Two theory for now that i could think of but i highly doubt them rn, some things come contradicting and i haven't really did research to give more validity.
Will try adding more later if i can.
They are linked to your parents types and based on this you'll have your type at birth.
I meet all my family members unconscious expectations with my functions. Atleast one
Mom mirage
Brother beneficiary
Dad dual
Second theory
As a baby based on what's happening on your environment and the family your brain understands subconsciously what's needed and you develop the best sociotype for the situation of your family.
Or maybe they are random or affected by something else.
Wouldn't make sense tho for the development of an ILE in a Gamma family. Would feel suppressed and it doesn't promote the best development.
Its very simple way of seing things tbh it's probably deeper than that.
Study on child types and their parents.
Two sharp outliers in intertype relations of children to their parents immediately attract attention: duality of children to their mothers and identity to their fathers are strongly represented in comparison to all other types of relations. Indeed, among the full number of children, which is 142, we were able to trace 136 having relation to mother and 108 having relation to father.
25.7% (35/136) cases when the child was dual to mother
28.7% (31/108) cases when the child was identical to father
This strong deviation is hardly accidental. Confidence level of these results according to Student’s test is greater than 0.7. At the same time, identity relation to mothers and duality to fathers is not particularly distinguished from other types of intertype relations. (Note that the numbers of children related to their mothers and their fathers were not the same because in some families it was not possible to obtain the type of one of the parents).
This different could be due to various reasons, in particular, children often tend to mimic and play into the roles of their parents (boys imitate their fathers, and girls - their mothers), which increases the potential error in determining their sociotypes. However, in this case, the identical relations deviated only in relations to the fathers, while identity to the mothers was very weak. For mothers, by contrast, according to our data, it is more characteristic to have children who are not identical but dual. Furthermore, out of 31 children who were identical to their fathers, 11 were girls and 20 were boys. It can be proposed that some of the boys ended up on this list only on the basis of roles, since there were 9 more boys than girls. Even if you subtract that number 9 of total 31 yielding 22, this number of children identical to their fathers still strongly stands out of the picture.
If, however, role imitation was not the decisive fact here, it is possible that the inheritance of sociotype is uneven according to the child’s gender: boys more often inherit the sociotype of their fathers. Course, all this is still only be considered as a preliminary results to which I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues and invite them to take part in this type of research.
Another number that stands out is contrary intertype relations of children to their mothers, while in relation to the fathers this figure is likely an underestimate. Significantly high is the number of supervision relationships of children to their mothers. Here, however, I would like to share some observations: in three of these families, with which I’m familiar enough, there is the most tender friendship, I would say even excessive attachment between the parent and the child in supervision relations. Apparently, the difference in levels of development has an effect here, as the parent is either particularly careful of the vulnerable function of the child, or, if the child is the supervisor, is in excessive admiration of the child.
It was customary to believe that the trait of rationality-irrationality is transmitted to the children provided that both parents are same on this trait. It turned out that this is not so: for 25 pairs on the above list this is indeed the case, however, two rational parents may have an irrational child, and vice versa, irrational parents may produce an irrational child as has been observed in 10 cases; that is, this is not so rare.
Since 25 +10 = 35 - this is the total number of families where parents are both rational or irrational types, we have: 25/35 = 0.71, that is, in 71% of cases, the child is on the same side of the rational-irrational dichotomy as the parents, and in 29% of cases - on the other side. This question hasn’t been considered for the other dichotomies since the fact that the other traits are not conserved is quite obvious from the data.
It may be surmised that there is reproducibility of the same sociotypes within families across several generations. Unfortunately, there is not enough data for such analysis due to the difficulty of determining the sociotypes even within three generations, for obvious reasons, but it should be noted that such proposition makes sense.
Here is a list of “kindred” families. The elder generation is at the top of the list, and below it is the younger generation.
In all of these above listed families we were able to identify sociotypes of 21 grandchildren, out of whom 8 were repeating the sociotype of one of their ancestors. But we have managed to trace only a single vertical line. However, each grandchild has two grandmothers and two grandfathers, therefore, the likelihood of recurrence of sociotypes is doubled, as a result, confidence level is more than 0.99.
Thus, we see that the most frequent distribution of sociotypes is when a grandchild is repeating the sociotype of grandparents: could this be the reason for the special tender affection of grandparents for their grandchildren? At the very least, even this small statistical sample reveals such a trend quite confidently.
Another frequently encountered view in socionics is that dual parents have dual or identical children. This opinion was not confirmed: in dual families we did find 10 children who were dual or identical types to their parents, but there were also 5 children of other types; that is, sufficiently frequently this hypothesis is not supported.
The above data, namely, the appearance of children who are dual to their mothers and identical to their fathers with probability greater than 25%, and the frequent recurrence of the same sociotypes within several generations, implies a possible genetic origins of socionics types.
Indeed, a fertilized egg already carries some genetic information that in case of normal development of the fetus does not change and remains the same after birth.
The assumption of the genetic nature of the formation of sociotype, in my opinion, is also confirmed by a strong external similarities of sub-types within a type. This is particularly evident in those cases where the investigator is working with sufficient relevant data. Currently I have the photo library numbering several thousand photographs of at least a thousand representatives of different types (shots were made from three or more angles for each person). In cases where there is large amount of data for members of the same type (for example, more than 100 people of type ILI), groups of similar faces become apparent, sometimes producing an impression of well-known twins. Pictures of ILIs in my photo library naturally form around a dozen such clusters, eight pairs of which can be found in my book (2).
In this regard, I would like to remind the reader of a very interesting, from my point of view the work D. A. Ivanova (3), which has shown that identical twins have same sociotypes, as well as being very similar in appearance and various physiological parameters. In this case, their genetic sameness is obvious. Also I can recollect a private communication of director of the St. Petersburg Institute of Psychoanalysis M. M. Reshetnikov concerning the work of one physician who studied medical parameters of identical twins and found that these parameters were almost completely identical. Unfortunately, he could not provide any coordinates of this work.
Apparently, in socionics, observing groups of people who are nearly identical externally and by physiological manifestations we have come close to the “elementary”, so to speak, type, whose properties can be described as a specific genetic code, and thus, the question of total number of such “elementary” types can be resolved. Already, it seems clear that the traditional socionic count of 16 types is some kind of intermediate stage of classification. Each of the 16 psychological types naturally breaks down to a number of smaller groups (in my photo library this number varies from 14 to 16), the exact value of which can be determined with sufficiently large amount of data. Currently, the most important question in my view is the basis for these divisions.
In conclusion, I want to sincerely thank A. M. Elyashevich who took the trouble to present the material of this paper to the socionics conference in September 1999, and with a high degree of understanding of the work answered numerous questions of the audience.
Supporting data:
Each family is assigned a serial number. The next column contains sociotypes of mother, father, their socionics intertype relation, then the types of their children and their intertype relations to each parent. The letter “s” and “d” indicate the sex of the child (son or daughter), while in the column of children intertype relations with their parents the letters “m” and “f” “characterize the relationship with her mother and father, respectively.
The names of all the families are recorded in my file cabinet according to their numerical order, however, as there have been numerous requests to not publish their full names, these were removed from the list below.
It may be useful to provide complete, detailed set of data instead of just the end result for my colleagues who may want to extract additional information that may be of interest to them.
Will try adding more later if i can.
They are linked to your parents types and based on this you'll have your type at birth.
I meet all my family members unconscious expectations with my functions. Atleast one
Mom mirage
Brother beneficiary
Dad dual
Second theory
As a baby based on what's happening on your environment and the family your brain understands subconsciously what's needed and you develop the best sociotype for the situation of your family.
Or maybe they are random or affected by something else.
Wouldn't make sense tho for the development of an ILE in a Gamma family. Would feel suppressed and it doesn't promote the best development.
Its very simple way of seing things tbh it's probably deeper than that.
Study on child types and their parents.
Table 10. The correlation of types of children to the types of their parents.
| Dual | Semi -dual | M irage | M irror | Con trary | Con flict | S uperv ision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F ather | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 5 |
| M other | 36 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 15 | 7 | 11 |
| Iden tical | Ki ndred | Bus iness | Sup erego | Quasi -iden tical | Act ivity | Be nefit | |
| F ather | 31 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| M other | 11 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 12 |
25.7% (35/136) cases when the child was dual to mother
28.7% (31/108) cases when the child was identical to father
This strong deviation is hardly accidental. Confidence level of these results according to Student’s test is greater than 0.7. At the same time, identity relation to mothers and duality to fathers is not particularly distinguished from other types of intertype relations. (Note that the numbers of children related to their mothers and their fathers were not the same because in some families it was not possible to obtain the type of one of the parents).
This different could be due to various reasons, in particular, children often tend to mimic and play into the roles of their parents (boys imitate their fathers, and girls - their mothers), which increases the potential error in determining their sociotypes. However, in this case, the identical relations deviated only in relations to the fathers, while identity to the mothers was very weak. For mothers, by contrast, according to our data, it is more characteristic to have children who are not identical but dual. Furthermore, out of 31 children who were identical to their fathers, 11 were girls and 20 were boys. It can be proposed that some of the boys ended up on this list only on the basis of roles, since there were 9 more boys than girls. Even if you subtract that number 9 of total 31 yielding 22, this number of children identical to their fathers still strongly stands out of the picture.
If, however, role imitation was not the decisive fact here, it is possible that the inheritance of sociotype is uneven according to the child’s gender: boys more often inherit the sociotype of their fathers. Course, all this is still only be considered as a preliminary results to which I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues and invite them to take part in this type of research.
Another number that stands out is contrary intertype relations of children to their mothers, while in relation to the fathers this figure is likely an underestimate. Significantly high is the number of supervision relationships of children to their mothers. Here, however, I would like to share some observations: in three of these families, with which I’m familiar enough, there is the most tender friendship, I would say even excessive attachment between the parent and the child in supervision relations. Apparently, the difference in levels of development has an effect here, as the parent is either particularly careful of the vulnerable function of the child, or, if the child is the supervisor, is in excessive admiration of the child.
It was customary to believe that the trait of rationality-irrationality is transmitted to the children provided that both parents are same on this trait. It turned out that this is not so: for 25 pairs on the above list this is indeed the case, however, two rational parents may have an irrational child, and vice versa, irrational parents may produce an irrational child as has been observed in 10 cases; that is, this is not so rare.
Since 25 +10 = 35 - this is the total number of families where parents are both rational or irrational types, we have: 25/35 = 0.71, that is, in 71% of cases, the child is on the same side of the rational-irrational dichotomy as the parents, and in 29% of cases - on the other side. This question hasn’t been considered for the other dichotomies since the fact that the other traits are not conserved is quite obvious from the data.
It may be surmised that there is reproducibility of the same sociotypes within families across several generations. Unfortunately, there is not enough data for such analysis due to the difficulty of determining the sociotypes even within three generations, for obvious reasons, but it should be noted that such proposition makes sense.
Here is a list of “kindred” families. The elder generation is at the top of the list, and below it is the younger generation.
- Families, numbered 1-3. Curiously, the rational parents in this couple had two rational children, EIE son and daughter, and then suddenly an irrational child of type IEI (family 1). The same situation occurred in the family 2, in which the mother EIE (daughter of family 1) had a daughter of sociotype IEI.
- Families 20-21. In family 21, a grandson appeared of same type as his grandfather, SEI.
- Families 24-25. Almost all of members are of sociotype LSI. The grandson is of the same type as the grandmother.
- Families 32-33. SEE grandson is of the same type as that of his grandmother.
- Families 52-54. Frequent repetition of sociotype ILI. In particular, in family 54 son repeats the type of his grandfather of the family 53.
- Families 83-85. Here grandfather LSE of family has grandaughter LSE in family 3.
- Families 71-74. Children in family 72, LII and IEI, with their families (73 and 74) reproduced types LIE and IEI.
- Families 95-96. Any patterns are not noticeable.
- Families 99-100. Family 100 had a grandson of type LIE, same type as his grandfather.
In all of these above listed families we were able to identify sociotypes of 21 grandchildren, out of whom 8 were repeating the sociotype of one of their ancestors. But we have managed to trace only a single vertical line. However, each grandchild has two grandmothers and two grandfathers, therefore, the likelihood of recurrence of sociotypes is doubled, as a result, confidence level is more than 0.99.
Thus, we see that the most frequent distribution of sociotypes is when a grandchild is repeating the sociotype of grandparents: could this be the reason for the special tender affection of grandparents for their grandchildren? At the very least, even this small statistical sample reveals such a trend quite confidently.
Another frequently encountered view in socionics is that dual parents have dual or identical children. This opinion was not confirmed: in dual families we did find 10 children who were dual or identical types to their parents, but there were also 5 children of other types; that is, sufficiently frequently this hypothesis is not supported.
The above data, namely, the appearance of children who are dual to their mothers and identical to their fathers with probability greater than 25%, and the frequent recurrence of the same sociotypes within several generations, implies a possible genetic origins of socionics types.
Indeed, a fertilized egg already carries some genetic information that in case of normal development of the fetus does not change and remains the same after birth.
The assumption of the genetic nature of the formation of sociotype, in my opinion, is also confirmed by a strong external similarities of sub-types within a type. This is particularly evident in those cases where the investigator is working with sufficient relevant data. Currently I have the photo library numbering several thousand photographs of at least a thousand representatives of different types (shots were made from three or more angles for each person). In cases where there is large amount of data for members of the same type (for example, more than 100 people of type ILI), groups of similar faces become apparent, sometimes producing an impression of well-known twins. Pictures of ILIs in my photo library naturally form around a dozen such clusters, eight pairs of which can be found in my book (2).
In this regard, I would like to remind the reader of a very interesting, from my point of view the work D. A. Ivanova (3), which has shown that identical twins have same sociotypes, as well as being very similar in appearance and various physiological parameters. In this case, their genetic sameness is obvious. Also I can recollect a private communication of director of the St. Petersburg Institute of Psychoanalysis M. M. Reshetnikov concerning the work of one physician who studied medical parameters of identical twins and found that these parameters were almost completely identical. Unfortunately, he could not provide any coordinates of this work.
Apparently, in socionics, observing groups of people who are nearly identical externally and by physiological manifestations we have come close to the “elementary”, so to speak, type, whose properties can be described as a specific genetic code, and thus, the question of total number of such “elementary” types can be resolved. Already, it seems clear that the traditional socionic count of 16 types is some kind of intermediate stage of classification. Each of the 16 psychological types naturally breaks down to a number of smaller groups (in my photo library this number varies from 14 to 16), the exact value of which can be determined with sufficiently large amount of data. Currently, the most important question in my view is the basis for these divisions.
In conclusion, I want to sincerely thank A. M. Elyashevich who took the trouble to present the material of this paper to the socionics conference in September 1999, and with a high degree of understanding of the work answered numerous questions of the audience.
Supporting data:
Each family is assigned a serial number. The next column contains sociotypes of mother, father, their socionics intertype relation, then the types of their children and their intertype relations to each parent. The letter “s” and “d” indicate the sex of the child (son or daughter), while in the column of children intertype relations with their parents the letters “m” and “f” “characterize the relationship with her mother and father, respectively.
The names of all the families are recorded in my file cabinet according to their numerical order, however, as there have been numerous requests to not publish their full names, these were removed from the list below.
It may be useful to provide complete, detailed set of data instead of just the end result for my colleagues who may want to extract additional information that may be of interest to them.