P4 F5 L6 I7 R8 Socionics symbol Ni.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svg Intuitive Ethical Introvert (IEI) Yesenin Lyricist / Romantic

ISTj Socionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svg L1 F2 R3 I4 E5 T6 P7 S8 Socionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Se.svg Logical Sensory Introvert (LSI) Maxim Gorky Inspector / Pragmatist

ISFj Socionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Te.svg R1 F2 L3 I4 P5 T6 E7 S8 Socionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Se.svg Ethical Sensory Introvert (ESI) Dreiser Guardian / Conservator

INTj Socionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Fe.svg L1 I2 R3 F4 E5 S6 P7 T8 Socionics symbol Ti.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svg Logical Intuitive Introvert (LII) Robespierre Analyst / Scientist

INFj Socionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svgSocionics symbol Se.svgSocionics symbol Te.svg R1 I2 L3 F4 P5 S6 E7 T8 Socionics symbol Fi.svgSocionics symbol Ne.svg Ethical Intuitive Introvert (EII) Dostoyevsky Humanist / Empath

Among socionists[who?], the prevailing view is that sociotypes are inborn and genetically determined,[147] although the content of different functions and dimensions may vary. Some socionists[who?] believe that sociotypes may temporarily change while in altered states of consciousness or under great stress.[citation needed]


Vladimir Ermak first introduced two important concepts of modern socionics further confirmed by Elena Udalova research.[citation needed] The first one is the growth dynamics which means that every horizontal block of two functions (see below) is filling in the certain age, from bottom to top, with the roughly 7-year interval, so that the lowest block is done before 7, the next is complete before 14, the weak part of the mental track is done before 21, and the top block finally leads after that. Due to this process, a child, or a teenager, may demonstrate faces of other sociotypes according to the active horizontal block. Besides, being introduced to the unknown people, or in stressful situations, people again may demonstrate adaptive or protective behaviour directed by the appropriate blocks (see below).[citation needed]


The second concept is so called functional dimensions. It was introduced by Aleksandr Bukalov.[148] He define the first dimension as the personal experience (Ex), the second dimension as social norms (Nr), the third dimension as the current situation (St), and the fourth dimension as the globality, or time perspective (Tm). This concept is useful because it best illustrates the difference in cognitive power (imagine measuring capability of 2D v. 3D measuring tool) and roughly describes abilities of each function to process and generate information. Still, definitions of dimensions require further research and clarification. For example, the vulnerable function tends to lose knowledge which haven't been used.



A quadra is a group of four types in which only identity, dual, activity, and mirror relations occur. Quadras are distinguished by offering the greatest degree of psychological comfort among all groups containing four types. The feeling of comfort and harmony produced by the quadra is due to the fact that all types in the quadra seek to give expression to the shared set of information elements in their ego and super-id blocks and to de-emphasize the information elements in their super-ego and id blocks.[citation needed]


Similar to the harmony of types within the same quadra, opposing forces also exist. If one were to put the four quadras in a circle, alpha-beta-gamma-delta, the two quadras facing each other would be opposing quadras and consist entirely of quasi-identical, conflictor, super-ego, and extinguishment relations. A person surrounded by people of the opposing type will often feel uneasy and out of place, due to the fact that all the people around them either lead with or seek for their weakest function. That type of interaction is often the basis for inherent misunderstandings between seemingly similar people (as in the case of the quasi-identical) or two people who seem to offend each other at every turn (often found in conflicting relations).[citation needed]



Clubs are groups that reflect spheres of activity.[citation needed] There are 4 clubs, each with 4 types:


Pragmatists (ST): ESTp, ESTj, ISTp, ISTj; or SLE, LSE, SLI, LSI

Researchers (NT): ENTp, ENTj, INTp, INTj; or ILE, LIE, ILI, LII

Socials (SF): ESFp, ESFj, ISFp, ISFj; or SEE, ESE, SEI, ESI

Humanitarians (NF): ENFp, ENFj, INFp, INFj; or IEE, EIE, IEI, EII


Viktor Gulenko's hypothesis of the existence of four temperaments in socionics is as follows.[152]


Extraverted Rational Temperament (Ej). Extraverted rational types, namely the ESE, EIE, LIE, and LSE, are characterized by energetic and proactive behavior. (close to choleric temperament)

Introverted Rational Temperament (Ij). Introverted rational types, namely the LII, LSI, ESI, and EII, are characterized by slow and methodical behavior. (close to phlegmatic temperament)

Extraverted Irrational Temperament (Ep). Extraverted irrational types, namely the ILE, SLE, SEE, and IEE, are characterized by impulsive and unpredictable behavior. (close to sanguine temperament)

Introverted Irrational Temperament (Ip). Introverted irrational types, namely the SEI, IEI, ILI, and SLI, are characterized by lack of motivation, inertia, and unstable moods and energy levels. (close to melancholic temperament)

Beside Gulenko's, there are several other theories of correlation between temperaments and socionic types, although almost all socionic[who?] authors support Eysenck's view that temperaments do correlate with the E/I factor.[citation needed]


According to G. Fink and B. Mayrhofer, socionics is considered one of the four most popular models of personality (including cybernetic theory Maruyama, five-factor model, Big Five" and typology Myers–Briggs Type Indicator), deserving special attention because of its importance in the study of personality.[14]