Alternative translation of Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov Socionics to English + On incompatibility of Socionics and MBTI

This is an alternative translation of the basic concepts of one of the braches of Socionics to English. My vision of the Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov Socionics (JATS). My vision doesn't cover some interesting parts of JATS (like metrics; see chapter 10 for details in discussions) and sometimes it goes beyond JATS. Sometimes only main terms were translated and described so this article is full of stubs. See Summary for notables.

Summary
1. Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov cognitive functions
2. Aspects as basis in classical Socionics vs. JAT cognitive functions as a basis in JATS
3. Types in classical Socionics vs. reference types in JATS
4. Socionics reference types names vs. MBTI types names
- 4.1 Gulenko's Temperaments translated
- 4.2 Type names matching table
5. Revised Gulenko's names for types. 1-16 numbers as names for types with mnemonics
6. On dichotomies, MBTI incompatibility, Big Five
7. Model A
- 7.1 Determining Socionics type
8. Quadras and functions. Why quadras grouped this way? Central vs. Lateral types
- 8.1 Interactive table of intertype relationships
9. Intermediate and unknown types names
10. Further reading and notable discussions
11. Symmetries of Reinin dichotomies and their connection to Khizhnyak functions and axes

Summary

The short descriptions of JAT cognitive functions that are consistent (I hope) with JATS are given. These descriptions are sometimes different from understanding of cognitive functions in other branches of Socionics.
Standard MBTI acronyms for Jung cognitive functions (Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti) and original dichotomies (E/I, N/S, T/F) are used for MBTI partial compatibility purpose (P/J was dropped). Dichotomies that are measured by tests are compatible enough in Socionics, MBTI and Big Five to be called the same term (good infographics on Big Five is given here: psychologycharts.com/big-five-personality-traits.html). Congnitive functions deviate more but not enough to deserve a separate name. Standard Socionics functions symbols (● ○ ▲ △ ◆ ◇ ■ □) and Victor Gulenko’s 8 latin letters (F, S, I, T, E, R, P, L) were abandoned as inconvenient, unpopular in English community or weird.
All cognitive functions are called kinds of thinking. “Sensory thinking” is used instead of Sensing/Sensorics, “Intuitive thinking” is used instead of Intuition, “Task-oriented thinking” is used instead of Thinking/Logic, “Feelings-oriented thinking” is used instead of Feeling/Ethics. I like HBDI approach en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Instrument that calls all them the kinds of thinking.
Single-noun terms like intuiter, sensor, feeler and tasker are used.
Irrational/Rational names were used instead of Perceiving/Judging to make Socionics vs. MBTI contradictions more clear.
The contradictions between MBTI and Socionics are made explicit so the type conversion isn’t possible for introverts. Proposed new explicit Socionics types names help to achieve this too: INTJ-BS (LII) vs. INTP-RA (ILI) those are dominant introverted tasker & rational intuiter vs. dominant introverted intuiter & irrational tasker
Very basic introduction to quadras is given and discussed why quadras grouped this way. Alpha-Delta vs. Beta-Gamma types are translated as Lateral vs. Central types (Ad/Bg). The link to the autotranslated interactive table of intertype relationships with descriptions is provided.
Concise names for intermediate and unknown types were proposed. The names extend MBTI types names. 1-16 numbers as names for reference types were proposed for unknown and mixed types notation and speech (+ mnemonics). Examples: xNTxAd, uNTuAd that are unknown and mixed types from ENTP-FM (ENTP) and INTJ-BS (LII).
Some differences between types in classical Socionics and reference types in Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov Socionics are outlined. Some differences between information aspects in classical socionics and Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov cognitive functions are outlined.
Revised Gulenko's names for types were proposed (both translations and names were revised). General for ESTP-FM (ESTP), Poet for INFP-RA (IEI), Inspirer for ENFJ-LA (ENFJ), Foreseer for INTP-RA (ILI), Journalist for ENFP-FM (ENFP).
The set of hypotheses about Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov (JAT) cognitive functions is given. Together hypotheses give Model A as consequences. Bonus: Cognitive functions descriptions per position in Model A (8x8 auto-translated table).
Unambiguous translation of Model A was proposed: 1-Dominant, 2-Supporting, 3-Role, 4-Vulnerable, 5-Suggestive, 6-Activating, 7-Restrictive, 8-Background. Ambiguity because of the Model G was described.
Further reading: The framework of the typology of Jung-Augustinavichyute (Socionics Framework).
Symmetries of Reinin dichotomies and their connection to Khizhnyak functions and axes were given. See Contenst section for details.
Notable discussions: reddit.com/r/JungianTypology/comments/b5pase, reddit.com/r/JungianTypology/comments/b12uju.

1. Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov cognitive functions

But there are some differences between definitions of cognitive functions in MBTI and in Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov Socionics (JATS). Actually my understanding of Talanov's ideas is a outdated. JAT cognitive functions roughly speaking are the ways of perception, judging aka thinking:

Additional function attitude:
- [Introverted functions (I)]. Introverted, passed through oneself, passive, restoring, energy saving functions vs.
- [Extraverted functions (E)]. Extraverted, directed outwards, active, energy-consuming functions.
[Irrational functions (−R)]. Perceiving, instinctive, improvising, impulsive functions:
- [Intuitive thinking (N, iNtuitive)]. Abstract, imaginative, assumptive, associative thinking / perception (breadth of associations) vs.
- [Sensory thinking (S)]. Tangible-oriented, detailed, concrete, materially-oriented thinking / perception (orientation to physical reality and physical qualities).
[Rational functions (+R)]. Judging, rigid, stable, impulse controlling functions (decision-making):
- [Task-oriented thinking (T)]. Logical, analytical, algorithmic, task-oriented thinking, reasoning (orientation to formal side and facs) vs.
- [Feelings-oriented thinking (F)]. Moral, empathic, sentimental, social-oriented, interpersonal emotional thinking (feelings, emotional regulation of society).
Ne - Extraverted intuitive thinking. Conjectures, guesses and speculations (e.g. about the essence), ideas, curiosity, novelty seeking.
Ni - Introverted intuitive thinking. Fantasy, fictional reality, imagining processes in time, prognostication, prediction, forecasting
Se - Extraverted sensory thinking. Active actions, confrontation, the accumulation of material resources, aggression, strength.
Si - Introverted sensory thinking. Health, comfort, convenience, safety. Perception of sensations. Some people claim that aestetics of various perceptions is in Si domain.
Te - Extraverted task-oriented thinking. Actions and their algorithms, tools, pattern action-result (formal part of activities organizing).
Ti - Introverted task-oriented thinking. Order, laws, structures, classification, analysis and comparison.
Fe - Extraverted feelings-oriented thinking. Modifying the mood and the emotional state of people hence manipulating their activities (e.g. by means of inspiration and enthusiasm). Modifying group activity is specifically important.
Fi - Introverted feelings-oriented thinking. Moral judgment and evaluation, building relationships, synchronization of attitude towards something in a group of people, morality.

Another useful section of the functions is:

[Dynamic functions (±ER, ER and anti-ER functions)] Ni, Si, Te, Fe vs.
[Static functions (±IR, IR and anti-IR functions)] Ne, Se, Ti, Fi (see Model A chapter on conscious vs. semiconscious functions for more details).

Mind that extraverted and introverted functions are specializations on top of their "general" basic functions. For example both strong Se and Si are good at dealing with physical qualities. Both strong Ne and Ni are good at dealing with associations.

2. Aspects as basis in classical Socionics vs. JAT cognitive functions as a basis in JATS

Unlike classical Socionics, in which the basic concept is the aspect of information, the basic concept in JATS is the reference type. In my vision the reference types are characterized by the properties of their Jung cognitive functions. So the basic concepts are actually the Jung cognitive functions which in turn are characterized by the yet unknown neurophysiological mechanisms in the brain and a person’s life experience.

Thus, the information aspect is something that JAT cognitive function uses and pays attention to. And the information metabolism is merely interactions between different cognitive functions of the individual or interactions of any cognitive functions of different persons (but it’s easier to track down interactions of the same cognitive functions when we investigate interactions between people).

3. Types in classical Socionics vs. reference types in JATS

There are 16 reference types in Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov Socionics (JATS) that is one of the branches of Socionics. JATS is actually more like a trait model (like Big Five) not a type theory. Victor Talanov himself isn’t affiliated with this article as his publications are in Russian language only. But this article summarises some of his ideas.

Each particular person does not belong to the one of reference types in JATS. But instead the similarity between the person and all 16 reference types is evaluated (using questionnaire). So we move from determining of the person’s type to the measuring Jung cognitive functions using similarity to reference types. This procedure is described in more details in works of Talanov sociotoday.narod.ru/index1.html

This approach is also useful in determining of 1-3 closest reference types without questionnaire (using observations only). In this case the reference types are simply socionics types weighted with degrees of likeness. And even in this case the properties of Jung cognitive functions can be roughly determined using the Model A and weighted averaging of functions properties for all reference types found.

4. Socionics reference types names vs. MBTI types names

In my translation of Socionics types names to English 4 letter code shows the position on 4 axes I/E, S/N, F/T, +R/−R (that is equivalent to J/P in tests practice). Axes can be measured by MBTI, Gulenko's test or Big Five tests (where MBTI J/P axis measures roughly the same as big Five conscientiousness and as +R/−R). But at the same time MBTI does not have counterpart types for introverts. For example the closest counterpart for INTJ-BS is INTx that is one of two types INTJ/INTP (or their mixture).

4.1 Gulenko's Temperaments translated

In works of Victor Talanov types are groped by Quadras (see section 8.) and temperaments of Victor Gulenko.

Gulenko's Temperaments:

FM (aka −IR) - flexible-maneuvering, Extraverted/iRrational/static. Are characterized by impulsive and unpredictable behavior,
BS (aka +IR) - balanced-stable, Introverted/Rational/static. Are characterized by slow and methodical behavior,
RA (aka −ER) - receptive-adaptive, Introverted/iRrational/dynamic. Are characterized by lack of motivation, inertia, and unstable moods and energy levels,
LA (aka +ER) - linear-assertive, Extraverted/Rational/dynamic. Are characterized by energetic and proactive behavior.

Note that −IR, +IR, −ER, +ER are enough to encode all 4 temperaments but FM, BS, RA, LA are easier to read.

It can also be speculated that temperaments can be classified according to +R/−R and I/E traits:

FM_−IR - spontaneous proactivity,
BS_+IR - rigid reactivity,
RA_−ER - spontaneous reactivity aka adaptivity,
LA_+ER - rigid proactivity.

These temperaments can be used for dominant agnostic type names (which are given in the the next 4.2 section too).

4.2 Type names matching table

Names are in the following order:

Socionics reference type, Number name,
Socionics type name literal translation, MBTI name, reddit.com/r/JungianTypology name, MBTI/quadra hybrid name.

quadra	FM_−IR	BS_+IR	RA_−ER	LA_+ER
α alpha	ENTP-FM 1	INTJ-BS 2	ISFP-RA 3	ESFJ-LA 4
	ILE ENTP NeT ENTa	LII INTx TiN INTa	SEI ISFx SiF ISFa	ESE ESFJ FeS ESFa
	dominant extraverted intuiter & improvising tasker	dominant introverted tasker & rigid intuiter	dominant introverted sensor & improvising feeler	dominant extraverted feeler & rigid sensor
β beta	ESTP-FM 5	ISTJ-BS 6	INFP-RA 7	ENFJ-LA 8
	SLE ESTP SeT ESTb	LSI ISTx TiS ISTb	IEI INFx NiF INFb	EIE ENFJ FeN ENFb
	dominant extraverted sensor & improvising tasker	dominant introverted tasker & rigid sensor	dominant introverted intuiter & improvising feeler	dominant extraverted feeler & rigid intuiter
γ gamma	ESFP-FM 9	ISFJ-BS 10	INTP-RA 11	ENTJ-LA 12
	SEE ESFP SeF ESFg	ESI ISFx FiS ISFg	ILI INTx NiT INTg	LIE ENTJ TeN ENTg
	dominant extraverted sensor & improvising feeler	dominant introverted feeler & rigid sensor	dominant introverted intuiter & improvising tasker	dominant extraverted tasker & rigid intuiter
δ delta	ENFP-FM 13	INFJ-BS 14	ISTP-RA 15	ESTJ-LA 16
	IEE ENFP NeF ENFd	EII INFx FiN INFd	SLI ISTx SiT ISTd	LSE ESTJ TeS ESTd
	dominant extraverted intuiter & improvising feeler	dominant introverted feeler & rigid intuiter	dominant introverted sensor & improvising tasker	dominant extraverted tasker & rigid sensor

For example INTJ-BS is intuitive task-oriented rigid introvert with dominant Ti or dominant introverted tasker & rigid intuiter.

N - intuitive, intuiter,
S - sensory, sensor,
T - task-oriented, tasker,
F - feelings-oriented, feeler,
E - extraverted, extravert,
I - introverted, introvert,
−R - irrational, irrational,
+R - rational, rational

Though I'm not fond of using neither feelers nor tentacles. Neither sensors nor detectors. My favourite is "sensing feelers" 🐙.

5. Revised Gulenko's names for types. 1-16 numbers as names for types with mnemonics

Both translations and names were revised. Lytov's translation of Gulenko's names is the main translation used now.

ID	JATS¹	Mnemonic	Revised Gulenko's	Gulenko (Gulenko-Lytov), Keirsey³ (Keirsey-1984²)
1	ENTP-FM	The very first curious	Searcher	Searcher (Seeker), Inventor
2	INTJ-BS	The second one curious	Analyst	Analyst, Mastermind (Scientist)
3	ISFP-RA	Three Musketeers Dumas	Mediator	Mediator, Composer (Artist)
4	ESFJ-LA	Four elements	Enthusiast	Enthusiast (Bonvivant), Provider (Seller)
5	ESTP-FM	The five senses	General	Marshal (Commander), Promoter
6	ISTJ-BS	Has no sixth sense	Inspector	Inspector, Inspector (Trustee)
7	INFP-RA	Seven Sins / Wonders	Poet	Lyrist (Lyricist), Healer (Questor)
8	ENFJ-LA	Eight-bit	Inspirer	Mentor, Teacher (Pedagogue)
9	ESFP-FM	Nine lives of a cat	Politician	Politician, Performer (Entertainer)
10	ISFJ-BS	Proper as a dozen	Guardian	Guardian, Protector (Conservator)
11	INTP-RA	11 football players	Foreseer	Critic, Architect
12	ENTJ-LA	12 hours, dozen	Entrepreneur	Entrepreneur (Enterpriser), Fieldmarshal
13	ENFP-FM	Devil's/Baker's dozen	Journalist	Advisor (Psychologist), Champion* (Journalist)
14	INFJ-BS	Twice sinful as 7 type	Humanist	Humanist, Counselor (Author)
15	ISTP-RA	Finishes the job too	Craftsman	Craftsman, Crafter (Artisan)
16	ESTJ-LA	Finishes the job	Administrator	Administrator, Supervisor (Administrator)

¹JATS - Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov Socionics,
² David Keirsey, Marilyn Bates, Please understand Me, Character and Temperament Types, 1984,
²,³ Mind that Keirsey names are given as a matter of reference as conversion between Socionics and MBTI introverts is not possible (see the next chapter),
* - champion is in a sense of a proponent.

Names mapping between Socionics and Keirsey is done by traits axes instead of cognitive functions stack as it's the only scientifically backed part of Jungian typologies. Rational behaviour is mapped with Judging behaviour, Irrational behaviour is mapped with Perceiving behaviour. See how good introverts aling:

Analyst, Mastermind (Scientist),
Inspector, Inspector (Trustee),
Guardian, Protector (Conservator),
Craftsman, Crafter (Artisan),

That indirectly supports the assumption that MBTI-Socionics mapping should be done by traits axes instead of cognitive functions stack.

6. On dichotomies, MBTI incompatibility, Big Five

Important thing to note is that

If the reference type’s dominant function is extraverted then the behaviour of the reference type is also more extraverted than introverted (and vice versa).
If the reference type’s dominant function is irrational then the behaviour of the reference type is also more irrational-improvising than rational-rigid (and vice versa).
If the reference type’s dominant function is one of the intuitive thinking functions then the behaviour of the reference type is also more intuitive than tangible-oriented and sensory (and vice versa).
If the reference type’s dominant function is one of the task-oriented thinking functions then the behaviour of the reference type is also more task-oriented than feelings-oriented (and vice versa).

This leads to the possibility of defining I/E, P/J, S/N, F/T dichotomies and obtaining correlations with Big Five personality model en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Big_Five. In that study the MBTI dichotomies used are somewhere about the same as in Socionics. But at the same time the hypothesis about the internal structure of type’s Jung cognitive functions properties are different in MBTI and Socionics / JATS.

Good infographics on Big Five (that have close relations with socioncs and MBTI) is given here: psychologycharts.com/big-five-personality-traits.html. There are also some other good names and connections.

It’s worth mentioning that the Socionics hypothesis of correlations between dichotomies and Jung cognitive functions are expected to be statistical or visible only in the most vivid cases of persons. For example: if we see the highly introverted (I) and highly self-disciplined (R aka J) person then what Jung congnitive function he would expect they has as dominant function? Socionics says that it would be Ti or Fi MBTI says it would be Ni or Si But in many particular cases of people there can be combinations of “Ti dominant and more like irrational-perceiving behavior” or “Ni dominant and more like rational-judging behaviour”. But in most cases Socionics expects “Ti dominant and more like rational-judging behavior”. This even can be experimentally verified by tests that measure Jung cognitive functions and dichotomies independently.

So if we are talking about type of particular person not about reference types then using I/E and +R/−R (J/P) dichotomies can be misleading or inaccurate. So the noting person’s dominant function is a better option. For example: Ne dom., Ti dom. Auxiliary function also worth noting but Socionics research shown that for example in case of Ne dom. and task-oriented thinking (T) both Te (8) and Ti (2) may play importaint role in assisting dominant Ne So they both can be viewed as auxiliary function as Jung meant it (actually Jung didn’t say whether auxilary function for Ne dom. is Ti or Te). There need to be more invesigations on this topic but for now it’s more accurate to think that the auxilary function is just T, F, S or N withount specifying whether it is Te or Ti, etc.

Explicit notation for Socionics types are INTJ-BS and INTP-RA. +R/−R in Socionics mean the same as J/P in MBTI and Big Five (high/low conscientiousness). Same is for E/I, N/S, T/F. And the first cognitive function is a dominant function as Jung meant it. The rule is simple: rational type has a rational dominant function (irrational-improvising type -> irrational dominant function). Introverted type has an introverted dominant function (extraverted type -> extraverted dominant function). And this notation explicitly reminds about it.

7. Model A

Note that this description is not affiliated with Talanov's Socionics.

There are at least three widespread models of conginitive functions: Model A, Model G and MBTI model.

Model A functions names differ from author to author to the point where both 4-Vulnerable and 6-Activating functions can be called Mobilizing by different authors.
Model G that is popular on reddit.com/r/JungianTypology makes the situation even worse as it calls 2-Supporting function 5-Demonstrative and calls 8-Background function 2-Creative.
MBTI Auxiliary function name is ambiguous as there are still debates which attitude Jung meant for auxiliary function (extraverted or introverted). For example Wikipedia article about cognitive functions doesn't specify attitude for Jung's functions model.

So in my translation of Model A I wanted to fix possible misunderstandings:

I use 1-Dominant as there is no point to change Jung's term in English.
I use new 2-Supporting name. Creative became ambiguous because of the Model G. Auxiliary is ambiguous because Jung wasn't clear enough. This function name should be something like Conscious auxiliary if we are to expand Jung terms.
3-Role and 4-Vulnerable are the most widespread Model A translations and are not ambiguous.
5-Suggestive is the most widespread Model A translation and is not ambiguous. It's also better than suggestible. As suggestive better aligns with Autonomous inferior as Jung meant this function.
6-Activating is better than ambiguous mobilizing and it is the most widespread in the auto-translated texts.
I simply like 7-Restrictive more than alternatives (it also better than restricting).
8-Background is better than demonstrative which became ambiguous because of the Model G. And background better aligns with it's meaning of Automatic auxiliary.

Functions		Strength	Consciousness	Value	Example	ENTP-FM
1 Dominant	2 Supporting	strong	conscious	valuable	1 Ne	2 Ti
4 Vulnerable	3 Role	weak	conscious	not valuable	4 Fi	3 Se
5 Suggestive	6 Activating	weak	semiconscious (automatic)	valuable	5 Si	6 Fe
8 Background	7 Restrictive	strong	semiconscious (automatic)	not valuable	8 Te	7 Ni
proverted: 1,3,6,8; antiverted: 2,4,5,7; pronal: 1,3,5,7; antinal: 2,4,6,8*		1 > 8 > 2&7 > 3 > 6 > 5 > 4; strong proverted > strong antiverted; weak proverted > weak antiverted		1>2; 5>6; 4>3; 8>7; valuable pronal (1,5) set long-term life goals

* names were derived from rational-irrational and extraverted-introverted.

NEW: Cognitive functions descriptions per position in Model A (8x8 auto-translated table).

pronal vs. antinal functions (names derived from rational-irrational):
- [italic] functions are pronal functions: 1, 3, 5, 7.
  For rational types that's rational functions. For irrational types that's irrational functions,
- [not italic] functions are antinal functions: 2, 4, 6, 8.
  For rational types that's irrational functions. For irrational types that's rational functions,
- 1 and 5 functions set long-term life goals of a person, and 2 and 6 do not. This give rise to a hypothesis that 3 and 7 functions can be superior to 4 and 8 functions in context of goals. But that's a speculation only.
proverted vs. antiverted functions (names derived from extraverted-introverted):
- [bold] functions (or having the same index as dominant function) are proverted functions: 1, 3, 6, 8.
  For extraverts that's extraverted functions. For introverts that's introverted functions,
- [not bold] functions (or having different index to dominant function) are antiverted functions: 2, 4, 5, 7.
  For introverts that's extraverted functions. For extraverts that's introverted functions.
- strong proverted functions are stronger than strong antiverted functions,
- weak proverted functions are stronger than weak antiverted functions.
italic and bold can be combined.
strong vs. weak functions:
- Strong functions think and solve their tasks competently, efficiently, confidently, quickly, easily. In contrast, weak functions tend to be less competent, work slowly, uncertainly, and require much more effort. There is an opinion that strong functions are more robust, i.e. able to work longer at the same level of quality without overexertion, and that strong functions are “resistant to interference,” that is, they are able to ignore distracting and interfering factors in their work, to work effectively in spite of them. Weak functions are not durable and not resistant to interference. It is best to compare the functions of one person.
conscious vs. semiconscious (automatic) functions:
- Conscious functions are characterized by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the time type reflects and ponders using these functions. Well aware of such thoughts and reflections. The work of automatic functions happens most of the time as if by itself. These functions regularly work as if automatically, notice something, process something and provide the result of their work to conscious functions, but the process of their work is not in the focus of attention. If you ask to consciously think with the help of automatic functions, the consciousness will try to get away from this activity, go to thinking with the help of conscious functions.
- All conscious functions are either static or dynamic (hence semiconscious functions would be either dynamic or static accordingly).
valuable vs. not valuable functions:
- The work of valuable functions and its nuances are important for the type, they are interesting, type can listen and talk on these topics with pleasure. Valuable functions provide an active exchange of information between people, what is associated with the work of these functions is easily discussed. The work of not valuable functions is what the type considers in life not the most important, something that can be neglected, something that makes sense only as an addition to valuable functions. As a rule, the discussion of the work of these functions is not interesting and does not give pleasure (but there are exceptions), it is preferred to help each other without further ado. The type in most cases limits the activity of the not valuable functions to the needs of valuable ones (that mostly 1st and 2nd functions), the demands of society or circumstances.
Additional info on Model A can be found in Wikipedia.

	FM_−IR		BS_+IR		RA_−ER		LA_+ER
α	ENTP-FM	1	INTJ-BS	2	ISFP-RA	3	ESFJ-LA	4
	1 Ne	2 Ti	1 Ti	2 Ne	1 Si	2 Fe	1 Fe	2 Si
	4 Fi	3 Se	4 Se	3 Fi	4 Te	3 Ni	4 Ni	3 Te
	5 Si	6 Fe	5 Fe	6 Si	5 Ne	6 Ti	5 Ti	6 Ne
	8 Te	7 Ni	8 Ni	7 Te	8 Fi	7 Se	8 Se	7 Fi

β	ESTP-FM	5	ISTJ-BS	6	INFP-RA	7	ENFJ-LA	8
	1 Se	2 Ti	1 Ti	2 Se	1 Ni	2 Fe	1 Fe	2 Ni
	4 Fi	3 Ne	4 Ne	3 Fi	4 Te	3 Si	4 Si	3 Te
	5 Ni	6 Fe	5 Fe	6 Ni	5 Se	6 Ti	5 Ti	6 Se
	8 Te	7 Si	8 Si	7 Te	8 Fi	7 Ne	8 Ne	7 Fi

γ	ESFP-FM	9	ISFJ-BS	10	INTP-RA	11	ENTJ-LA	12
	1 Se	2 Fi	1 Fi	2 Se	1 Ni	2 Te	1 Te	2 Ni
	4 Ti	3 Ne	4 Ne	3 Ti	4 Fe	3 Si	4 Si	3 Fe
	5 Ni	6 Te	5 Te	6 Ni	5 Se	6 Fi	5 Fi	6 Se
	8 Fe	7 Si	8 Si	7 Fe	8 Ti	7 Ne	8 Ne	7 Ti

δ	ENFP-FM	13	INFJ-BS	14	ISTP-RA	15	ESTJ-LA	16
	1 Ne	2 Fi	1 Fi	2 Ne	1 Si	2 Te	1 Te	2 Si
	4 Ti	3 Se	4 Se	3 Ti	4 Fe	3 Ni	4 Ni	3 Fe
	5 Si	6 Te	5 Te	6 Si	5 Ne	6 Fi	5 Fi	6 Ne
	8 Fe	7 Ni	8 Ni	7 Fe	8 Ti	7 Se	8 Se	7 Ti

Model A decomposition

A set of hypotheses about Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov (JAT) cognitive functions that together give Model A as consequences is given below. Decomposition to separate hypotheses gave rise to a pair of new assumptions.

Set of hypotheses:

H1 [8-cognitive-functions] We can allocate 8 JAT cognitive functions in the human psyche. They are defined descriptively by researchers as the basis for observations. See Section 1 for details.
H2 [strong-weak] There are strong and weak functions. Either Ne and Ni are strong and Se and Si are weak or Se and Si are strong and Ne and Ni are weak. Independently either Te and Ti are strong and Fe and Fi are weak or Fe and Fi are strong and Te and Ti are weak.
H3 [dominant] There is a dominant “first” function that stands out and becomes the strongest and the main “conductor of the orchestra”.
H4 [PeJi-JiPe] Functions form pairs to think well-consciously about something (the most productive way of thinking). That's pairs of opposite functions: extraverted + introverted, rational + irrational (just like 1st and 2nd functions pair).
H5 [PeJe-PiJi] Functions also form pairs when one function support another (that is they together perform some task but one of them acts only as support for solving the task of another function). But in this case it's not like that well-conscious thinking in H4. It's pairs of same-verted (extravert + extravert or introvert + introvert) but rational + irrational functions (just like 1st and 8th functions pair).
H6 [most-inferior] Weak function that is pronal but antiverted to dominant function (irrational if 1st is irrational, rational if 1st is rational, extraverted if 1st is introverted, introverted if 1st is extraverted) becomes the most inferior function (to the point of not controlling it so it has its own motivation and becomes valuable function). That's the 5th function.
H7 [EI] Extraversion is a general property of a person manifested in the fact that extroverted functions are stronger than their introverted counterparts (Ne is stronger than Ni; Se > Si; Te > Ti; Fe > Fi). Similarly for introversion (Ni > Ne; Si > Se; Ti > Te; Fi > Fe). This is not just the dominance of the 1st function and the manifestation of its properties by type most clearly and vividly. This attitude is of a general nature, i.e. it affects all functions of the type. The state of immersion in oneself for an introvert is more natural than the state of immersion in the external world (for an extrovert it's the opposite). And if some state is more natural then it is easier for a person. It happens more often and manifests itself brighter and stronger
H8 [±R] Rationality or Irrationality is a general property of a person manifested in the choice between greater control of behavior with focusing on stability and planning or preferring improvisation, impulsive behavior and spontaneity.
H9 [auxilary] There are two same-named auxilary functions (“2nd” and “8th”) that stand out as the dominant function assistants (they are the second in strength after the dominant). Same named means they are both intuitive or both sensory or both task-oriented or both feelings-oriented.
H10 [IE>±R] H7 [EI] has stronger effects than H8 [±R]. That means that:
- strong proverted functions are stronger than strong antiverted functions,
- weak proverted functions are stronger than weak antiverted functions.

Hypothesis consequences:

C8 [strength] H3 [dominant], H9 [auxilary], H2 [strong-weak] →
1-Dominant and 2-8-auxiliary functions are strong hence 1, 2, 7, 8 are strong functions and 3, 4, 5, 6 are weak functions.
C9 [consciousness] H3 [dominant], H4 [PeJi-JiPe], H5 [PeJe-PiJi], H6 [most-inferior] →
1-Dominant is conscious (H3) hence 3-Role is also conscious because it's of the same nature (same IE and ±R). 1-2 and 1-4 are conscious assistance pairs (H4). 1-8 and 1-6 are automatic assistance pairs (H5). 5-Suggestive is automatic (H6). And 1st being conscious and 5th being automatic somehow lead to 7th also being automatic. Hence 1, 2, 3, 4 are conscious functions and 5, 6, 7, 8 are automatic functions.
C1 [12-valuable-34-not;1>2] H3 [dominant], H9 [auxilary], H2 [strong-weak], H4 [PeJi-JiPe] →
1, 2 are valuable functions (H3, H9), 3, 4 are not valuable functions (1-2 pair shadows 3-4 pair) because they cannot help 1st function via H4. 3rd would clash with 1st and 4th would be useless for 1st when 2nd is much more useful. This also means that 1 is more valued than 2 (H3),
С2 [more-valued:4>3] H3 [dominant], H4 [PeJi-JiPe], C1 [12-valuable-34-not;1>2] →
4 is move valued than 3 because 1-4 pair is a subject of H4 [PeJi-JiPe]. But they both are still not valuable.
C3 [78-not-valuable] H3 [dominant], H9 [auxilary], H2 [strong-weak], H4 [PeJi-JiPe], H5 [PeJe-PiJi] →
7 and 8 functions are not valuable (7, 8 functions only assist 1, 2 strong functions that work in mental pair).
С4 [more-valued:8>7] H3 [dominant], H5 [PeJe-PiJi], C3 [78-not-valuable] →
8 function is more valued than 7 function because 1-8 pair is a suject of the H5 [PeJe-PiJi] hence 8 is useful for dominant fucntion. But they both are still not valuable.
С5 [56-valuable;5>6] H6 [most-inferior] →
means that 5 is a valuable function. I guess this somehow leads to 6 also being valuable function. This also means that 5 is more valued than 6 (somehow).
С6 [proverted-antiverted] H2 [strong-weak], H3 [dominant], H7 [EI], H10 [IE>±R] →
puts additional constraints to functions strengths. H7 [EI]: 1>7; 8>2; 3>5; 6>4; H2 [strong-weak]: 1,2,7,8 > 3,4,5,6; H3 [dominant]: 1>8; H10 [IE>±R]: 1>2; 8>7; 3>4; 6>5 where “>” means “stronger”.
С7 [pronal-antinal] H3 [dominant], H6 [most-inferior], H8 [±R], С5 [56-valuable] →
1 and 5 functions set long-term life goals of a person, and 2 and 6 do not. This give rise to a hypothesis that 3 and 7 functions can be superior to 4 and 8 functions in context of goals. But that's a speculation only.

7.1 Determining Socionics type

Selecting best fitting functions descriptions from 8x8 table

You can give a try to this table (autotranslated). Go per row and mark which one or two cells fits you most in each row. After the table ends you can check which types are the most common in marked cells.

160 questions test

Or you can take this Socionics test. It would give you likeness to 16 types measured and information to think about.

8. Quadras and functions. Why quadras grouped this way? Central vs. Lateral types

Socionics quadras split 16 types to 4 groups. Each group has FM_−IR type with a dominant extraverted irrational-improvising function, BS_+IR type with a dominant introverted rational function, LA_+ER type with a dominant extraverted rational function and RA_−ER type with a dominant introverted irrational-improvising function.

Dominant function in Socionics is called 1st function. And Socionics splits Jung's auxilary function to 2nd function and 8th function. If the 1st function is extraverted then the 2nd is introverted and the 8th is extraverted. And vice versa. In case of INTJ-BS it would be 1Ti2Ne8Ni 1st, 2nd and 8th functions are the most important from the point of view of the type's social activities (and are the reference type's strongest functions). And may be also they are the most important from the point of view of the type’s self-identification. 2nd and 8th functions both are like auxilary function as Jung meant it. But only 1st and 2nd are valuable functions.

Why quadras grouped this way?

Let's explain this in the example of the delta quadra.

Deltas are: ENFP-FM, INFJ-BS, ESTJ-LA, ISTP-RA. So as commonly believed in MBTI xNFP and xSTJ are not delta. As believed in Socionics:

ENFP-FM has dominant Ne, supporting Fi, and Si as the most inferior function (to the point of dominant function not controlling it so it has its own motivation and becomes valuable function) - autonomous inferior function aka suggestive function,
INFJ-BS has dominant Fi, supporting Ne, and suggestive Te,
ESTJ-LA has dominant Te, supporting Si, and suggestive Fi,
ISTP-RA has dominant Si, supporting Te, and suggestive Ne

Hence deltas are xNFx(±IR)/xSTx(±ER) (or xNFxAd/xSTxAd) - see below.

So the functions the type values most are 1-dominant, 2-supporting and 5-suggestive. For some reason in Socionics believed that commonly ENFP-FM also values Te, INFJ-BS also values Si, ESTJ-LA also values Ne, ISTP-RA also values Fi (6-activating).

So this can be seen that these 4 types has the same 4 most valued functions (1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th):

quadra	FM_−IR	BS_+IR	RA_−ER	LA_+ER
Alpha	1Ne,2Ti,[8Te],5Si,6Fe	1Ti,2Ne,[8Ni],5Fe,6Si	1Si,2Fe,[8Fi],5Ne,6Ti	1Fe,2Si,[8Se],5Ti,6Ne
A α a	ENTP-FM	INTJ-BS	ISFP-RA	ESFJ-LA
Beta	1Se,2Ti,[8Te],5Ni,6Fe	1Ti,2Se,[8Si],5Fe,6Ni	1Ni,2Fe,[8Fi],5Se,6Ti	1Fe,2Ni,[8Ne],5Ti,6Se
B β b	ESTP-FM	ISTJ-BS	INFP-RA	ENFJ-LA
Gamma	1Se,2Fi,[8Fe],5Ni,6Te	1Fi,2Se,[8Si],5Te,6Ni	1Ni,2Te,[8Ti],5Se,6Fi	1Te,2Ni,[8Ne],5Fi,6Se
Γ γ G g	ESFP-FM	ISFJ-BS	INTP-RA	ENTJ-LA
Delta	1Ne,2Fi,[8Fe],5Si,6Te	1Fi,2Ne,[8Ni],5Te,6Si	1Si,2Te,[8Ti],5Ne,6Fi	1Te,2Si,[8Se],5Fi,6Ne
Δ δ d	ENFP-FM	INFJ-BS	ISTP-RA	ESTJ-LA

It's possible to drop postfix for introverts too but then it can easily be mistaken with wrong MBTI type. So it's recommend to be used only in explicit contexts.

Quadras	Abbr.	1st or 2nd function	Valuable functions	Adj.	More fond of:
Alpha-delta	Ad	Ne or Si	Ne and Si	Lateral	Pacific, peaceful, cooperative, sensible, and leisurely unhurried ways
Beta-gamma	Bg	Se or Ni	Se and Ni	Central	Rival, competitive, argessive, time-bound and fast resolutive ways
Alpha-beta	Ab	Fe or Ti	Fe and Ti
Gamma-delta	Gd	Te or Fi	Te and Fi

Examples:

alpha-delta intuiter, lateral intuiter, lateral sensor,
beta-gamma intuiter, central intuiter, central sensor,
gamma-delta tasker,
central introvert.

8.1 Interactive table of intertype relationships

There is a nice autotranslated interactive table of intertype relationships. Simply click on type name to redraw the table accordingly. It also aggregates descriptions of types and relationships.

9. Intermediate and unknown types names

In order to distinguish from MBTI the 5-letter notation from section 11.5 is used.
Names for truly intermediate types are proposed. Names for unknown types like ExTJ are common in MBTI (this can be ENTJ, ESTJ or intermediate type, we do not know which one exactly). Similarly EuTJ-LA is the name for truly intermediate type and ExTJ-LA is the name for unknown in JATS notation. "u" or "x" denote whether we should use mean values for skipped axes (u is from μ that denotes mean) or they are unknown (x). The existence of intermediate types is still an open question. It's easy to imagine intermediate type between types with the same dominant function but not with different ones.
Below are some examples of short names for types, unknown types and intermediate/mixed types. The 4 letter code at the beginning shows the position on E/I, S/N, F/T and −R/+R axes. All axes can be measured by MBTI or Big Five tests. +R/−R, J/P and conscientiousness are roughly the same. Next in the brackets additional info is shown. For finer details types shortcut numbers to pick from can be used. I guess it may even be possible to have ENTJ-LA if the person is a mixture equally of ENTP-FM, ENTJ-LA and INTJ-BS: ENTJ-LA(1~2~12). But at the moment it's a speculation only.
Additional postfixes might be needed if there should be noted that Socioics types and functions are meant (but not the MBTI types and functions). This is especially relevant for unknown types with x on +R/−R axis (J/P in MBTI). For example in JAST INTx = INTJ-BS or INTP-RA or INTu. But if we take MBTI types then INTx = INTP (Ti dom.) or INTJ (Ni dom.).

Unknown types	Meaning of unknown types	Mixed type
ExTJ-LA	ENTJ-LA v ESTJ-LA v EuTJ-LA v ...	EuTJ-LA
ENxJ-LA	ENTJ-LA v ENFJ-LA v ENuJ-LA v ...	ENuJ-LA
INTx	INTJ-BS v INTP-RA v INTu v ...	INTu
IxTJ-BS	INTJ-BS v ISTJ-BS v IuTJ-BS v ...	IuTJ-BS
xNTxAd, xNTxQ	ENTP-FM v INTJ-BS v uNTuAd v ...	uNTuAd, uNTuQ
xNTR	ENTJ-LA v INTJ-BS v uNTR v ...	uNTR
INxJ-BS	INTJ-BS v INFJ-BS v INuJ-BS v ...	INuJ-BS
IxTxAd, IxTxQ	INTJ-BS v ISTP-RA v IuTuAd v ...	IuTuAd, IuTuQ
INxxAb, INxxQ	INTJ-BS v INFP-RA v INuuQ v ...	INuuAb, INuuQ
IxxRAg, IxxRQ	INTJ-BS v ISFJ-BS v IuuJQ-BS v ...	IuuJAg-BS, IuuJQ-BS
ENx(-R)(-13)	ENTP-FM v ENuP-FM v ... (not ENFP-FM)	ENTP-FM(+13)
xNTxAd(-1)	INTJ-BS v uNTuAd v ... (not ENTP-FM)	INTJ-BS(+1)
IxTR(-6)	INTJ-BS v IuTR v ... (not ISTJ-BS)	INTJ-BS(+6)
xNxxAd	INTJ-BS v ENTP-FM v INFJ-BS v ENFP-FM v ENuP-FM v ...	?
IxxxBg	ISTJ-BS v INFP-RA v ISFJ-BS v INTP-RA v INuP-RA v ...	?
xNx(−R)	ENTP-FM v INFP-RA v INTP-RA v ENFP-FM v ENuP-FM v INuP-RA v ...	?
IxTx	INTJ-BS v ISTJ-BS v INTP-RA v ISTP-RA v IuTP-RA v ...	?
ENx(-R)(-13)	ENTP-FM v ENuP-FM v ... (not ENFP-FM)	ENTP-FM(+13)
ENx(-R)(1^1~13)	ENTP-FM v ENuP-FM v ... (not ENFP-FM)	ENTP-FM(+13)
IxTx(2^15)	INTJ-BS v ISTP-RA v IuTuAd v ...	IuTu(2~15)

^ stands for simplex,
v stands for or,
- and − stand for minus,
~ stands for approximately equals,
For details on Questioning/Declaring (Q/D) notation see chapter 11. Symmetries of Reinin dichotomies.
- Do not mix it with delta quadra that is always lowercase (like Ad/ad) and in brackets.

10. Further reading and notable discussions

Notable discussions

11. Symmetries of Reinin dichotomies and their connection to Khizhnyak functions and axes

11.1 Reinin dichotomies

Short name	Full names	Alt. symmetry #1	#2	#3
E=−I	Introverted=>Extraverted	E=−I	E=−I
−R=−R	Rational=>iRrational	−R=−R, P=−J*	P=−J
static=−dynamic	Dynamic=>Static, ±ER=>±IR	PEJI=−JEPI, O=−Y*	O=−Y	\|⁠±IR⁠\|⁠−⁠\|⁠±ER⁠\|

N=−S	Sensory=>iNtuitive (Sensing=>Intuitive)	OAdYBg=−YAdOBg	N=−S
NESI=−NISE	NISE=>NESI (Farsighted=>Carefree)	PAdJBg=−JAdPBg	NESI=−NISE	\|⁠±SI⁠\|⁠−⁠\|⁠±NI⁠\|
NPSJ=−NJSP	NJSP=>NPSJ (Strategic=>Tactical)	EAdIBg=−IAdEBg	NPSJ=−NJSP	\|⁠±SR⁠\|⁠−⁠\|⁠±NR⁠\|
Ad=−Bg	Central=>Lateral, Beta-gamma=>Alpha-delta (Decisive=>Judicious, Resolute=>Pacific, Central=>Peripheral)	Ad=−Bg	NOSY=−NYSO

T=−F	Feelings-oriented=>Task-oriented (Ethical=>Logical, Feeling=>Thinking)	OAbYGd=−YAbOGd	T=−F
TEFI=−TIFE	TIFE=>TEFI (Obstinate=>Yielding, Obstinate=>Compliant)	PAbJGd=−JAbPGd	TEFI=−TIFE	\|⁠±FI⁠\|⁠−⁠\|⁠±TI⁠\|
TPFJ=−TJFP	TJFP=>TJFJ (Emotivist=>Constructivist)	EAbIGd=−IAbEGd	TPFJ=−TJFP	\|⁠±FR⁠\|⁠−⁠\|⁠±TR⁠\|
Ab=−Gd	Gamma-delta=>Alpha-beta (Serious=>Merry, Descending=>Ascending, Objectivist=>Subjectivist)	Ab=−Gd	TOFY=−TYFO

Q=−D	Declaring=>Questioning (Declaring=>Asking, Declatim=>Questim)	OAgYBd=−YAgOBd	Q=−D
QEDI=−QIDE	QIDE=>QEDI (Result=>Process, Left=>Right)	PAgJBd=−JAgPBd	QEDI=−QIDE	\|⁠±DI⁠\|⁠−⁠\|⁠±QI⁠\|
QPDJ=−QJDP	QJDP=>QPDJ (Negativist=>Positivist)	EAgIBd=−IAgEBd	QPDJ=−QJDP	\|⁠±DR⁠\|⁠−⁠\|⁠±QR⁠\|
Ag=−Bd	Beta-delta=>Alpha-gamma (Aristocratic=>Democratic, Elitist=>Egalitarian)	Ag=−Bd	QODY=−QYDO

* O=−Y, P=−J are temporal notation.

+U/−U is reserved for neUroticism from Big Five (in case neuroticism has meaning that is external to Socionics).

11.2 Khizhnyak functions and axes

Mind that NS and TF Khizhnyak functions and axes can be directly (and may be linearly) obtained from I=>E, R=>−R, S=>N, Bg=>Ad, F=>T, Gd=>Ab, D=>Q, Bd=>Ag axes by moving along of the diagonal of 4 axes.

Note that QD functions and axes should first non-linearly get D=>Q axis.

Khizhnyak functions names are made of Gulenko's temperament.

Axis meaning	Khizhnyak axis	Khizhnyak functions relation
S+IR+Bg=>N−IR+Ad	BS-S=>FM-N	−S_BS=N_FM
S−IR+Bg=>N+IR+Ad	FM-S=>BS-N	−S_FM=N_BS
S+ER+Ad=>N−ER+Bg	LA-S=>RA-N	−S_LA=N_RA
S−ER+Ad=>N+ER+Bg	RA-S=>LA-N	−S_RA=N_LA

F+IR+Gd=>T−IR+Ab	BS-F=>FM-T	−F_BS=T_FM
F−IR+Gd=>T+IR+Ab	FM-F=>BS-T	−F_FM=T_BS
F+ER+Ab=>T−ER+Gd	LA-F=>RA-T	−F_LA=T_RA
F−ER+Ab=>T+ER+Gd	RA-F=>LA-T	−F_RA=T_LA

D+IR+Bd=>Q−IR+Ag	BS-D=>FM-Q	−D_BS=Q_FM
D−IR+Bd=>Q+IR+Ag	FM-D=>BS-Q	−D_FM=Q_BS
D+ER+Ag=>Q−ER+Bd	LA-D=>RA-Q	−D_LA=Q_RA
D−ER+Ag=>Q+ER+Bd	RA-D=>LA-Q	−D_RA=Q_LA

In addition to 12 Khizhnyak axes and 24 Khizhnyak functions we can define 12 abstract static-dynamic functions that lack I/E and -R/R flavour:

	Abbr.	Alt.	Is abstracted from
static	N±IR	N_±IR	N_FM and N_BS
dynamic	N±ER	N_±ER	N_RA and N_LA
static	S±IR	S_±IR	S_FM and S_BS
dynamic	S±ER	S_±ER	S_RA and S_LA
static	T±IR	T_±IR	T_FM and T_BS
dynamic	T±ER	T_±ER	T_RA and T_LA
static	F±IR	F_±IR	F_FM and F_BS
dynamic	F±ER	F_±ER	F_RA and F_LA
static	Q±IR	Q_±IR	Q_FM and Q_BS
dynamic	Q±ER	Q_±ER	Q_RA and Q_LA
static	D±IR	D_±IR	D_FM and D_BS
dynamic	D±ER	D_±ER	D_RA and D_LA

Hypothetical connections between Reinin dichotomies and Khizhnyak functions:

		N_FM	N_BS	N_RA	N_LA	S_FM	S_BS	S_RA	S_LA	T_FM	T_BS	T_RA	T_LA	F_FM	F_BS	F_RA	F_LA	Q_FM	Q_BS	Q_RA	Q_LA	D_FM	D_BS	D_RA	D_LA
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24

1	E=−I	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1
2	P=−J	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1
3	static=−dynamic	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1

4	N=−S	3	3	3	3	−3	−3	−3	−3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	NESI=−NISE	3	−3	−3	3	−3	3	3	−3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
6	NPSJ=−NJSP	3	−3	3	−3	−3	3	−3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
7	Ad=−Bg	3	3	−3	−3	−3	−3	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

8	T=−F	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	3	3	−3	−3	−3	−3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
9	TEFI=−TIFE	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	−3	−3	3	−3	3	3	−3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
10	TPFJ=−TJFP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	−3	3	−3	−3	3	−3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
11	Ab=−Gd	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	−3	−3	−3	−3	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

12	Q=−D	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	3	3	−3	−3	−3	−3
13	QEDI=−QIDE	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	−3	−3	3	−3	3	3	−3
14	QPDJ=−QJDP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	−3	3	−3	−3	3	−3	3
15	Ag=−Bd	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	−3	−3	−3	−3	3	3

11.2.1 8 Abstracted Khizhnyak axes

12 abstract static-dynamic functions defined above might be represented as 8 Abstracted Khizhnyak axes:

Abstracted Khizhnyak axes	Relations
S±IR=>N±IR	−S_±IR=N_±IR
S±ER=>N±ER	−S_±ER=N_±ER
F±IR=>T±IR	−F_±IR=T_±IR
F±ER=>T±ER	−F_±ER=T_±ER
D±IR=>Q±IR	−D_±IR=Q_±IR
D±ER=>Q±ER	−D_±ER=Q_±ER
BS=>FM, +IR=>−IR	−BS=FM, −IR
RA=>LA, −ER=>+ER	−RA=LA, +ER

		N_FM=	N_BS=	N_RA=	N_LA=	T_FM=	T_BS=	T_RA=	T_LA=	Q_FM=	Q_BS=	Q_RA=	Q_LA=
		=−S_BS	=−S_FM	=−S_LA	=−S_RA	=−F_BS	=−F_FM	=−F_LA	=−F_RA	=−D_BS	=−D_FM	=−D_LA	=−D_RA
1	−IR, FM=−BS	1	−1	0	0	1	−1	0	0	1	−1	0	0
2	+ER, LA=−RA	0	0	−1	1	0	0	−1	1	0	0	−1	1
3	N_±IR=−S_±IR	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	N_±ER=−S_±ER	0	0	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	T_±IR=−F_±IR	0	0	0	0	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0
6	T_±ER=−F_±ER	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	0	0	0	0
7	Q_±IR=−D_±IR	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	0	0
8	Q_±ER=−D_±ER	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3

8 Abstracted Khizhnyak axes might be a good representation for measure of functions differentiation. See section 11.6.

11.3 8 Reinin-Khizhnyak axes as a basis for 12 Khizhnyak axes

From previous table can be seen that not all Reinin axes can influence Khizhnyak axes (that encode two Khizhnyak functions via single axis). That can also be seen from updated table from section 11.2. Only 8 Reinin-Khizhnyak axes can affect 12 Khizhnyak axes:

		N_FM=	N_BS=	N_RA=	N_LA=	T_FM=	T_BS=	T_RA=	T_LA=	Q_FM=	Q_BS=	Q_RA=	Q_LA=
		=−S_BS	=−S_FM	=−S_LA	=−S_RA	=−F_BS	=−F_FM	=−F_LA	=−F_RA	=−D_BS	=−D_FM	=−D_LA	=−D_RA
1	E=−I	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1
2	P=−J	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1
3	N=−S	3	3	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	Ad=−Bg	3	3	−3	−3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	T=−F	0	0	0	0	3	3	3	3	0	0	0	0
6	Ab=−Gd	0	0	0	0	3	3	−3	−3	0	0	0	0
7	Q=−D	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	3	3
8	Ag=−Bd	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	−3	−3

There is a hypothesys that 8 Reinin-Khizhnyak axes are the only axes that have independent variation if we are to try to interpret Reinin axes as independent factors (correcting their dependence first). 8 Reinin axes would have independent variation and 7 would not (and would be fully determined by 8 Reinin-Khizhnyak axes).

11.3.1 Seven Complementary Reinin-Khizhnyak axes

Other 7 Reinin axes can be called Complementary Reinin-Khizhnyak axes. And transition to Complementary Reinin-Khizhnyak axes is made via absolute values of the Khizhnyak axes (or via unreduced Huber loss with δ = 0.25):

		\|N_FM\|=	\|N_BS\|=	\|N_RA\|=	\|N_LA\|=	\|T_FM\|=	\|T_BS\|=	\|T_RA\|=	\|T_LA\|=	\|Q_FM\|=	\|Q_BS\|=	\|Q_RA\|=	\|Q_LA\|=
		=\|S_BS\|	=\|S_FM\|	=\|S_LA\|	=\|S_RA\|	=\|F_BS\|	=\|F_FM\|	=\|F_LA\|	=\|F_RA\|	=\|D_BS\|	=\|D_FM\|	=\|D_LA\|	=\|D_RA\|
1	static=−dynamic	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1
2	NESI=−NISE	3	−3	−3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	NPSJ=−NJSP	3	−3	3	−3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	TEFI=−TIFE	0	0	0	0	3	−3	−3	3	0	0	0	0
5	TPFJ=−TJFP	0	0	0	0	3	−3	3	−3	0	0	0	0
6	QEDI=−QIDE	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	−3	−3	3
7	QPDJ=−QJDP	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	−3	3	−3

11.4 Non-standard dominant Khizhnyak functions

There is a Khizhnyak's hypothesys where he argues that 24 (or 16) Khizhnyak functions can be viewed as something like cognitive functions instead of merely a description of auxiliary function. For example that ESxP-FM (S_FM dom.) types actually have very weak and vulnerable-like N_BS that governs consideration for all people even the "small" people (governs among other things). And that ENxP-FM (N_FM dom.) types have very weak S_BS that among other thing governs monotonous sensory affairs.

But if we take this hypothesis a bit further then we can even suggest that these new functions can be dominant functions. And there can be very unusual combinations of Gulenko's temperament (one of FM_−IR, BS_+IR, RA_−ER, LA_+ER) and dominant function (one of static-dynamic functions like N_±IR, N_±ER, T_±IR, T_±ER, etc. - see previous section for details).

For example there might be a ENTP-FM (with T_FM dom.) aka T_FMN or INTJ-BS (with N_BS dom.) aka N_BST. When classical Socionics combinations are ENTP-FM (with N_FM dom.) aka N_FMT and INTJ-BS (with T_BS dom.) aka T_BSN.

T_FMN would have strong N_FM and T_FM (and Q_FM but that's irrelevant for now) and would by default be in FM_−IR, N_FM perception state but the most valued function that defines person's goals would still be T_FM.

If N_FMT would have curiosity and novelty seeking N_FM as central dominant drive. T_FMN would have T_FM as a dominant drive. And it would be something about independent thinking and valuing, using, hacking and fixing systems of the world.

So each of the static-dynamic functions can be under a Gulenko's Temperament that could be described approximately like (just a random classification that most likely is wrong):

FM_−IR - spontaneous proactivity,
LA_+ER - rigid proactivity,
BS_+IR - rigid reactivity,
RA_−ER - spontaneous reactivity aka adaptivity.

So T_FMN would have dominant drive of spontaneous proactivity concerning systems.

More thought experiments on non-standard dominant functions is here (Autotranslated. And original in Russian).

Worth noting that non-standard dominant functions do not require abstract static-dynamic functions. Underlying cognitive functions can actually have E/I and −R/+R roots in them that make some combination manifestations more common. For example if N/S functions stem from some more ancient instinctual subsystem of the brain. And T/F stem from more young and impulse-controlling subsystem. But the brain can be flexible enough to be FM_−IR temperament that is more instinctual but actually have dominant T_±IR that's from the impulse-controlling subsystem. Like N_FM part is a thin proxy to the T_FM.

UPD:

There can be created a notation for these hypothetical new types:

FM-TNE: ENTP-FM with T_FM dom. aka T_FMN,
BS-NTI: INTJ-BS with N_BS dom. aka N_BST,
FM-NTE: ENTP-FM with N_FM dom. aka N_FMT,
BS-TNI: INTJ-BS with T_BS dom. aka T_BSN.

11.5 Dominant-agnostic type names

	FM_−IR	BS_+IR	RA_−ER	LA_+ER
α	ENTP-FM 1	INTJ-BS 2	ISFP-RA 3	ESFJ-LA 4
possible dom.	N_FM T_FM Q_FM	T_BS N_BS Q_BS	S_RA F_RA D_RA	F_LA S_LA D_LA
β	ESTP-FM 5	ISTJ-BS 6	INFP-RA 7	ENFJ-LA 8
possible dom.	S_FM T_FM D_FM	T_BS S_BS D_BS	N_RA F_RA Q_RA	F_LA N_LA Q_LA
γ	ESFP-FM 9	ISFJ-BS 10	INTP-RA 11	ENTJ-LA 12
possible dom.	S_FM F_FM Q_FM	F_BS S_BS Q_BS	N_RA T_RA D_RA	T_LA N_LA D_LA
δ	ENFP-FM 13	INFJ-BS 14	ISTP-RA 15	ESTJ-LA 16
possible dom.	N_FM F_FM D_FM	F_BS N_BS D_BS	S_RA T_RA Q_RA	T_LA S_LA Q_LA

Even if non-standard dominant Khizhnyak functions are not real this notation can still be used for classical Socionics types.

11.6 Dynamic-static axis as a measure of Khizhnyak functions differentiation

Dynamic-static axis is not in 8 Reinin-Khizhnyak axes but still it can be a special one. It's value can be interpretred as a max abs value of Khizhnyak axes and it can correspond to the most differentiated (as Jung meant it) cognitive function from 24 Khizhnyak functions.

For example if we take ENTP-FM type we would expect that it would have the most value for N_FM and T_FM. As N_FM is where 1-dominant function from Model A go and T_FM is where 2-supporting, 8-background and 4-vulnerable functions from Model A go. So this were the max abs values of Khizhnyak axes from conscious temperaments. But if we take values from semiconscious (automatic) temperaments we would expect to get lower max abs axes values (see next section for details).

And this would exactly mean that conscious Khizhnyak functions from dominant temperament are the most differentiated functions of the type.

11.7 Model A analogue stub with Gulenko's temperaments and Khizhnyak functions

Model A analogue stub consists of 8 temperament positions.

Strong temperament positions,
Weak temperament positions,
Dominant temperament positions (Dm.),
Revision temperament positions (Rv.),
Dual temperament positions (Dl.),
Request temperament positions (Rq.),
Conscious temperaments positions (Dm., Rv.),
Automatic (Semiconscious) temperaments positions (Dl., Rq.).

I didn't use numbers for temperament positions on purpose. Number positions are reserved for roles like in Model A (See examples after the table).

In the table below the strong above weak and weak above strong pairs of Khizhnyak functions actually form Khizhnyak axes and weak functions values can be obtained from strong ones simply via sign inversion:

		FM_−IR				BS_+IR				RA_−ER				LA_+ER
α		ENTP-FM 1				INTJ-BS 2				ISFP-RA 3				ESFJ-LA 4
Strong	Dm	N_FM T_FM Q_FM	Rv	N_BS T_BS Q_BS	Dm	T_BS N_BS Q_BS	Rv	T_FM N_FM Q_FM	Dm	S_RA F_RA D_RA	Rv	S_LA F_LA D_LA	Dm	F_LA S_LA D_LA	Rv	F_RA S_RA D_RA
Weak	Rv	S_BS F_BS D_BS	Dm	S_FM F_FM D_FM	Rv	F_FM S_FM D_FM	Dm	F_BS S_BS D_BS	Rv	N_LA T_LA Q_LA	Dm	N_RA T_RA Q_RA	Rv	T_RA N_RA Q_RA	Dm	T_LA N_LA Q_LA
Weak	Dl	S_RA F_RA D_RA	Rq	S_LA F_LA D_LA	Dl	F_LA S_LA D_LA	Rq	F_RA S_RA D_RA	Dl	N_FM T_FM Q_FM	Rq	N_BS T_BS Q_BS	Dl	T_BS N_BS Q_BS	Rq	T_FM N_FM Q_FM
Strong	Rq	N_LA T_LA Q_LA	Dl	N_RA T_RA Q_RA	Rq	T_RA N_RA Q_RA	Dl	T_LA N_LA Q_LA	Rq	S_BS F_BS D_BS	Dl	S_FM F_FM D_FM	Rq	F_FM S_FM D_FM	Dl	F_BS S_BS D_BS

β		ESTP-FM 5				ISTJ-BS 6				INFP-RA 7				ENFJ-LA 8
Strong	Dm	S_FM T_FM D_FM	Rv	S_BS T_BS D_BS	Dm	T_BS S_BS D_BS	Rv	T_FM S_FM D_FM	Dm	N_RA F_RA Q_RA	Rv	N_LA F_LA Q_LA	Dm	F_LA N_LA Q_LA	Rv	F_RA N_RA Q_RA
Weak	Rv	N_BS F_BS Q_BS	Dm	N_FM F_FM Q_FM	Rv	F_FM N_FM Q_FM	Dm	F_BS N_BS Q_BS	Rv	S_LA T_LA D_LA	Dm	S_RA T_RA D_RA	Rv	T_RA S_RA D_RA	Dm	T_LA S_LA D_LA
Weak	Dl	N_RA F_RA Q_RA	Rq	N_LA F_LA Q_LA	Dl	F_LA N_LA Q_LA	Rq	F_RA N_RA Q_RA	Dl	S_FM T_FM D_FM	Rq	S_BS T_BS D_BS	Dl	T_BS S_BS D_BS	Rq	T_FM S_FM D_FM
Strong	Rq	S_LA T_LA D_LA	Dl	S_RA T_RA D_RA	Rq	T_RA S_RA D_RA	Dl	T_LA S_LA D_LA	Rq	N_BS F_BS Q_BS	Dl	N_FM F_FM Q_FM	Rq	F_FM N_FM Q_FM	Dl	F_BS N_BS Q_BS

γ		ESFP-FM 9				ISFJ-BS 10				INTP-RA 11				ENTJ-LA 12
Strong	Dm	S_FM F_FM Q_FM	Rv	S_BS F_BS Q_BS	Dm	F_BS S_BS Q_BS	Rv	F_FM S_FM Q_FM	Dm	N_RA T_RA D_RA	Rv	N_LA T_LA D_LA	Dm	T_LA N_LA D_LA	Rv	T_RA N_RA D_RA
Weak	Rv	N_BS T_BS D_BS	Dm	N_FM T_FM D_FM	Rv	T_FM N_FM D_FM	Dm	T_BS N_BS D_BS	Rv	S_LA F_LA Q_LA	Dm	S_RA F_RA Q_RA	Rv	F_RA S_RA Q_RA	Dm	F_LA S_LA Q_LA
Weak	Dl	N_RA T_RA D_RA	Rq	N_LA T_LA D_LA	Dl	T_LA N_LA D_LA	Rq	T_RA N_RA D_RA	Dl	S_FM F_FM Q_FM	Rq	S_BS F_BS Q_BS	Dl	F_BS S_BS Q_BS	Rq	F_FM S_FM Q_FM
Strong	Rq	S_LA F_LA Q_LA	Dl	S_RA F_RA Q_RA	Rq	F_RA S_RA Q_RA	Dl	F_LA S_LA Q_LA	Rq	N_BS T_BS D_BS	Dl	N_FM T_FM D_FM	Rq	T_FM N_FM D_FM	Dl	T_BS N_BS D_BS

δ		ENFP-FM 13				INFJ-BS 14				ISTP-RA 15				ESTJ-LA 16
Strong	Dm	N_FM F_FM D_FM	Rv	N_BS F_BS D_BS	Dm	F_BS N_BS D_BS	Rv	F_FM N_FM D_FM	Dm	S_RA T_RA Q_RA	Rv	S_LA T_LA Q_LA	Dm	T_LA S_LA Q_LA	Rv	T_RA S_RA Q_RA
Weak	Rv	S_BS T_BS Q_BS	Dm	S_FM T_FM Q_FM	Rv	T_FM S_FM Q_FM	Dm	T_BS S_BS Q_BS	Rv	N_LA F_LA D_LA	Dm	N_RA F_RA D_RA	Rv	F_RA N_RA D_RA	Dm	F_LA N_LA D_LA
Weak	Dl	S_RA T_RA Q_RA	Rq	S_LA T_LA Q_LA	Dl	T_LA S_LA Q_LA	Rq	T_RA S_RA Q_RA	Dl	N_FM F_FM D_FM	Rq	N_BS F_BS D_BS	Dl	F_BS N_BS D_BS	Rq	F_FM N_FM D_FM
Strong	Rq	N_LA F_LA D_LA	Dl	N_RA F_RA D_RA	Rq	F_RA N_RA D_RA	Dl	F_LA N_LA D_LA	Rq	S_BS T_BS Q_BS	Dl	S_FM T_FM Q_FM	Rq	T_FM S_FM Q_FM	Dl	T_BS S_BS Q_BS

If we reduce 24 Khizhnyak functions table to 12 Khizhnyak axes table we would get the following axes directed towards strong functions (weak functions are obtained via sign negation):

	ENTP-FM 1
Dm	N_FM T_FM Q_FM	Rv	N_BS T_BS Q_BS
Rq	N_LA T_LA Q_LA	Dl	N_RA T_RA Q_RA

Now that we have 12 values of strong Khizhnyak functions (12 values of weak functions are redundant) lets try interpret them via roles from Model A: 1-dominant, 2-supporting, 7-restrictive, 8-background (I'm aware that lack of weak functions interpretation is not OK but lets restrict the scope for now).

Some examples

If we have a hypothetical person with T_BS=N_BS=Q_BS=0.5, T_LA=N_LA=D_LA=0.2, other Khizhnyak functions ~0 (that's values of Khizhnyak axes - not just functions) then we can assume T_BS as 1-dominant like role, and both N_BS and Q_BS as 2-supporting like role. Yep. Supporting functions are from the same temperament as dominant function (strong base temperament group). N_LA and D_LA both can be assumed with 8-background like role. And T_LA would be something like strong 7-restrictive role (all three from strong dual temperament group).

This would give: (1T_BS, 2N_BS, 2Q_BS, 7T_LA, 8N_LA, 8D_LA). But 8D_LA may be a misinterpretation as it's from the weak dual temperament group actually. In this example background functions are from strong dual temperament group but I guess there can be persons with background functions from strong request temperament group.

Here I assumed that I need to put functions in 1-dominant/2-supporting pair in a way that they are of different nature (T/N or T/Q are fine but T/F or T_BS/T_FM are not) but of the same dynamic/static axis (T_±IR/N_±IR is fine but T_±IR/N_±ER is not). Hence I need to mix functions from conscious temperaments for this. I also assumed that I need to put functions in 1-dominant/8-background pair in a way that they are of different nature (T/N or T/Q are fine but T/F or T_BS/T_LA are not) and of different dynamic/static axis (T_±IR/N_±ER is fine but T_±IR/N_±IR is not). This way I emulate Model A behaviour of 1-2-8 functions with Abstracted Khizhnyak X_±IR/X_±ER functions.

If we take another hypothetical person example with T_LA=0.5, T_BS=S_BS=D_BS=0.3, other Khizhnyak functions ~0 then we can either assume (1T_LA, 7T_BS, 8S_BS, 8D_BS) or assume (1S_BS, 2D_BS, 2T_BS, 8T_LA). The second case is tempting because it doesn't have strong 7-restrictive but it uses non-standard Khizhnyak dominant function and would have 8th stronger than 1th. So the first case is more likely (with standard 1-dominant that is the strongest of all).

Subtypes names for examples

As we have seen in the previous Some examples section there can be expected some order of functions if we are to try to preserve Model A ideas. And the main idea is that a person has a 1-dominant function (one of 8 abstract-dynamic functions: N_±IR, N_±ER, S_±IR, S_±ER, T_±IR, F_±IR, T_±ER, F_±ER — let's for now leave Q/D functions behind), an auxiliary function (one of 4: N, S, T, F), and when using auxiliary function there can be preference for using either 2-supporting function (static function for static dominant) or 8-background (dymamic function for static dominant). Both 2nd and 8th functions can be strong hence it would be possible to combine them into 1-2-8 triplet only one particular way (or several not arbitrary ways). In these combinations dominant function can be not the strongest one but the one of right static-dynamic property. Let's construct some possible subtypes for dominant static T:

1BST-BSN: 1-BS-T / 2-BS-N,
1BST-BSN-RAN: 1-BS-T / 2-BS-N / 8-RA-N,
1BST-RAN: 1-BS-T / 8-RA-N,
1BST-LAN: 1-BS-T / 8-LA-N,
1FMT-FMN: 1-FM-T / 2-FM-N,
1FMT-RAN: 1-FM-T / 8-RA-N,
1FMT-LAN: 1-FM-T / 8-LA-N.

You can contrast it with:

1BSN-BST-RAT: 1-BS-N / 2-BS-T / 8-RA-T.

11.8 FZA4: Hypothesis for 8 axes of independent variation in factorized traits space

Previously there was made a hypothesis that 8 Reinin-Khizhnyak axes (or 8 Abstracted Khizhnyak axes) might be axes of independent variation in factorized traits space. But I'm of opinion (based on almost ready model fitted to the Socionics database of ~10000 surveys) that it's not the case. More likely that it would be Factorized Axes 4 / FZA4 (or FZA1, FZA2, FZA3):

To summ up briefly:

FZA1: [−IR], [+ER], [N], [T], [EBg], [EAd], [neU]
- [−IR] −IR; FM=−BS; EP=−IJ (iRrational/Rational),
- [+ER] +ER; LA=−RA; EJ=−IP,
- [N] N=−S,
- [T] T=−F,
- [EBg] EBg=−IAd,
- [EAd] EAd=−IBg,
- [neU] neU (quasi-neUroticism).
FZA2: [−IR], [+ER], [N], [T], [EBg], [TAd], [neUBg] (alt. axes)
- [TAd] TAd=−FBg,
- [neUBg] neUBg (central quasi-neUroticism).
FZA3: [−IR], [+ER], [N], [TAd], [TBg], [neU] (alt. axes)
- [TBg] TBg=−FAd.
FZA4: [N], [TAd], [TBg], [−IR], [+ER], [EAd], [EBg], [Av] (alt. axes)
- [Av] Av (Tension Avoidance).
- My favourite at the moment! At the moment this combination gives best results.

	FZA1	Axes: [−IR], [+ER], [N], [T], [EBg], [EAd], [neU]	Value-dependent notation for survey results*
[−IR]	−IR; FM=−BS	Rational-Introverted=>iRrational-Extraverted	+IR => +ir => skip => -ir => -IR
[+ER]	+ER; LA=−RA	Irrational-Introverted=>Rational-Extraverted	-ER => -er => skip => +er => +ER
[N]	N=−S	Sensory=>iNtuitive	S => s => skip => n => N
[T]	T=−F	Feelings-oriented=>Task-oriented	F => f => skip => t => T
[EBg]	EBg=−IAd	Lateral-Introverted=>Central-Extraverted (IAd=>EBg)	IAd => iad => skip => ebg => EBg
[EAd]	EAd=−IBg	Central-Introverted=>Lateral-Extraverted (IBg=>EAd)	IBg => ibg => skip => ead => EAd
[neU]	neU	Socionics specific quasi-neUroticism	-neU => -neu => skip => neu => neU
	FZA2	Alt. axes: [−IR], [+ER], [N], [T], [EBg], [TAd], [neUBg]
[TAd]	TAd=−FBg	Central-Feelings-oriented=>Lateral-Task-oriented (FBg=>TAd)	FBg => fbg => skip => tad => TAd
[neUBg]	neUBg	Lateral-anti-quasineuroticism=>Central qUasi-neUroticism	-neUBg => -neubg => skip => neubg => neUBg
	FZA3	Alt. axes: [−IR], [+ER], [N], [TAd], [TBg], [neU]
[TBg]	TBg=−FAd	Lateral-Feelings-oriented=>Central-Task-oriented (FAd=>TBg)	FAd => fad => skip => tbg => TBg
	FZA4	Alternative axes: [N], [TAd], [TBg], [−IR], [+ER], [EAd], [EBg], [Av]
[Av]	Av	Tension Avoidance	-Av => -av => skip => av => Av

*Value-dependent notation details:

UPPERCASE if 0.9 ≤ |x|,
lowercase if 0.3 ≤ |x| < 0.9,
axis is skipped if 0.00 ≤ |x| < 0.3,
notation example: ENTPAd(-IR,+er,ebg,EAd,-Av), INtjad(+IR,ead,-Av),
ENTP(-IR)Ad is obtained from 8 FZA4 axes via non-linear mapping.

11.9 Bright/deep rainbow colors to plot 16 probability density functions on a single image

Ad: Bright colors (Lateral types, Alpha-delta),
Bg: Deep colors (Central types, Beta-gamma).

Types are in standard Talanov's order.
8 bright rainbow colors from red to pink are mapped to alpha+delta quadras in normal order.
Deep/Bright switch would be Rational/Irrational switch to quasi-identity type.
8 deep rainbow colors from crimson to magenta are mapped to beta+gamma quadras in reverse order.

		Type		Gulenko's	Alt. names	xkcd color
red	1	ENTP-FM	α	Inventor	ILE, ENTP, NeT	bright red
orange	2	INTJ-BS	α	Analyst	LII, INTx, TiN	tangerine
yellow	3	ISFP-RA	α	Mediator	SEI, ISFx, SiF	dandelion
lime	4	ESFJ-LA	α	Enthusiast	ESE, ESFJ, FeS	apple green
magenta	5	ESTP-FM	β	General	SLE, ESTP, SeT	magenta
purple	6	ISTJ-BS	β	Inspector	LSI, ISTx, TiS	purple
blue	7	INFP-RA	β	Poet	IEI, INFx, NiF	blue
teal	8	ENFJ-LA	β	Inspirer	EIE, ENFJ, FeN	teal blue
green	9	ESFP-FM	γ	Politician	SEE, ESFP, SeF	grass green
mustard	10	ISFJ-BS	γ	Guardian	ESI, ISFx, FiS	gold
brown	11	INTP-RA	γ	Foreseer	ILI, INTx, NiT	dark orange
crimson	12	ENTJ-LA	γ	Entrepreneur	LIE, ENTJ, TeN	blood red
cyan	13	ENFP-FM	δ	Journalist	IEE, ENFP, NeF	aqua blue
azure	14	INFJ-BS	δ	Humanist	EII, INFx, FiN	azure
violet	15	ISTP-RA	δ	Craftsman	SLI, ISTx, SiT	bright violet
pink	16	ESTJ-LA	δ	Administrator	LSE, ESTJ, TeS	bright pink

Bright colors: red, orange, yellow, lime, cyan, azure, violet, pink (Яркие цвета: красный, оранжевый, жёлтый, салатовый, циановый, голубой, фиолетовый, розовый),
Deep colors: crimson, brown, mustard, green, teal, blue, purple, magenta (Густые цвета: бордовый, коричневый, горчичный, зеленый, бирюзовый, синий, сливовый, пурпурный).

Socionics rainbow mnemonics (MBTI-like abbreviations were used):

Version without MBTI-like abbreviations and info (font used is STIX Two Text):

PS. Used: I E S N F T J P, X U, A B G, D Q R, Ad,Bd,Gd,Av,neU. Free: C L M Y O H K V W Z.

(Source code at GitHub)

Name		Name	Last commit message	Last commit date
Latest commit History 623 Commits
pic		pic
8fun_x_8pos_table.html		8fun_x_8pos_table.html
LICENSE		LICENSE
README.md		README.md
functions.md		functions.md
qc.md		qc.md

License

kiwi0fruit/jats

Folders and files

Latest commit

History

Repository files navigation