Humanitarian Socionics

Socionic diagnostics. Interview method

Socionic diagnostics (abbreviated as sociodiagnostics) is the identification in one way or another of the typical and individual characteristics of a person (or socionic object), primarily of the innate socionic type and acquired epitypal differences: in particular, a stable variant of the type and functional profile. In the SHS, the term typing is not used. There are two reasons for this.

First, typing is too narrow a concept; it is tightly tied to the 16 standard types and does not include the study of epitypal differences. Secondly, typing is a procedure, the essence of which is to place a person in a particular cell of the typology used. Diagnosis, on the contrary, does not fit a person into a type, but extracts from a person his stable mental structures.

The main methods of sociodiagnostics are tests, structured interviews, behavior observation, and product analysis. In most cases, they are used together in different combinations.

The basic rules of conducting a socionic interview in the SHS are as follows:

1. At the beginning of the interview, dispose the person to yourself.

An instructive tone, a demonstration of the position from above, is unacceptable. Equally undesirable is the position from below, attempts to appease the respondent, to fawn over him.

2. Communication should be carried out through several channels.

It is necessary to distribute attention between two main channels of perception - visual and auditory. If there is a discrepancy between them, trust nonverbal signals more. This condition is easier to fulfill if the diagnosis is carried out by a well-coordinated pair of Socionists, with one of them taking over the verbal formulation of questions, and the other tracking the reactions to them through a visual channel (facial expressions, gestures, intonation, eye movements, etc.).

3. Alternative questions should be avoided.

Alternative questions are those that are constructed using the double conjunction "either-or". Their huge disadvantage is in imposing a choice. If there is a similar formulation, it is recommended to divide the alternative question into two separate ones and ask them to the respondent in turn.

4. Clarify the respondent's answers.

This rule follows from the polysemy of the words of living speech. The depth of clarification should be no more than 3-4 concretizing questions for each unclear or incomplete statement.

5. Monitoring of emotional reactions.

According to the emotional response, the Socionist determines whether the question was asked or not. If the question didn’t take, you need to reformulate it, or even abandon it.

6. Do not ask complex, far-fetched questions.

Overly complex questions are those that require special knowledge in a particular area, or simply stimulate the imagination of the respondent. For example: what would you do if you received a million-dollar inheritance?

7. Don't get carried away with questions about tastes. Questions about your favorite books, movies, music, actors, performers, etc. are only suitable for emotional relaxation, getting the attention of the respondent, and no more. They practically do not carry any typical meaning, but rather reflect the current state of a person, as well as the stereotypes of fashion or popular culture (especially for young people).

8. Analyze both the results and the course of the interview.

Every interview that is important to you should be analyzed immediately. It is better that it is documented through audio or video recording. It is recommended to discuss these materials with more experienced or equally experienced socionics specialists. Feedback from experience is the main secret of proficiency in diagnostics.

In socionics, as in other human sciences, two opposing approaches to diagnosis have long competed. The first of them is analytical, coming from the left hemisphere of the brain, element-by-element, amenable to formalization (set out in the instructions). This dominates the humanities disciplines of Western origin. The second is synthetic, coming from the right hemisphere, holistic, adequately transmitted only in a lively manner (from teacher to student), poorly formalized.

It is in the tradition of the school of humanitarian socionics to combine both approaches. However, in the case of a live interview, it is still necessary to start with the diagnosis of the type as a holistic formation. At the second stage, when it is necessary to check the result, as well as explain and justify the obtained conclusion, an analytical approach is involved.

The main thing with the synthetic approach is to have a properly calibrated gallery of type images, with which you constantly check the person you perceive: whether it fits, doesn't fit, or only partially fits. The latter case, namely, when one of the Jungian polarities is blurred, is very common. A person seems to be divided into two types. Thus, the task is to separate the type from the subtype. In this case, either additional questions about non-Jungian features are asked, or questions about the type as a whole. At the same time, it is necessary to use comparative tables.

In different schools of socionics, you are very likely to fall into different types. This only means that the holistic image of the type in each school is different, although its analytical features are the same. In humanitarian socionics, which is developing in line with the energy paradigm, there is a different gallery of images, incommensurable with the usual information socionics. It is more complicated, because each type needs to be clearly represented in four special variants, and because it investigates the manifestations of accentuated functions.

In the process of diagnostic practice, we face two main difficulties:

-functional shifts relative to the reference type (as a result of which enhanced functions can be confused with governing functions), -the image of the "ego" is often not equal to the sociotype (because of this, many respondents begin to argue, trying to prove that they were defined incorrectly).

In the latter case, you must not impose your conclusion on a person, because he is so accustomed to the type attributed to him that any attempts to question his self image cause the strongest cognitive dissonance.

After the interview, the diagnostic work usually does not end. As a final step, it is necessary to observe the behavior of a person in typical life situations. Only by making sure that the actual behavior of a person corresponds to the characteristic typical patterns, the Socionist can guarantee the accuracy of his diagnostic conclusion. The method of rapid discussions as a tool for studying functional interactions.

Rules for quick discussions:

1) The debaters are faced with a dilemma in an emphatically aggravated form;
2) The discussion proceeds spontaneously, without preparation;
3) The duration of the discussion is up to three minutes (with an explicit denouement, it may end earlier);
4) The discussion is held standing up;
5) The general scenario is explained to the disputants (statement of positions-proof-climax-denouement);
6) Everyone encounters everyone else (preliminary standings are drawn up).

By observation, I have established that there are four possible outcomes of quick discussions, namely:
1) Win;
2) Losing;
3) Draw;
4) Compromise.