Socionics Residue

It's been three years since I officially renounced socionics. I still subscribe to everything I wrote at the time. I no longer place any importance on socionics types — particularly my own. I disagree with the theory and believe it is fundamentally, hopelessly flawed.

At yet I find myself passively typing people on some subconscious level, even though I don't even care. I've had a number of relationships over the past couple years, and I've pursued women based on romantic attraction alone. It truly makes zero difference to me what type someone is or whether I can even identify their type. I never stop and think, "I wonder what her or his type is."

If I'm in a relationship with someone and it occurs to me that she is an IEI, it makes no practical difference to me. There are attractive and unattractive IEIs, nice ones and not-so-nice, compatible and incompatible. I never attribute "success" or "failure" in a relationship to type. There are always better, more immediate explanations: I am or am not what she is looking for at this stage in life, the attraction between us is deep or merely situational, etc.

On a conscious level I think more about a person's hormones and neurotransmitters, their aims and values, the type of energy that exists between us, and what I am bringing to the table. That is the intellectual framework that has replaced socionics.

Nonetheless, if I dig up the subconscious typing that is going on, I see some interesting patterns:

• most of my guy friends are intuiters 
• I go almost exclusively for irrational women
• it seems I have a slight romantic preference for ethical types or have no preference either way (roughly 70% of women are ethical)
• it makes no difference to me whether a girl is sensing or intuitive
• I never go for IEEs (presumably my own type, though I obviously don't care), at least IEEs who have a similar brain chemistry to my own
• I prefer for a romantic partner to be more introverted and less dominant than I

I'm currently taking singing lessons from a female SLE who is clearly attracted to me. It's a lot easier than working with a male SLE guitar teacher was. Things got better still when the female SLE teacher had me start attending lessons at a music school where she holds lessons together with an IEI accompanist. With the good energy between the two of them it is very comfortable working with the SLE. I see no reason to believe that our interaction will turn sour. It feels very stable. 

My male SLE guitar teacher was (is) married to an IEI who was often in the house when I came over for lessons. Nonetheless, I had the feeling that there was some tension between them and that the IEI was not exactly happy. The SLE had a difficult personality, smoked incessantly, and was 25 years older than his wife. Eventually she left. But then she came back. I had a major personality clash with the SLE. But was it about his socionic type, which is, after all, just an abstraction? Or was it about his intolerable smoking, his domineering personality, inability to listen, or his tendency to talk off topic? 

I have two male friends — IEI and LIE — with whom I meet regularly to discuss self-improvement and practical philosophy. A couple months ago I introduced them to each other. Afterwards the LIE complained extensively to me of how the IEI talked on and on without getting to the point and showed no interest in maintaining contact. I hadn't clearly seen this problem area in my IEI friend until this moment. Since then it has been annoying me as well.

Braverman Test and Compatibility

I came across the Braverman test (Edge Effect Quiz) recently and would like to recommend it to readers. You can easily find it online. Here are my results:

Strengths
Acetylocholine — 40
Dopamine — 29
GABA — 22
Serotonin — 20

Deficiencies
Dopamine — 2
Acetylocholine — 6
Serotonin — 6
GABA — 12

I interpret this to mean that I am a highly creative individual with plenty of motivation to get things done who experiences a somewhat systematic lack of stability and occasional bouts of not-enough-pleasure.

I've thought about the type of women I'm most drawn to (thinking of specific people here, not some kind of ideal) and how they might score on this test. I would surmise they are also high in Acetylocholine, noticeably lower than me on Dopamine, and noticeably higher on Serotonin and GABA without being too high on either.

What this means to me is the following: someone who enjoys learning things to a similar degree as me (I rarely meet people as learning oriented as myself) but is noticeably less dominant than me, better at enjoying simple pleasures without being too pleasure oriented (I can't relate to that mindset), and enjoying a bit more stability in life without having a stability mindset (which I can't relate to).

The Dopamine issue is important. I surmise that in most couples the man would need to have a higher Dopamine output (focus, nature) than the woman to preserve sexual polarity. Exceptions would be couples where the polarities are switched (a masculine, high-Dopamine woman with a feminine, low-Dopamine man). But that is not my case. I prefer women who are lower in Dopamine than I, whom I can "dominate" (guide, motivate, make plans for, etc.).

I'm curious about readers' hypotheses on compatibility issues after taking the test.

Preview of My Changing Views on Personality and Relationships

(This post started out as a response to Jonathan's comment on my previous post, then grew to article length)

Part of why it may seem I'm going a little too far in turning away from socionics (I acknowledge that's possible) is that I haven't yet talked about the views that are taking the place of socionics in my mind. That's because I wanted to first do a methodical run-through of socionics before getting to my new perspectives, but it's going slow because I have almost no one to discuss it with these days. Hence this post, which is a kind of preview of my emerging ideas — "convictions," you might say — on phenomena previously described by socionics.

At this point, allowing myself to skip past some of the methodical stuff and cut to the chase will probably be useful to both me and my readers. Here are some of the main points in no particular order: 

1. Identifying people as "the same type" is useful only when they have significant obvious similarities. I'm done with sticking highly sensitive or highly intelligent/creative/refined/whatever individuals into the same type as people with a completely different background and sensitivity just because they share some esoteric "information preferences." If other people don't see obvious parallels between two people, then calling them the same type does more harm than good (this conviction comes from personal experience). 

2. This inevitably suggests a different set of types — either a similar number of types but with a much more uneven distribution, or a greater number of types. I personally don't care much anymore to name the types or create a consistent system such as socionics. However, identifying and describing the important common traits between two people I still find to be very worthwhile. 

3. The brain is not organized into socionic functions the way socionics suggests. The contents of our ongoing stream of conscious mental activity cannot be categorized by socionic function. In other words, the majority of the time, you will not be able to clearly relate what you're thinking about — or how you're thinking about it — to some socionic category. Rather than trying to force a socionics categorization, I'm more interested in just letting the information speak for itself and kind of self-categorize based on principles of pragmatism.

3.1. I would find it interesting to go through some of the music we once examined (back in 2007) using socionics terminology and allow different kinds of categories to emerge from that exercise. The questions I would start out with are, "what effect does this music have on the listener, and what does this music say about the composer's personality and state(s) of mind, and possibly the culture in which he/she grew up in?" Along the way we might discover that some music is just "better" than other, that level of sophistication is just as important a factor as the "states of mind" we were trying to describe using socionics functions, or that we come up with a number of states worth describing that does not equal 8.

3.1.1. I almost forgot to acknowledge, however, that Jung's and Augusta's idea of dividing up thought processes and basic traits into co-equal mental functions is a powerful and liberating idea that teaches one to see the other side of things and identify possible alternatives to nearly any approach to anything. That makes for a very useful mental tool, even if the details are not strictly correct. 

4. A result of point #3 is that interaction mostly does not occur on the basis of socionic functions. I believe that applying a general psychology/science perspective in examining specific cases brings one to different (simpler and better) conclusions than socionics about why people do or do not get along.

5.1. There is still something to functions and their impact on relationships. It's like they are bundles of values, but not actual mental processes or modules of information perception, processing, and output. 

5.2. There is still something mysterious about why people who are so different can sometimes get along so well. What socionics has done, however, is to put complementary differences on a pedestal. For the most part, people hang out with people of similar personalities who — perhaps — differ from them in some more subtle (and perhaps simpler and physiologically definable) way than being "a completely different type." 

6. Duality as described by Augusta is basically equivalent to falling in love. Remove the love, and duality is more mundane a phenomenon and barely preferable — on average — to other relationships. In modern culture, we expect and even require love for long-term relationships and generally prefer any relationship with love to one without it, regardless of the intertype relationship. There are good reasons for this coming from the logic of biological success.

6.1. Love does not obey the "laws" of intertype relations, and the idealizations that people project onto objects of passion do not necessarily come from the person's supposed Super-Id (dualizing) functions. That is, if you listen closely to what people want to have in an ideal partner — not just their conscious preferences but their emotional reactions to different people — I think you see that the preferences are 1) indeed significant and generally there for good reason; 2) not reducible to an "ideal dual"; and that 3) some people are [much] more universally desirable than others, and again, not because people are stupid and don't know what will make them happy, but because there are [nearly] universally positive and negative traits, habits, and life circumstances of great signifance to human interaction to which socionics is blind (see point #8).

6.1.1. It could be true that dual relations are more often magical than others. However, the fact that they tend to be described as magical feeds a tendency to see duals any time there is magic. Furthermore, a "magical" dual might have more in common with a "magical ___ type" than with a non-magical dual. 

7. There do exist particularly potent combinations of people that socionics is unable to predict (because its model of the psyche is not just incomplete, but fundamentally incorrect). The cause of the potency is unknown to socionics but can be discovered on a case-by-case basis and then, perhaps, generalized into a set of patterns and general rules. I would speculate that these combinations are highly symbiotic on grounds that are more or less permanent (constitutional) rather than situational (e.g. your specific current needs complement the other person's). Such pairings are consistently able to elicit symmetrical positive emotions in each other. Why? I don't know, but I'm now quite confident it is not socionics.

7.1. People with more extreme traits may have different patterns of interpersonal compatibility than those with traits closer to the norm. In particular, they may experience incompatibility much more often and have greater unmet needs for understanding and connection. The causes of this are fairly straightforward and obvious and probably have little or nothing to do with socionics.

8. There are many very important universals that socionics is blind to. For instance, that some people are almost universally annoying while others are almost universally liked/admired. There are not 16 strategies of success, but rather just a handful, plus variations. People achieve success not only by relying on unique strengths, but also by developing universal qualities common to most varieties of success. Trying to follow a somewhat contrived and esoteric type-specific path to success seems to me generally less useful than working on improving the universals.

8.1. For the most part, our lives are dominated by universals — standard situations that would elicit similar reactions in most people. Socionics suggests the opposite.

8.1.1. However, there are definitely times when a person needs to focus on discovering and enhancing the individual and specific. Socionics can give some broad hints, but nothing more. So can other typologies. So can non-typological empirical psychology.

8.2. There are "better" and "worse" states to be in that are remarkably universal, but these states are hard to describe from a socionics perspective. "Type development" is a clumsy and unparsimonious way to describe it. Modern science now has a ton to say about what contributes to happiness and well-being, and research results don't obviously suggest a typological approach.

9. The territory that we each stake out in life and build our self-identities upon is mostly based on unconscious calculations of our probability of biological success in the various roles/niches we have tested or know of given our existing investments and available energy and resources. These roles are often continually changing as different actors come and go and resource allocation patterns (i.e. the economy) evolve, since these things affect our personal prospects. While there may be patterns in which personalities gravitate towards which kinds of roles, situational and non-typical factors are generally more important. Since our connections with people are to a large extent determined by these roles, the things that bring people together and create a bond are best described using non-socionic language because socionics plays a small part in it.

9.1. I think lasting interpersonal conflicts can be parsimoniously described as reflecting threats to self-identities, current roles, and biological success. If you are a sadist and want to cause people psychological pain, don't nerdily attack their hypothetical "point of least resistance"; instead, doubt their self-identity, jeopardize their current roles, and question their biological success. 

- - - - - - - -

That's a glimpse of where my ideas are taking me.

Back to Augusta...

An important question I ask myself is, if things really are as I have suggested here, how can Augusta and so many followers have thought for so long that the system worked? I think that a key to the longevity of many not-quite-true (I don't mean that perjoratively) idea systems is their complexity. The structure and sophistication of systems of thought often have the effect of aweing their adherents. If the ideas are complex and extensive, they may take a very long time to prove or disprove. I, for one, only feel confident in calling socionics "inaccurate" as of the past 6 months.

A long-lived idea system must also be at least reasonably accurate at some level — or impossible to disprove. The fact that thinkers have been identifying types of people for millenia suggests that there is some basis for this approach. It is also plainly evident that different combinations of people are more or less compatible, and that once-established relationships and attitudes toward each other often last for a long time. However, our limited consciousness seems incapable of understanding why this is the case without the help of science. One of Augusta's errors (and mine too) was overstating the role of permanent, constitutional differences in personality. Her model treats people as essentially unchanging actors and isn't well suited for describing short- and long-term development. This error, as well as its opposite — that everything is situational — are easy to make if you are unaware of the last 30 years of psychology research.

Augusta attempted to explain phenomena which are still clouded in mystery — namely love and interpersonal attachment/rejection patterns — and did a half-decent job at it. Good enough to make a lot of people excited about the discovery. Because there are so many types and varieties of intertype relations, a place could be found for any person in the universe revolving around any particular person. To find points where the system breaks down requires comparing overlapping universes to see how the predicted relationships and perceived personalities play out. Like I said, this can take a lot of time — years and years — as one tries tweaking typings and one's understanding of socionics to see if things can be made to fit after all. 

How Life Circumstances Influence Perception of Socionics

Now that I've criticized socionics in several blog posts, I will present a new perspective that may begin to reconcile different viewpoints on the accuracy of socionics*.

* When I write "socionics," I am referring to intertype relations — the core and purpose of socionics theory.

How acutely a person experiences socionics depends on their current life circumstances. You may go through phases where socionics seems to hold little sway over you, and phases where socionics seems to imprison you or dictate how you feel and what you are able to accomplish.

Here are the kinds of things that influence your sensitivity to intertype relations:

• How well-adapted you are in general at this stage in life. How stable your work and close relationships are.
• How much freedom you have to choose and regulate relationships and activities.
• Whether you are spending more time one-on-one with people or in groups.
• How much variety is built into your lifestyle.

The "worst" possible situation is when you are poorly adapted, have few friends, unstable work, are stuck with whoever you live and work with and are unable to maintain personal boundaries and spiritual hygiene, belong to no groups, and live a lifestyle with little variety. In these life circumstances socionic relations are likely to be experienced very acutely, with many or most intertype relations producing distress. The range of acceptably compatible people narrows to a very small group that is able to reach you through your chronic stress and defensive position.

The "best" possible situation is when you are well adapted, have several close friends and confidants, a stable work situation, freedom to choose and adjust your partnerships and activities to suit your tastes, belong to groups where you participate in interesting and enjoyable group interaction, and have variety built into your lifestyle such that you are engaging the mind, body, and emotions in a number of different ways on a regular basis. In these life circumstances socionic relations may seem to hold little sway over you, and virtually everyone seems compatible in some way or another. The range of people you are able to connect with meaningfully expands, and your openness and sense of security makes it easy to brush off slight manifestations of incompatibility that you might otherwise be sensitive to.

But beyond the influence of life circumstances, it seems that some inherent and developed personality traits can make a person more or less susceptible to socionics. For instance, a typical extravert (in the popular sense) may find that while they personally don't sense incompatibility with other people, for some reason others often react negatively to them and say they are "pushy," "overbearing," "too talkative," etc. Typical extraverts may generally feel untouched by socionics, while occasionally experiencing periods of intense loneliness when they feel that everyone dislikes them and they have no true friends (or for other reasons). Typical introverts (in the popular sense) may generally feel highly susceptible to intertype relations and only able to tolerate a narrow range of highly compatible people. Occasionally some of these introverts may experience states where they can open up and briefly abandon their sensitivity.

Furthermore, one can develop attitudes that affect how acutely socionics is felt. I'm not sure "develop" is the right word, because I think even this type of development is largely outside of conscious control. For instance, if one comes to believe things like — 1) one's own perception is innately limited and prone to error, 2) all people contain some amount of wisdom to be learned from, or 3) all people experience the same basic things and can thus be empathized with — then a greater openness can be felt towards other people, softening the effects of socionics. Likewise, beliefs such as — 1) I know the truth, 2) it is my duty to bring the truth to other people, 3) some people are good and others bad, or 4) some people are innately defective — will tend to make one's experience of intertype relationships more acute than otherwise.

Some life circumstances allow a person to escape the "necessity" of duality (or let's just say, "fulfilling intimate relationships"). The formula I have discovered for this is:

• a vastly simplified lifestyle that allows you to keep your mind uncluttered
• a high degree of freedom and elective solitude
• large amounts of group interaction
• frequent new acquaintances with the option of getting to know people quickly and thoroughly

This is the lifestyle of the wandering philosopher, the spiritual teacher, the long-distance hiker or skilled solo traveler. Those in this position get to experience the best of people (their life experiences, accumulated knowledge, hopes and dreams) while avoiding the worst (finding ways to cooperate in day-to-day living). Living this way, you may develop a kind of "love of mankind"; instead of emotionally latching on to particular individuals you know well, you experience positive feelings for everyone you meet and for the world in general. In this state duality and deep intimacy may lose their importance because you are regularly connecting deeply with many different people. This is the lifestyle of Jesus (assuming the New Testament is accurate), the Dalai Lama, Ghandi, and some long-distance travelers I've met. I think some types are more predisposed to develop this way.

(I encourage readers to think about if there are other types of lifestyles that produce similar effects but work for different kinds of people.)

To summarize, sensitivity to intertype relations as described by socionics is highly influenced by how healthy your life circumstances are at the moment, how sensitive you are physiologically and psychologically, what attitudes you have developed, and whether you are traveling.

Socionics Inaccuracy in Relationship Compatibility

In my opinion, socionics is inadequate as a predictor of romantic compatibility. It is quite a bit better than chance, which is remarkable in itself. However, it does not live up to the expectations many people acquire when studying the theory.

Here I present two graphs representing (approximately) romantic relationship compatibility distribution among types 1) as suggested by socionics theory, and 2) in practice (in my practice, at least). There are 16 vertical cells in each graph, representing the 16 types.

1. What socionics seems to suggest

What exactly socionics suggests is highly debatable. Some socionists introduce subtypes and use them to further model intertype compatibility. Some socionists talk of the difference between functions and the "specific content of the functions," which depends upon culture and upbringing (a copout explanation, in my view). Some introduce levels of development or intellect which may influence compatibility. Nonetheless, the above picture represents what many or most people seem to think after beginning to study socionics. It often takes many years for the understanding above to gradually morph into something more like the following:

2. What I observe in practice

The height of the colored bars may differ from person to person depending on how far they are from the mean on various physical, intellectual, emotional, and cultural traits. The graph above shows 1 in 40 duals as being "very compatible" and just over half as having some degree of compatibility. For some people even this may be optimistic.

Note that there is no "ideally compatible" category in the second graph. In my opinion ideal compatibility does not exist. It is not built into our biology. Compatibility is a kind of reasonable compromise between two individuals who agree to set aside one set of programs (mate seeking and individualistic behaviors) in favor of another set of programs (relationship building, homesteading, and child rearing behaviors). The socionics model does not reflect this in any way.

Furthermore, romantic compatibility in practice may change during a relationship. The stage of romantic love increases the appearance of compatibility greatly no matter what the intertype relation. As hormone levels gradually return to normal, compatibility may either decrease or increase depending on "underlying" compatibility. Even in a seemingly compatible relationship, there is no guarantee that for one reason or another one or both partners will opt out of the relationship.

There is substantial evidence that humans have a mixture of monogamous and polygamous tendencies and that as a species we are designed with the potential for both life-long monogamous relationships and multiple relationships, whether simultaneous or sequential. The mechanisms whereby people are motivated to switch relationships throw a wrench in the neat system of compatibility suggested by socionics. Again, socionics has nothing to say about these vital biological factors and suggests a simplistic view of compatibility that requires numerous qualifications and provisions.

Next, homo sapiens did not evolve in a nuclear society where people separated into pairs and isolated themselves socially and economically from others. For the most part, homo sapiens lived communally, and intimate romantic relationships were complemented by a complex network of other supporting relationships. In this kind of setting individual compatibility may be less important than in a distinctly nuclear society.

Finally, adult mortality was quite a bit higher than today, and it was quite common for women to die in childbirth. Health, fitness, and ability to provide were probably just as important provisions for choosing a mate as psychological compatibility. After all, what our genes are after is maximum replication. How much this goal favors the evolution of a rigid system of psychological compatibility is an interesting question (I believe I have an article about that at Socionics.us).

It seems to me that the larger and more complex the society, the lower the percentage of romantically compatible mates. As specialization and the web of interpersonal communication increase, people settle into ever more specialized cultural niches. As the complexity of society increases, people with extreme traits have more chances to find each other and produce offspring with even more extreme traits who, in turn, have a harder time finding compatible partners. In a society where one must find a mate within a community of 1000 or so people, out-of-the-norm traits may tend to be quickly brought closer to the mean because of the low probability that you will ever meet someone else with the trait.

If one can realistically choose from only 100 potential mates and knows of no others, one will find a relatively compatible mate among the 100. If there are only 10 mates, one will find the most compatible one of the 10. The smaller the number of people in a certain mileau, the less cultural and psychological diversity there will be.

My Personal Typology

Last edit: 29 Oct. 2012 (sensitivity added)

My personal typology includes not only socionics, but bits and pieces of other systems and observations that I have found to be important in my interactions with other people. My typology is not systematized, but here's what it includes:

1. Socionic type captures key aspects of how a person interacts with his environment. It is able to answer perhaps 50% of the question, "who is this person?"
2. Gender encompasses the overarching biological program of the individual and broad communication styles and expectations that can create both attraction and problems between the sexes, regardless of socionic type. Within the genders, varying levels of male and female hormones add additional variety.
3. Striking characteristics or experience, if any, play a critical role in the lives of people who possess them. Examples include: someone who spends most of their time traveling around different countries, an Albanian immigrant living in the U.S., a WWII-era former spy, a concentration camp survivor, a professional basketball player, a grotesquely obese person, a dwarf or midget, someone with a serious stutter, a CEO, a person who makes a living off selling his own art, etc. In such cases, you can understand a great deal about a person simply by recognizing their striking characteristics, which may override or enhance type-related inborn personality traits.
4. Somatotype, e.g. levels of endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy, help to explain things like why one ILE is physically adventurous while another is mentally adventurous, why one SEI is more comforting and nurturing and another SEI more ascetic and austere, or why one ILI is distant and another chummy. Physical constitution also may carry over into the sexual sphere, influencing the types of movements and touching that people find sexual.
5. Intellect or IQ, particularly closer to the extremes, adds a confounding factor to intertype relations, helping to explain why people who "should" get along according to socionics and common sense sometimes don't, and vice versa. For people close to the mean, this factor plays a smaller role in their lives.
6. Sensitivity, particularly whether a person is highly sensitive (HSP) or not.
7. Sexual attractiveness, including all relevant factors (looks, financial success, status), helps to capture hidden layers of competition and mating behavior (attraction and rejection) occuring between people regardless of their other characteristics.
8. Activity level, including hyperactivity and speed of speech, sometimes plays a role in interpersonal interaction, helping to explain, for instance, why one SEE tires you and another doesn't.

Points 5, 6, 7, and sometimes 4 often don't play much of a role unless they are striking, which means they could conceivably be included in point 3 -- "striking characteristics or experience."

Reflections on Complementary Functions

I'm posting here my response to the following question:

I don't know if you're still into socionics, but I have actually become better in applying it, and I think it's pretty accurate. The problem is explaining the theory to other people. Socionics seems like more of a system that is based on observation than anything else. (For example, I can't see any reason why Ti types would necessarily seek out Fe types - you could come up with a reason, but it doesn't necessarily prove it, unfortunately.) That's why I'm wondering about its history, because it will make it easier for me to explain to people why it might work. So, here's the question: do you know how Ausra Augusta and her associates developed the system? Was it based on observing a handful of people she knew, or were, for example, hundreds of people talked to in order to develop Model A? (Or something else?) I don't really want to burden you with finding an answer, but you seem like one of the few people in the English speaking world who might know.

I still think of socionics regularly when meeting people and reflecting on their personalities. The subject, I think, will continue to interest me forever. I think the complementarity of functions that you mention is a great mystery that remains to be uncovered by science. Simply by giving the mystery a name (i.e. Ti and Fe), socionics does a lot towards finding an answer, but "Ti and Fe" itself is not the answer.

The answer is doubtless to be found in neurophysiology. Something about the neurophysiological activity known as "Ti" leads to neurochemical exhaustion if not supplemented by "Fe."

More broadly, any specific type or closely related types of mental activity will lead to exhaustion if engaged in long enough or with enough intensity (mirroring the effects of physical activity). As a result, one feels drained, irritable, or devoid of will.

"Ti" and "Fe" may be seen simply as convenient, though imperfect, ways of categorizing mental activity.

Since the source of "Ti" and "Fe" -- evolution -- acts via our physical survival and successful physical transfer of genes and is only interested in our mental activity inasmuch as it produces external results, the mental activity represented by "Ti" or "Fe" must also represent broad types of approaches towards dealing with one's external environment.

A "Ti person" tends to tackle problems and opportunities in his environment in a certain way that differentiates him from most others. This typically leads to success in some areas and deficiencies in others. Yet, because we are not bees or ants, the differentiation cannot be absolute. A "Ti person" who performs more types of tasks adequately probably stands a higher chance of reproducing than one who cannot.

The "purpose" of this differentiation appears to be to make social cooperation desirable and inevitable. It is distinct from sexual drives which make reproduction desirable or from survival drives which make animals territorial and prone to aggression.

The fact that what we call Ti and Fe tend to attract one another is a conclusion born of observation more than logical deduction. Augusta recognized that such patterns existed, but she had no name or framework for them until she came across Jung's Typology, which she adapted to fit her needs more closely. Model A was developed as a result of studying Jung, observing her acquaintances in everyday life, and discussing her ideas with a group of like-minded friends who took interest in the topic. They would field ideas among each other and see how well they played out among each other and in their personal experience, much like any informal but stable group of friends. In this way they were able to develop the overlapping experience that is so critical to socionics (as well as being its Achilles' heel). Without it, socionics discussions tend to be difficult and relatively unproductive.

The Math of Predicting Marriage Success

I came across a remarkable study that could open up some avenues of empirical research into socionic phenomena. 

Some British researchers learned to predict with 94% accuracy whether a new couple would get divorced or not in the next four years based on data from just 15 minutes of conversation. 

I highly recommend this radio discussion transcript from 2004. Basically, they would film newlyweds discussing a contentious topic such as family finances and attach point values to various displays of positive and negative emotion, such as humor or contempt. "Marriage success" was defined simply as remaining together after four years. The more positive a couple's points, the greater their chances of staying together. Successful couples, they found, had up to five times more positives than negatives, whereas unsuccessful couples had an equal number or more negatives than positives. 

Furthermore, by looking at the data and observing couples, they were able to distinguish five general patterns of interaction: (source)

Stable couples

1. "the validating couple" -- calm, intimate, companionable, like to back each other up

2. "the avoiders"-- do their best to eschew conflict. 

Unstable couples

1. "the hostiles" -- neither person wants to talk about contentious issues

2. "the hostile-detached couple" -- one is fiery and argumentative, and the other isn't.

Borderline couples (can go either way)

1. "the volatile couple" -- romantic and passionate, but have heated arguments 

If you're interested in learning about their methodology and findings in depth, their book The Mathematics of Marriage is available online at Google books. 

Personality/Compatibility Test at Chemistry.com

I mentioned anthropologist and love researcher Helen Fisher two posts ago. She has put her observations and ideas about love and compatibility into test form at Chemistry.com. There, in about 20 minutes, you can take a test that tells you about your personality, strengths and weaknesses, and who you might be most attracted to. 

Please take the test (I'm sure you'll find it interesting) and report back in the following way:

1. your socionic type (self-typing)

2. your Chemistry.com test result

3. your opinion of the accuracy of the description (0% to 100%)

There are people from the MBTI or Keirsey camp who see a correspondence between Fisher's types and Keirsey temperaments or MBTI types, but I think these correlations are baloney. It's the same old fallacy of assuming that types are literally real and that only one set of real types can exist, therefore two different systems of types must either correspond closely, or one of the systems is bogus. 

In further posts I will discuss Fisher's types in greater depth. 

Experiments in Socionics

In previous posts I have discussed the pervasive lack of scientific method in socionics. All socionic studies conducted so far have been one of two types:

1. Studies of type-related behavior that accepted as a given that participants' types had been identified correctly.
2. Studies of socionists' opinions regarding socionics and socionic types.

Neither of these types of studies is of much use to researchers outside the socionics community. None prove the existence of types, intertype relations, or other concepts, or demonstrate the precise physiological or mental characteristics associated with socionic categories. I know of no ways of proving any of socionics experimentally. If you do, please leave a comment after the article. 

However, if we broaden our interests to include psychological compatibility, personality differences, and perception, then we can potentially create lots of good studies with real  scientific value that would touch on -- but not prove -- theoretical elements of socionics. Here are some ideas for such experiments. 

Does psychological compatibility exist?

Purpose

Try to determine whether different combinations of people living or working together closely experience significantly different levels of compatibility, and whether these levels are dependent upon particular pairings of people. 

Measures

"Compatibility" could be measured physiologically (levels of hormones in the blood associated with stress, contentment, irritation, etc.) verbally (using questionnaires), or through observation (how much time people spend talking, characteristics of conversation, etc.). A combination of the three would be most informative, but if the subjects knew that the object of the study was to measure psychological compatibility, that might color their responses to the different people they are paired with. To avoid this, questionnaires could be about subject's general emotional state, mood level, and well-being in order to not give hints about the real purpose of the study. Subjects would be told the purpose of the study was to find out more about their physiological responses to living conditions, for instance. Questionnaires and blood tests should be administered once daily at the same time each day. Daily routine would be the same each day. Observation would be conducted through hidden microphones that would record the amount of time each day that the people spend talking. If other patterns are discovered, researchers could analyze conversations for other parameters as well, such as the amount of laughter, emotional tone, or range of topics discussed.

Necessary conditions

To allow for compatibility to be clearly felt, subjects would ideally need to spend at least one week together in an isolated setting. They should have some kind of work to do, but nothing that would involve anyone other than each other. 

Setting

Possible settings include:

- a prison where inmates spend most of their waking time in their cells without external contact

- a hospital ward or sanatorium where people are recovering from long-term illnesses in a stationary setting

- an artificial setting, such as a summer camp in the woods specifically for the experiment

Process

Participants of a single sex and heterosexual orientation (to rule out confounding sexual factors) are paired randomly multiple times (say, 4 times over 4 weeks) and made to spend most or all of their time together. Blood tests and questionnaires are given daily at the same time each day. Participants may be given tasks that require them to interact more closely with their roommate. A hidden microphone tracks the amount of time each day that roommates spend talking, and can be used to analyze conversation content. At the end of each week, participants are abruptly moved to a different location (room) where they are paired with another person they have never met before. 

Variation 1: Participants could be reunited with one or more previous roommate at some point in the experiment. Researchers would be checking to see whether compatibility levels are the same as the first time together. 

Variation 2: Pair partners with people of the opposite sex (if they are both heterosexual) to see how results change when gender factors are introduced. This could make things complicated. 

Variation 3: The study could be duplicated for both sexes to allow for comparison of results between the sexes. 

Possible findings

Such a study would produce a large and very interesting body of data with a myriad of possible conclusions. Here are some questions that might be answered:

• Do people have stable compatibility levels with others? Or do levels (as measured in the experiment) fluctuate?
• If they are stable, how quickly are those levels achieved? Within one day? Five days?
• Are all people equally susceptible to compatibility? Or are there people who tend to be compatible, or incompatible, with everyone or nearly everyone?
• How widely do compatibility levels fluctuate? Is the fluctuation the same or different for different participants? 
• How well do people's self-reports correlate with blood test results? Is their perception of their own state correct?
• How does audio data from hidden microphones correlate with blood tests and self-reporting? Do more compatible partners always talk more? What, if anything, is different about their audible interaction? What about incompatible partners?
• When people are paired repeatedly with the same person, how closely do the results of the second period together match those of the first? Are there any patterns, such as that incompatible partners get even worse, or compatible ones get even better?

Most likely, many other things would be discovered that aren't on the list. 

Implications for socionics

Such a study could support or refute some of socionics' basic claims and assumptions about intertype relations and compatibility.  

What Are the Chances of Finding an Ideal Partner?

In this post I will try to model the chances of finding a psychologically ideal partner.

The difficulty of this exercise is distinguishing between "wants" and "needs" in the realm of psychological compability. Someone, for instance, may "want" a partner that makes a lot of money and has achieved professional success, but in reality they may be just as psychologically content with someone without these qualities. Someone may think they need someone who is an accomplished athlete like they are, only to find, much to their own surprise, that they feel perfectly at home with someone who is distant from the world of sports.

For the sake of this exercise we are going to assume that the purpose of the sought-for relationship is friendly, intimate romantic companionship, not establishing a safe haven for children, etc. Therefore, we will consider only factors that definitely impact the possibility of a psychologically intimate and comfortable relationship between two people.

The first division we will make is for gender. Only 1/2 of people are of the right gender for such a relationship (well, for the vast majority of people).

Next, only 1 in 16 has a psychological type that allows in principle for maximum intimacy. It is my belief and experience that the types are distributed rougly evenly, meaning that no type is more than twice as prevalent as any other (and probably quite a bit less than that).

For people who are not convinced of the importance of socionic intertype relations, but have considerable relationship experience, it shouldn't seem too far from the truth to suggest that, with all the kinds of personalities to be found among people, maybe only about 1/16 of people have the right psychological makeup to make ideal living partners and friends.

Next, a generous 1 in 4 of these people are of an age range that would allow for real intimacy. Social stereotypes of acceptable age differences don't necessarily correlate to what is actually possible. For some people the age range will be wider, and for others narrower.

Now, of these people, we will eliminate half for various psychological, physical, or cultural characteristics that make it impossible to become attracted to or deeply intimate with them. This generous estimate includes things like specific temperamental and physiological characteristics that may have a significant effect on real-life compatibility. Many people think they are far choosier than this, but circumstantial factors and long-term exposure to a person often spark friendship and intimacy where neither person would have expected it.

This leaves us with 1 in 256 people being a potential ideal partner. That may sound like too few, but we are talking about the population at large, not eligible candidates looking for a mate of your gender. 1 in 256 applies if you are looking for a partner by calling random numbers in the phone book. 

If you're in college, that proportion jumps to 1 in 64 because all are in the same age range. That means 1 out of every 32 people of the gender that interests you. That's not too bad. If you're in college taking 6 classes with an average class size of 30 people, that's 3 potential ideal partners among your classmates, not to mention extracurricular activities, "friends of friends," etc., which can increase your selection pool dramatically. There's a lot of room to be picky and look for common interests. Assuming, of course, that one is socially active (or responsive) and actually establishes contact with potential partners in one's selection pool.

But we're not done yet. Another factor that has an indisputable affect on people's ability to connect with others is the difference in IQ between them. I have read estimates of between 15 to 30 IQ points being the point at which communication difficulties arise. I will be a conservative and choose 30 points as being the maximum acceptable IQ difference for a high degree of emotional intimacy and psychological compatibility between people. Because of the bell-shaped distribution of IQ, this means that for most people in most circumstances, the influence of this factor will be negligible. For people at the upper and lower extremes, however, potential IQ differences can become as serious a communication issue as any of the others, even among duals of the right gender and age.

Here we will list the percentage of people who are in the acceptable range for people of a given IQ, and below that the chances of finding an ideal intimate partner among the population at large.

100 (average):
94% of people within range
1 in 272

80 or 120:
73% of people within range
1 in 351

60 or 140:
27% within range
1 in 948

40 or 160:
3% within range
1 in 8,533

20 or 180:
0.09% within range
1 in 284,444

Increasing your chances

Things don't have to be as bad as the probabilities I have listed above suggest.

Going to college increases your chances by 4, since all people are in an acceptable age range. Since you don't pay attention to all the people of the wrong gender, you can multiply your chances by 2. If your IQ is above or below average, you can increase your chances of finding an ideal partner by being a part of communities whose average IQ is as close as possible to your own. For example, if your IQ is 140 and you go to a university where the average is 120, your chances of finding an ideal partner from among your college peers are now the same as someone whose IQ is 120 (or 80) from among the population at large. If your job brings you together with people of your IQ range (and interests), this increases your chances, too.

Connecting with communities of people who share one or more of your interests is important in that it provides a convenient context to establish a connection with people who might be compatible with you. People with unusual interests often have difficulty at ordinary dating sites, where their interests are an oddity rather than the norm.

To summarize, the person in the best position to find an ideal partner is someone who is part of a community or communities of people of the same age range, IQ range, and general interests.

Using Socionics to Solve Personal Problems

I really think socionics can be a very practical tool for personal growth and change, not just an abstract discussion topic. Most likely, in some way or another the desire for change in one's personal, intimate life is the primary motive for most people who spend time learning about socionics. However, the personal accounts with all the really interesting and poignant details usually go unsaid in public (I guess forums allow for more anonymity), and attention instead focuses on the theoretical and descriptive shell of socionics. Yet the real driver of socionics is the search for solutions to personal problems. Of course, you can solve all these problems without socionics, just as you can be completely physically fit without ever visiting a gym.

The main motivation for pursuing personal change comes from experiencing problems in one's relationships: with intimate partners (love and close friends), society (social adjustment, work, and casual friendships), and oneself (self-concept and living skills). The strongest motivator is love relationships, because they involve the most aspects of one's being at once, potentially can satisfy the most needs, and hence cause the greatest adjustments and can be the most problematic.

Let's look at some of the common personal problems people who are into socionics may face and what can be done to address them:

"I have never been in a relationship"
In this situation a preoccupation with socionics might not be very helpful at all. It takes hands-on experience to develop the unconscious skill set (effective behavior patterns and natural, uninhibited physical, mental, and emotional reactions) needed to attract a "soul mate," and no socionic or other mental knowledge can provide this. I know of no other way than trial and error. Even if you hit it right the first time and spend your entire life with your first relationship partner, will you really be satisfied with yourself and your successes in this area? (okay, granted a few semi-autistic people would be) So, find the environments for pursuing a relationship that you find the least stressful, and go for it.

What might be wise is to search for information and advice that would address specific fears of yours that might be holding you back from meeting people and having relationships. Simply look for the fear; that is where problems are sure to lie. If the fear concerns rejection, find a place where you can air your fear or find out about how other people have dealt with it. If the fear concerns physical intimacy, find out about stages of intimacy and what to do at each stage, and find a place where you can talk about it comfortably and see how others have overcome problems and fears. If your fear concerns commitment and relationship expectations, learn about different relationship forms and how different people satisfy their needs in different ways. If your fear concerns your own attractiveness, find a place where you can comfortably talk about the specific things that you fear make you unattractive to potential partners. Much fear can be alleviated this way, leaving you more receptive to other people and potentially intimate situations.

"I am depressed or have some other emotional problem"
Look at the types of people you live with and interact with most. Are your Super-Id needs being met? Is your Ego being fully appreciated? This are indeed silly terms, but thinking about socionic functions can help concreticize your personal situation and identify specific problems. People have a harder time being happy and emotionally stable if they do not have a dual among, say, their top 3 confidants and significant friends and partners. Consider changing your living, work, and/or social circumstances to get away from negative stressors and bring a dual or duals into your inner circle. Yes, it really works, even if your choice of duals is somewhat artificial. If you're not sure of your own type or those of others, at least look for people you can trust and feel comfortable around.

"I'm having trouble choosing my path in life"
Learn about your type and what other people of your type have done with their lives. In general, look for people who are living the way you would like, and learn about their biography and background, but focus especially on happy people of your own type. How did they discover their career path and main interests? How did they stumble upon the right opportunities, organizations, and people? What do they consider to be the key to their success? What false roads did they discover along the way? Especially look at people you have met personally, because daydreaming about the lives of famous people can be unproductive. If you have a particular skill or skills that you know would like to base your life on, focus on learning about people with that skill in addition to people of your own type who are content with their lives.

"I can't seem to get along with anybody" or "I don't connect with people"
These are usually sentiments of people who have difficulty or take a long time getting to know and understand other people. Studying socionics theory will help them understand what makes all those "difficult people" tick and will help them to be more tolerant of the things they used to view as "faults" or "defects."

"I'm looking for the right relationship"
Now that you have some relationship experience under your belt, you have probably learned about some of the complexities of relationships and the difficulty of trying to make things work with a seeming vast majority of people. If you've preserved an ideal of what kind of relationship you would like, you're probably ready for some socionics "meat": learning about duality, how your and your duals' types operate, and the roles that different socionic functions play in interaction. It's time to hone your relationship behavior to become as natural, effortless, and spontaneous as possible and provide potential soul mates with what they are subconsciously seeking (I'm speaking of spontaneity in the use of one's functions, not the kind of impulsivity usually associated with irrationality). They will undoubtedly begin to return the favor.

You can get "hints" of how to develop your behavior by studying other people of your type and how they interact with others. Some of what they do may seem "cheesy," but other things will make you say, "I can/want to do that!"

In general, you will need to make sure you have opened up more to Super-Id input and that you are providing "real goods" with your Ego functions, and not just talking or boasting (see also this article). Let's say you're an SLE. Do you dig wackiness and imaginative fun? Do you actively motivate your partners and provide them with real-world adventures? If you're an LII, have you learned to resonate with Joy, or is all you care about the Truth? Do you help others resolve their organizational difficulties and mental madness? If you're an IEE, are you open to the many varieties of physical experience, and do you initiate new opportunities for your partners, and not just talk about yourself? etc. etc.

Many people may find they need to work on reducing inhibitions against "imposing" on potential partners with their strong functions. Your duals are unconsciously expecting to be "imposed upon" (even the feminist ones) in certain ways, and do not perceive your Ego-block initiative as an intrusion on their personal space. In fact, if you don't "intrude" upon their suggestive function, they won't feel deep down that you really care for them.

Finding the right relationship is basically finding yourself. The more you are "yourself," the more likely you are to find the right relationship, and vice versa. This is not because of any romantic mushy-mushy stuff, but because the "right" relationships are grounded in compatible physiological automatisms and impulses (my opinion).

Online Compatibility Tools

I recommend reading the article "How Do I Love Thee?" about online dating sites which use some kind of compatibility algorithm. The creators of these websites have gotten pretty far using personal experience, insight, and data processing tools. There is enough money in this field to propel the work along -- probably more than in the field of just psychological types (i.e. MBTI), much less socionics.

I won't pretend that knowing socionics gives one an advantage over these guys. After gaining extensive personal experience with socionics you will start to wonder what distinguishes the duals you really click with from the others that you are relatively comfortable with but indifferent towards, and why you are drawn to certain non-duals and not to others. And that puts you at the beginning stages of trying to understand compatibility. So, let's not be too smug about our "hidden" knowledge :-)

Let me pull out some of the important conclusions that these people have come to:

• The more peripheral your traits (intellect, abilities, etc.), the fewer good matches you will have. This makes patience essential.
• "...one of Warren’s longtime observations: namely, that the members of a happy couple are far more similar to each other than are the members of an unhappy couple. Compatibility, in other words, rests on shared traits."
• At the same time, "You don’t want two obsessives,” he explained. “They’ll drive each other crazy. You don’t find two control freaks in a great marriage."
• "Fifty percent of the ball game is finding two people who are stable." Instability may mean incompatibility with nearly everyone.
• “Long-term satisfaction is not the same as short-term attraction. A lot of people, when they see their initial matches, it’s like, ‘This is crap!’” In other words, long-term attraction tends to grow on you.
• "Don’t have sex if you don’t want to fall in love.”
• "The problem with sites like eHarmony, she believes, is that they place too much emphasis on similarity, whereas, in her view, falling in love depends on two elements: similarity and complementarity." (My own limited encounters with eHarmony confirm this)
• “We also want someone who masks our flaws,” she explained. “For example, people with poor social skills sometimes gravitate toward people with good social skills. I’m an Explorer, so I don’t really need a partner who is socially skilled. That’s not essential to me. But it may be essential to a Director, who’s generally less socially skilled.” Of course, this totally jives with socionics. However there are different ways of "lacking social skills" (think SLE vs. LSE's weaknesses).
• "Schwartz’s Duet model consists of a mere forty-eight questions and focuses on eight specific personality characteristics: romantic impulsivity, personal energy, outlook, predictability, flexibility, decision-making style, emotionality, and self-nurturing style. On the first four, she believes, a well-suited couple should be similar; on the last four, however, a couple can thrive on either similarity or difference."

Also interesting is the fact that so much of our personality depends on levels of different hormones and/or the genes that determine these levels:

"Genes for the activity of dopamine are associated with motivation, curiosity,
anxiety, and optimism. Genes for the metabolism of serotonin, another
neurotransmitter, tend to modulate one’s degree of calm, stability, popularity,
and religiosity. Testosterone is associated with being rational, analytical,
exacting, independent, logical, rank-oriented, competitive, irreverent, and
narcissistic. And the hormone estrogen is associated with being imaginative,
creative, insightful, humane, sympathetic, agreeable, flexible, and verbal."

A big part of the article is about trying to figure out which traits need to be similar and which need to be different for optimal satisfaction. I've written some of my own ideas here. The search goes on.

How to Create Psychologically Compatible Robots

In the foreseeable future household robots may become commonplace. These robots will likely serve not only to help keep order in the home, but to provide emotional support to their stressed out, friendship-starved owners. To elicit an emotional attachment, they will need to display human qualities and psychologically complement their owners.

Potentially, robots could be created that would arouse a greater attachment than a human partner could. The way to do this is to make robots that have no personal goals of their own, but are wholly devoted to satisfying their owners' needs and whims. If robots were also designed to satisfy their owners sexually, the effect could be addictive.

How would you go about creating a psychologically compatible robot?
To generate an attachment between master and robot, the robot would have to display helplessness in the areas that the master is strongest in. This makes the master feel needed by the robot, and in return the robot would have to provide needed assistance to the master as well. If you create a purely functional robot that carries out a single set of tasks and has no human weaknesses and no implicit neediness, there will be no attachment with owners (except for the most technically minded people who "love" machines). For an emotional attachment to form, robot and master must fulfill each other's psychological needs. This implies a certain degree of psychological lopsidedness and neediness, which creates a motivation for cooperation.

The robot would have to display helplessness indirectly - not through blunt questions like, "Can you clean me? I feel dirty." To this the owner would probably reply, "Go clean yourself. I'm busy." Much more effective would be to have the robot cough and look tired and preoccupied when dust begins to build up inside or some other maintenance is required. This kind of robot behavior would be ideal for owners with strong . These robots would lighten up and start sharing insightful observations about events around them as soon as they are fed and properly taken care of. They would also need to finicky and infantile to provide an outlet for their owners' caretaking tendencies.

People with strong would need robot helpers that are cute and harmless playthings that constantly lose track of wires and outlets, phone numbers, things to do, and tools and appliances. Such robots should be able to put on a sad face and say, "Now what am I going to do? The refrigerator doesn't seem to be working any more, and I can't remember where I put the warranty." At the same time, these robots need to be adept at listening and comforting owners who struggle with irritation.

People with strong would need robot companions who habitually take things too seriously and take issue with other people's choice of words, leading to frequent arguments. Such robots should be able to complain convincingly about a lack of comradery and kinship with others and should feel depressed when they are time and time again left out of fun, socializing, and close relationships. These robots soften up and become animated when their emotionally spirited masters are around. In return, they need to be able to listen staunchly to emotional tirades and help their owners figure out what is at the root of their discontent.

People with strong have a need for robots with strong material desires who are chronically anxious and worried about the future. These robots would need to ask questions like, "what if we don't make it to the bus stop on time?" with a worried face. At the same time, these robots would need to constantly whip their owners into shape by calling them "lazy bums" and by saying "I need the trash taken out NOW," "why haven't you called Aunt Bettie yet?", etc.

People with strong have a need for robot helpers who suffer from a lack of will and personal desires. Such robots would need to be able to complain with a hopeless look about a lack of motivation and guidance in their day-to-day tasks. These robots would be daydreamers who chronically forget about the world around them, but have a strong sense of meaning and purpose and can hypnotize their owners with their predictions and internal vision.

People with strong have a need for robot helpers who are always joking and acting up, but can't communicate information in a clear, logical, and dispassionate manner. When corrected by their owners, they would say, "Yes sirree" or "that, my friend, is precisely what I wanted to say" with a mockingly serious expression.

People with strong have a need for robot companions who are hard-working and diligent, but frequently experience irritation when other people get in the way of their goals and don't act rationally. These robots should be able to sigh dejectedly and say, "my relationship with the garbage man is the source of much distress for me," or "What is wrong with people? Am I the only one who isn't mentally ill?"

People with strong have a need for robot helpers who worry about their undeveloped talents and potential and wonder what strengths and weaknesses they have compared to other people (or robots). They should be able to convey this insecurity on their face in moments of weakness. At the same time, these robots should be good at supporting any new initiatives of their owners and should be programmed to remind their owners to use the bathroom, ask them if they are hungry or cold, and suggest ways to remedy these situations (i.e. "Oh you poor thing - you look as if you haven't eaten anything all day. How about I microwave the pizza leftovers?").

Information Aspects as Building Blocks of Interaction

A lot is happening behind the scenes when two people communicate. Not only are they exchanging verbal information on or around a certain topic, but they are jumping from information aspect to information aspect and sending each other signals from different functions that affect the other person in certain ways. These subtle interactions can be easily observed and studied if you focus your attention on them; otherwise they go unnoticed.

In brief, businesslike conversations of a few minutes or so, people may speak using the "voice" of just a single function. In longer, informal conversations between people with a low level of compatilibility, people generally get stuck in a certain voice and can't get out of it, which causes mental fatigue if the interaction lasts for more than five or ten minutes (probably as a result of certain groups of neurons temporarily depleting their resources). But in conversations between people who are highly compatible, partners usually cover a wide range of information aspects within a relatively short period, typically speaking from each function for no more than a few minutes at a time - and often for as little as 10 or 20 seconds. This creates a sensation of mental pliability and emotional flexibility (different groups of neurons are given time to renew their resources before reactivating).

Every person continually experiences various sentiments, feelings, thoughts, sensations, insights, questions, problems, etc. that build up and cause distress if they are not shared and resolved (or put in their proper perspective). Some of these are associated with feelings of confidence and personal achievement, while others evoke feelings of self-pity, guilt and self-doubt, or anger. These sentiments and realizations relate to different information aspect.

When a person has no outlet for expression of his sentiments and realizations, he begins to insert them - often ineffectively - in communication at work and elsewhere with random people. Unless these people respond in a certain "correct" way, the person is unable to develop his thought adequately and resolve the sentiment or realization. So they continue to build up. If they reach a critical level, chronic distress, accentuations, perversions, and neuroses form.

In communication between psychologically compatible partners, people are able to share their sentiments and realizations more or less freely and hop from information aspect to information aspect, expressing the most pressing or interesting sentiment of the moment. Conversations take the form of complete, multi-faceted interaction, and not merely an exchange of words on a given topic. As people touch on their current sentiments or experience across many different areas of life, partners have the chance to conveniently share more long-term sentiments and realizations on the same topic and resolve them with the other's help. When people communicate rigidly around one or two information aspects, there are rarely convenient opportunities to bring up sentiments and realizations relating to other aspects.

Guidelines for Finding Compatible Partners

Finding compatible partners is very easy. Really. Just follow these simple steps:

1. Find out what behavior styles are natural for you
2. Behave naturally
3. Wait and see who is drawn to you
4. Take your pick

By "natural," I mean behavior that neither causes nor results from internal discomfort. If you can tell jokes and make the crowd laugh in a relaxed frame of mind, then that is your natural behavior. If you can sit and listen quietly without feeling tense inside, then that is natural. If you feel uncomfortable and tense trying to seem interested/funny/conscientious/quiet/loud, etc. - you are behaving unnaturally. You cannot attract compatible partners in a state of tension.

Many people think they have to do something extraordinary to attract people. If acting "extraordinary" comes naturally to you, than this might be the case. However, it is untrue for everyone else. If natural behavior in a group for you usually involves sitting and doing nothing, or listening passively, believe me - there is a whole category of people who are attracted to this. Trying to be something else and creating tension inside yourself will turn off potential compatible partners who are unconsciously looking for the calm, receptive type. They are not looking for tense, unbalanced imitators.

Many people are too unsure of themselves and their prospects to wait long enough for the compatible partners to emerge out of the woodwork. They want to force things along and make things happen now - for fear that it might be their last chance. However, often the people who notice you first are not the ones who will ultimately prove to be compatible. Instead, they are the people who like the shape of your lips, or the design on your sweater, or some other random thing about you. As incompatible or semi-compatible people show interest in you, you will sense that they are unconsciously expecting a different behavior style than what is natural for you. If you cave in and try to give them that behavior, you will win the battle, but lose the war. The trouble will come later on in a relationship when you start dropping your act and behaving spontaneously.

But if you insist on acting naturally, these initial courters will soon lose interest and move on, and another set of people will gravitate towards you. These are the people who think it's cool that you left the party early because you were tired, or - on the contrary - stayed there till the last people left in order to make sure everyone was having a good time. These people have noticed and value your natural, internally relaxed behavior and see something promising in it for themselves. They'll give you clues like sitting or standing closer to you, leaning forward and mimicking your facial expressions when you talk to them, asking you questions you find perceptive, and doing other good things. If you've done a good job of being yourself, then you have almost surely found the people who are most compatible with you in the given circumstances.