Intro.

The point is that problems exist regardless of each person’s desire and his subjective vision of the situation. For example, thousands of years have passed and people still haven’t learned to live in peace. Wars and conflicts are always repeating again and no psychologist or sociologist could or can stop them.

Conflicts occur not only globally, but also among close relatives, in schools, with colleagues and neighbors. Why does this happen? Maybe because there are some things inside each of us that cannot be changed or influenced. And as reality shows, positivity, education and faith alone are not enough to stop negative attitudes and their consequences.

What are those things inside us that cannot be changed? They are specific stable interests and needs, values, character and thinking, which are different for many people. Logically, if these interests and thinking were the same, there would be no conflicts and there would be mutual understanding in the world. But there was and is no mutual understanding.

It turns out that any interference from the outside or education of a person is just “deceiving”, fiction, belief or an attempt to suppress or hide from others one’s “true face”, or rather inner stable qualities, needs and thinking. But it still does not help if conflicts and wars, discrimination, robbery and murder continue. Hence, everything that is inherent in man from the moment of his birth is natural and cannot be ignored or suppressed. And everything that is natural is genetically justified and logically correct.

A first introduction to socionics.

Sometime in 2010, I first encountered descriptions of socionics and these phenomena on the Internet. These were forums about socionics. Why did I go there? I have always been interested in people, their culture, thinking, communication, since I am a philologist. And then I spontaneously felt that it was in socionics that I would find the answer to why people I met were different in their character and thinking.

But what is socionics? Socionics is a relatively new branch and field in the knowledge of human beings and their relationships, which has not yet been recognized as a science. The beginning of socionics is mainly connected with the work of Carl Jung and Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, as the main recognized discoverers of all this.

The main favorite pastime of socionics admirers on the Internet is “guessing” the type of thinking of this or that person. Each “novice expert”, having studied the theory for a few minutes or a couple of days, often considers himself a connoisseur of the theory. But at the same time the final versions of “guessing” another person’s type do not match even among “long-time experts”, let alone beginners.

And it was then that I realized that there are errors in Jung’s or Augustinavičiūtė’s typology itself. Also different results of “determining” other people’s types show that readers and “experts” have different types of thinking themselves, since they perceive and analyze written information in different ways.

And the cherry on the cake is the absence of an obvious method of determining the type. On the other hand, it is logical that how can there be a practical correct method if there can be errors in the theory itself? That’s why I wanted to dig deeper to find out where the errors are.

Collaboration with engineer.

In 2013, I accidentally noticed a post of some young woman who criticized other people’s versions of “guessing the types” on the same forum. Her words seemed to me more convincing than those of other “experts” of the theory, as these words contained some logic and some coincidences with reality. This is how I met engineer Olha Kovalchuk.

It was in 2013 that we started corresponding and discussing certain aspects of socionics. As a result, after a joint study of Augustinaviciute’s socionics theory and Jung’s work, we saw a clear need to create our own scheme with logically correct theory, as we really found errors in socionics before.

Thus came our work called “Compact Socionics” (originally called “Практичная соционика” in 2013), which is in fact a logical theory of socionics with innovations in it. Also this theory is an engineering scheme and critique of the works of our predecessors in the field of socionics.

The word “socionics” has been retained by us in the name of our work only for the purpose that Augustinavičiūtė herself had previously asked her admirers to call this new field “socionics”. We originally wrote our book (“Практичная соционика”, 2013) in another language and later published it in paper version only in 2020.

We also launched a free public website back in 2015, where you could familiarize yourself with the scheme and theory. In 2024 our book was translated into English and we added something new to it, calling this book “Compact Socionics”. You can purchase this book from us here.

A world typology.

When “Compact Socionics” was completed and the scheme was created, Olha and I continued to collect facts from reality that relate directly to the topic of socionics or have a connection with it. This is how the typology you now see on this website began to be born. All the typology phenomena and patterns described here were not spelled out or specified in “Compact Socionics”, because that is already our practice, not a theory. The eight innate groups, their regular relationships, innate color, the nature map for your group and type, developmental and destructive qualities (and groups), the cause of Alzheimer’s, dementia and Parkinson’s are only a small part of our typology based on facts and logic.

“Compact socionics” was just our own theoretical framework and starting point for us to see further facts in nature, their interrelationships and also to create a logical extension in this field. In other words, all you see here is the field of human innate thinking and its repeatable relationships. Why innate? Why new field? Why inherited? The theory and schema of “Compact Socionics” does hint to us that there is a connection between this field and genetics. And there is a missing discipline in science, that should work with innate, inherited and unchangeable thinking and relationships of living beings.

Whereas psychology is not the science of innate thinking, but of what can be changed in a person, hence acquired. These are two different fields, with different goals and meanings. And it does not matter at all that one science has existed for more than a hundred years, and the other is still little known due to the fact that different scientists have different types of thinking, different experience and level of understanding of this information.

That is why we have created this consistent theory and scheme, books and system for you and every scientist to put your brain to work. From there, it’s up to you. We’ve done all we can for you and if we discover anything else new, we’ll check it out and publish it here. So, its now your turn to work and help us work hard, especially those who understand concrete logic, facts and their importance.

Epilogue.

Our history here is not really about me and Olha, but about all of us, people on planet Earth. Everything that has happened and is happening in the world is our common history and the consequence of our actions or inaction. Believe me, any power is mistaken if they think that everything will always be fine. But typology tells us that nature works the same way for everyone, regardless of wealth or power level.