Since childhood, we all have certain patterns of behavior, certain preferences and, in general, a certain attitude towards life. We all express ourselves in different ways and influence others in different ways. Often we cannot understand the behavior of other people, and they cannot understand ours. Moreover, sometimes we cannot understand what is driving our own behavior.

In order for individual characteristics to be used with benefit, and not to become a barrier in relationships between people, it is worth understanding what goals, motivations and beliefs underlie people's behavior. Understanding your own interaction style and the style of other people contributes to more effective communication and helps to avoid many misunderstandings.

There are four interaction styles

Different styles are characterized by different aims, and different strategies are applied to achieve these aims.

• Integrating style. People with the Integrating style are driven to create unity and harmony. They smooth out conflicts, help find consensus, unites people with different visions into a coherent team, create a harmonious environment.

• Changing style. People with the Changing style are driven to implement changes. They destroy old systems and patterns, initiate changes, act decisively and confidently, pave the way in a new field and lead others along.

• Engaging style. People with the Engaging style are driven to organize collaborative activities. They draw the attention of others to a particular issue and engage them in a joint discussion and activity.

• Ordering style. People with the Ordering style are driven to ensure order and stability. They order chaotic activity, structure, create a system, develop rules and monitor their observance.

More information here

*      *      *      *      *

There are two pairs of psychic attitudes that underlie the four interaction styles:

• Two opposite attitudes that define one’s favorite way to respond and operate;

• Two opposite attitudes that define where someone gets their energy from and how one puts out energy.


Rationality/Irrationality in socionics and MBTI

In his work "Psychological Types", Carl Jung divided all eight types into two groups: Rational and Irrational. According to Jung, a type is rational if its main (dominant) psychic function is rational, a type is irrational if its main psychic function is irrational. Jung considered Thinking and Feeling to be rational functions, and Sensation and Intuition to be irrational.

Socionics uses the same concept of rationality/irrationality as Carl Jung. The MBTI has the concept of Judging/Perceiving, which is considered to be the same as rationality/irrationality. Let's compare what is meant by the concept of Rationality/Irrationality in socionics and Judging/Perceiving in MBTI.

• Manifestations of Judging/Perceiving in MBTI (Isabel Myersʼ Clusters for MBTI Form G)

Judging – Perceiving
Spontaneity: Contrast between a scheduled and a spontaneous lifestyle.
Planning: Contrast between longer-term planning and going with the flow.
Organizing: Organizing the situation at hand, as opposed to long-term planning.
Application: Contrast between enjoying meeting the goal and finishing, versus enjoying something that catches interest; or between working for duty or pleasure.
Obligations: Contrast between being more serious or casual about meeting obligations.



There are two opposite person’s approaches to life: planned and spontaneous.

People who are dominated by a planned approach to life prefer an orderly, structured environment with a certain system of regulations. They are organized and consistent, make sure that everything goes according to plan, feel at ease when everything is known in advance. Their strategy is PLANNING AND CONTROL.

People who have a predominantly spontaneous approach to life are focused on direct perception. They believe that life is changeable and unpredictable, are open to new information and experience, act situationally, according to circumstances. Their strategy is to BE FLEXIBLE AND LIVE IN THE FLOW.

The table below shows the typical characteristics of the two approaches.