Interview with Alexander Bukalov

Interview with Alexander Bukalov on Socionics

Aleksander Bukalov is an Ukrainian socionics specialist, doctor of psychology, director of the International Institute of Socionics (IIS) (International Institute of Socionics (IIS).

Interview conducted by Anna Roman:

Good afternoon, Alexander. Thank you for letting us interview you and answer our questions. It is lovely to meet you.Please, tell us about yourself in a few words, About your work in Socionics, how you started your work in this field, about the accomplishments or advances that you have already achieved

As for now, I serve as a director of the International Institute of Socionics. We founded it in 1991, 25 years ago, quite a long time. it all began when I while studying cybernetics, I hold a degree in cybernetics and physics, I understood that…I was dealing with the subject of creating artificial intelligence, back when I was a student, I understood… that the existing approaches didn’t describe… the principles of psychological processes modeling right. That’s why I started to study psychology and very soon I discovered Carl Gustav Jung’s psychology. There are different psychological functions and different ways of data processing and in Jung’s construct I saw new approaches to solve the problem of artificial intelligence, because human psychic is very diverse. Different forms of information processing and perception.

So it happened that when during the final years in our university… I was occupied with this… I drilled down Jung’s typology, studied a number of aspects concerned with psychology and psychoanalysis and when I began working in the field of modeling various processes, I got familiar with Socionics, which had just started to widespread. The year was 1986. In 1985, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė came to Kiev to give lectures on invitation of the Institute of Cybernetics. It was the biggest institute of Cybernetic in the former Soviet Union.

During one of the conferences they found out about Socionics. It happened during a bionics conference in Ukraine. Aušra’s students came from Kaunas, a city not far from Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. And they just gave a report that there’s a new approach to the modeling of psychics.

This aroused much interest and great debates.

Among the reporters was Nikolai Nikolayevich Medvedev. He was the head of the radio-electronics department in a Research Establishment in Kaunas. It was a paramilitary university. Everything worked for the defense in the USSR. Nevertheless, he did that report, it attracted much interest, and as a result Aušra Augustinavičiūtė came to Kiev. She gave lectures in the Institute of Cybernetics, in our main Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

So it happened that under the influence of her reports and seminars a community of various specialists formed in Kiev, including cybernetics, psychologists, sociologists, biologists…and other educators, of course.

That formed a vision about Socionics…which grew into a working seminar very fast.

As a result, within this seminar…I, Victor Bulenko, Vladimir Yermak, Gregory Shulman, and many others started developing a number of ideas in the field of Socionics.

In 1986 the first great conference about Socionics was held in Poltava. It’s about 200-250 km away from Kiev, an old city. About 80 specialists from all over the USSR, from Baltics Aušra Augustinavičiūtė was there too, so was Ukraine, Siberia, Saint Petersburg. It was a huge conference which lasted for almost a week. And it showed that there was a great amount of interest in this issue.

After that there were usual annual conferences. The next one was in Siberia, in the Altai region, In Novosibirsk, Altai. Three days in Novosibirsk, near the Katun river. Yeah, in such conditions. As a result of us working together there was a very rapid formation of Socionics in Kiev.

The Socionics School in Kiev developed a number of new ideas that refined and developed the foundational ideas. That were proposed by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė. It has to do with the model about and introduction of functional dimensions. My works are about this, also with differentiated description of each type, the connection between
health psychoanalysis and type of person.

After this happened a generalization of Socionics, something we call Integral Socionics and Ethnosocionics. It is related to the fact that we can build informational description, an analogue of informational model for any collective, which we use in the university. And for further analysis of such vague terms, like nation’s mentality, ethnic mentality, folk mentality or government mentality…or mentality of some association, civil or political. So it can be described not just like a type but like a certain information structure…and then we can understand just like with humans…what strengths and weaknesses can this structure have, what is a motivation for action, and so on.

That’s why there are a lot of issues but…within the Kiev School we’ve made a lot of works. At first we printed them, made reports at conferences, because every year there were sometimes even two conferences in spring and autumn in the Baltic States, in Lithuania, Vilnius, Palanga, on the shore of the Baltic Sea…were held two conferences a year.

Since 1991, when USSR collapsed, the sixth Socionics conference was held in Palanga, thanks to the Latvian school’s efforts.

The seventh one was held near Kiev in autumn. It was our Institute of Socionics, we held the conference and after the USSR collapse great Socionics conferences are held in or near Kiev, the capital of Ukraine.

Last autumn, in September of 2015, we held the 31st International Socionics conference. There will be the 32nd conference this year. A lot of specialist of various fields gather and share their works in pedagogy of education, management, medicine, cybernetics, etc.

Now, about more earlier works…During the conference in Poltava in 1986 there were a number of works
from the Kiev School. I also made a report talking about a number of new works which hadn’t been written by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė yet. She approved them, and I started to publish them.

One of the large works had a very long scientific name, about the mechanism of formation of informational metabolism functions during the birth of an individual. It explained how the type is formed during the perinatal period, when a person is in embryonic state and later is born, and the aspects of function formation related to it, psychic functions or functions of informational metabolism, their individual characteristics and at the same time…not only what Socionics is concerned with but also the aspects of unconscious behavior of a person.

So, we are talking about individual configuration and using the works of Stanislav Grof, a famous psychiatrist. I showed that there’s a very clear connection between
accentuation and characteristics of a type and characteristics of birth process…Yeah, the characteristics of birth process.

The fact is, perinatal medicine and perinatal psychology outline 4 phases of birth, and each phase has its own Socionic component. As it turned out, it’s not only related to what Socionics describes but also to underconsciousness and superconsciousness. A person bears an imprint of the birth phase in a certain way which is connected to the formation of belonging to quadra. 4 birth phases correspond to 4 quadras: alpha, beta, gamma, delta. As a result, not only mental make-up forms, but also health aspects. Why? Because if some chemical substances affected an embryo or alcohol, etc, it will show on a certain stage. If during birth there was some mechanical interference, it will also affect person’s health. There are types that have spine or head problems, because their skull was pushed…problems with intestines and so on. So, these health aspects are well observed in some types and explain why people might have such problems in the long run.

Interviwer: Can we believe that there is some connection of perinatal development period with person’s mental and physical health and his type?

Bukalov: Yes, yes, yes.

I just put together what Grof’s patients described, when he studied perinatal psychology with the use of LSD, and the descriptions accepted in Socionics, and it turned out that there was a very strong correlation. You should study my work very carefully, it’s more than 20 pages, where I showed how psychic and type are formed.

So, when a person is born, its type has already formed. Then this type crystallizes, it stabilizes, and after that the type can’t be changed. It can only get covered with layers of environment influence.

When Stanislav Grof found out about Socionics, he introduced the concept of a system of compensated experience, when there is some basic event that forms the basis of mental configuration, and then on the principle of association other events are layered on top of it.

Let’s say there was some traumatic basis event and on the principle of emotions adjacency and so on…with fear or some other feelings…such pyramid forms. A pyramid that drags on to adulthood. That’s why the effectiveness of psychotherapy often depends on the level. If it’s neurosis, then it’s up to a psychotherapist, because you can cure of teenage angst, but it often turns out that it’s based on a more concrete child basis.

That’s what Freud was talking about, but he took the sideline. He was too concerned with the ideas of sexual character and so on. It’s only a particular case, but even if we manage to heal the child basis then a level of perinatal stresses will occur.

It’s also called the Rank’s level.

Otto Rank was one of Freud’s students who said that childhood stresses are secondary to perinatal. For that Freud expelled him. That’s how he treated his students which diverged from his teachings.

But Grof also called this level the Rank’s level or perinatal level. As it turns out, this is the basic level which forms the type and many mental and physical problems. Because a lot of unconscious tensions build up in it. This is related to the mental and physical levels. There are special techniques used to uncover them in adults.

You should just know and understand this. I managed to find a relationship between a type and…a cluster of problems that might exist in a person. Jung himself meant his typology for understanding from which side to approach a person. Because in order to look through the strong first function you have to pass the unconscious function. Because, as he said, in our terms it’s the 5th-6th function, it’s an unconscious form of a person. He talked just about an ordinary unconscious function.

After this work and…let’s say…understanding of the fact that Socionics is a self-similar structure, there’s such word, fractal…or self-similarity. I can describe it this way.

Let’s say, we look at a tree and see its branches. But if we look at the branches, then we’ll see that the bigger branches consist of the smaller ones. Right? And so it goes to infinity. That’s the fractal principle. If we look at the structure of Socionics as a whole, we’ll see that it’s based on the fractal principle as well.

Why? Because on the one hand we have Aušra Augustinavičiūtė’s Socionics, a science about socion and a socion device of humanity. Because there are 16 types that are interconnected with informational links. These form the psycho-informational system we call socion.

But after this we have a division into 4 groups, quadras.

Quadra consists of 4 types. Each of these types in its turn consists of 4 functions of a mental ring. So, we end up with a complex structure, and we can work with a person
on an individual level. We can work on a dyal, square level. We can work on a higher level. And then we consider these characteristics to design various optimal approaches.

Interviewer: Am I correct to assume that this was your first and most important research?

Bukalov: It was a series of works about the formation of types in a perinatal matrix, about socion’s fractality. The next became a revelation and gets cited and used a lot, it’s about that each psychic function has its own structure. It has its dimension. The first function has 4 active dimensions. The second one has three. Before that we didn’t understand what was their difference. We just said that -even Aušra said that- the first function is stronger than the second, the second is stronger than the third.

Interviewer: Give us an example of these functions.

Bukalov: For example, let’s look at a logical-intuitive introvert.
Analyst (Robespierre)…and his first function is system logic…or white logic. The second function is called basic or program. The second function is creative. It is intuition of possibilities. The third function is a role function, it’s relation ethics. And the fourth, the function of external resistance or painful function. This is volitional sensorics, or black sensorics. It is denoted by a black circle.

As a result, when people said that the first function is the strongest one. Well, everyone knew that it’s the strongest one.

Carl Gustav Jung identified 8 types, not 16 but 8, by the presence of the first function. He even didn’t divide types by the second function. He said there were logically-inverted types. And Socionics identified logically-intuitive or logically-sensory types.

But then a question arose. Well, okay…So, Socionics already had 16 types. Then a question arose.

Okay, there’s the strongest function, there’s the second and it’s active too,
but it acts a bit different. But what is their difference? Qualitatively and quantitatively? What is the difference of the role function, which is even weaker?

Well, at least one person is trying to cooperate.

And finally, why there is the fourth painful function, which is very weak and so on?

And it turned out that when I introduced the concept of dimensions I managed to describe it so well.

The first function of 4-dimensional, there are 4 vectors which cover the whole space of this logic. There’s a globality vector, vector of situations, vector of social norms, and vector of personal experience.

The second creative function is also strong, but it doesn’t have the globality vector. It always acts locally, here and now, as the occasion requires.

The third function is 2-dimensional. It has only social norms and personal experience. That’s why when a someone deals with something completely new they get confused.

And finally, the fourth painful function has only one dimension. It’s a function of personal experience. Although, if someone hasn’t experienced something personally, even if they were taught some rules, but they hadn’t experience them, and they hadn’t learned to apply, like behavior rules or driving rules, etc, then for them these rules are nothing. And any reprimand or facing the need to go outside the personal experience causes unpleasant psychological tensions, negative emotions which affect their health.

Thus psychosomatic syndromes develop, and the person might develop stress, psychosomatic aspects suffer, and as a result, the person develops psychosomatic disease. It might be connected to heart, lungs, liver, depending on the type.

Same goes for other functions of vital ring. There are just 8 functions.

Since Socionics is not only a theory of personality type, but is also a theory of inter-type relations, it turned out that relationships between people are also well described.

Moreover, judging by the length of these vectors, vectors of situations and so on, you can analyze the individual profile of a person, not just type but person, and features of his relationships with other people. Not just type but a certain variant, with certain developed vectors of situations, personal experience, etc.

Of course, it gives us a great rise, because we move from 16 abstract types to a more individual space.

Unfortunately, many don’t understand that Socionics has moved on from a naive idea of just 16 types on theory and practice a long time ago. We can now work on an individual level.

Interviewer: So, what else is taken into account in addition to the 16 types?

Bukalov: Of course! Because when we provide personal consultations or consultations in the field of management, reorganization of teams, recruiting, creating new teams, we very carefully study this individual configuration, keeping in mind who is the top manager.

Interviewer: I understood. Good. You’ve mentioned your collaboration with Aušra. Please, tell us how you’ve met her and Gregory Rainin? And what collaboration did you have?

Bukalov: Well, we only had discussions with Aušra. We met in 1986 in Poltava. She had just arrived. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to visit her lectures in 1985. But I was aware of them. We met in Poltava and talked a lot because we belonged to the same type. We had a friendly relationship, so we had things to discuss. In this sense we discussed a lot of things. I told her about some new ideas, she commented on them. And thus there was such a…Well, we’ve met many times, because many conferences were held in Lithuania. Then she came to Ukraine to visit conferences. She had been our consultant for a long time in the International Socionics Institute. She lectured in Vilnius and in our institute. Since she was №1 in Socionics, she had always spoken at conferences, till 1998. That’s why we discussed a lot of things.

As for Gergory Rainin, we met in 1987. I was going to Leningrad, it’s called Saint Petersburg now. He couldn’t attend to conference, that’s why I didn’t see him then.

But when I came to Leningrad, I met him and…well, I had already been acquainted with some Leningrad socionists, which had been in Poltava and in Katun. That’s why they introduced me to Rainin right away. We discussed a lot of things too, including the aspects of perinatal matrices, as he was also familiar with Grof’s works. He had his own hypothesis and we discussed all of that. Well, I can’t say that we had collaborative works with two names. But we discussed various ideas, concepts, testing methods. At that time he obtained a diploma in…well…he reviewed all known typologies and showed that all of them came down to the figure 16, plus-minus 4. That is, clinical, psychiatric, psychological—all danced around the figure 16. So, he made a logical conclusion that one mental structure is behind all of this, it is described in Socionics. He brilliantly defended this diploma and later on wrote a thesis, and became Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology and then in Socionics. That’s why I was working on a number of typologies too. We did a lot of work comparing different typologies, Licko, Kretschmer, Leonhard, and others, from Socionics point of view. That’s why we had a lot of topics to discuss. Plus, when his work about groups came out, we conducted researches in these groups. In Kiev, within our Socionics seminar, we had a lot of people, including students. And we modeled different groups on students –
5 such experiments. All over the world psychology is carried out on the students. Maybe you know, specially in the US or UK, 1-2 year students serve the role of guinea pigs. We also had quite a lot students taking interest in Socionics, that’s voluntarily participated in groups experiments. And we checked how these groups worked. Of course, there were control groups. There was also a random group that carried out similar tasks. We could say that only groups of social mandate worked very effective, or a group of 4 types that are interlinked with social mandate relations.

That’s one ring. There are 4 such rings. They can also be called brainstorm rings. Because tasks given to such rings get solved more effectively than by random people. Potentials and tacit knowledge of each person get uncovered very effectively.

Later on besides these we got other works.

Since 1990, before the foundation of the institute, we started consulting management. Market economy started developing and everyone began thinking about their teams’ effectiveness. So, we started consulting in this field. It turned out that Socionics works really well. We were getting invitations to various companies.

Then we got invited to Moscow by a soon-to-be millionaire. He had a big publishing house. So, he invited us, and we helped him. Then it so happened that we worked with one Moscow bank. And this bank worked with Siberia. In the Nadym city it worked with a local office of Zapsibkombank, which served Gazprom. Or rather that association which carries out gas recovery in the north. Just so you understand the scale -it’s about 40% of European gas. Dymovo, Pangody…that’s a great association, 12,000 people, 30 companies. That’s the scale. The bank was adopting an operating system, and the IT guys recommended us to this Siberian bank. We worked with it then. It made a very strong impression on the bosses.

Interviewer: How did you work with them?

Bukalov: They invited us. The situation was that the bank’s manager
had gone on a business trip the day before we arrived. And we worked with the collective, about 80 people. We tested and talked with them. Then we made layouts for teams, gave recommendations. We made a report and so on.

The most interesting part is that we understood what type of personality did the bank manager have. And we left an envelope for her containing her description, psychological and socionical, in three pages. It started like this: “We think that you…”

We gave this envelope to her assistant. We missed each other, unfortunately, but when she opened the envelope and read it, she was very impressed. So much that after 2-3 months she recommended us to the CEO of this association, who was just…well…Just so you understand. He was 35 years old from junior management of this association and was given the CEO post. The one who appointed him went to the central office of Gazprom. And so, a new CEO, 35 years old. He has only 12 deputy CEO’s. Each is older than him by 15 years or even 20.

Bisons. North bisons

He was managing the collective, of course. It was much smaller, though. And suddenly he gets told that there are people that can count his collective and give recommendations for each in his office. He says, ‘Call them immediately!’

Since the bank served the company and they met regularly due to socionical laws they understood each other very well.

We worked with the bank in winter. In autumn we arrived on invitation to Gazprom, and we had been working with them from 1993 till 2000.

Yeah, so long.

We arrived 2 times a year for a month. And in this way we worked.

Interviewer: What have you achieved?

Bukalov: First, we looked at his team, his management team…because it’s a very complex structure. There were 12… 13… 14 deputies. Deputies of finance, economy, energy, agriculture, and so on. That’s a local economic mainstay of 30 enterprises of various fields. One company -Nadynga Servic- included several hotels, leisure clubs, canteens, cafes, sanatorium, etc. Medicine is separate, because it is very important in the north, and so on…So, there were many various [inaudible]and so on. And we slightly reconfigured this team, so he could understand he first of all needed to rely on a line of commands. After that we gave him a layout of all management. It was about 100 people. Among these 100 people there were only directors and managers, heads of departments and their deputies. Just imagine the scale. Then we started to work with specific enterprises, with managers once again. We finished working on the top.“Yeah, everything’s great!”

He checked it out for half a year. Everything matches.

“Come back again!”

So we had been working like that for a few years. Then he was given a raise in Moscow. Right now he is the head of one of the Gazprom’s departments. Well, but we had been still working there till 2000. After that the team switched and, well…crisis broke out, a new team came to Gazprom, and they made changes. But it turned out that all of the predictions we made…they worked for a long time. When we made a part of work with the personnel service…Because usually corporations just…gather information about a person, their previous job experiences and so on. That’s our candidates pool. Is he able to take on the head of the department position or not? We were working at a more specific level. Out of this array we chose those who are more promising. Well, and how good will we work together with other colleagues on each level and with superiors in corporate relations? And in this way we change candidates pool and as a result a number of enterprises was reorganized. Some even merged. This optimized salaries really well, taking into account high north salaries, and a number of other aspects of management, and so on.
So actually, we were working so much…because it gave real and tangible result.

I can also tell you about one interesting mashup.

The thing is, Gazprom has its own sociological and psychological services,
and an institute in Tyumen, not only in Moscow. And we worked with one of the building departments, which build winter roads mostly…within the complex of enterprises. The head of this department says:

“Oh, that’s the first time I see a report I can work with. I’ve been tested here already”, and he brings two thick folders from a shelf:

“Here I was tested in Moscow and in Tyulen”

So what that I’ve been tested along with my colleagues with MPI tests? So what if my accountant has 60% of para-loyalty? I couldn’t care any less!

Or the main engineer has some percent of schizoidness.

What should I do with it? I don’t know!

“But you have 2-3 pages of recommendations.
Everything is clear!”

Socionics allows not to describe the whole person. It’s possible to describe a person. There are hundreds of psychological tests for that. It allows to see the most important thing about a person…in terms of some of his working characteristics.

Socionics also allows to compress a lot of data about a person into very concise recommendations. Because the name of the type itself, let’s say a “Logical-intuitive introvert”, it carries colossal information. You can expand it to 100 pages…or not. This draws conclusions:

“This one gets this position, that one gets that position, and this one should be a chief, and it works. And his deputies should be this one, this one, and this one”. Preferably. Everything should be implied as the occasion demands. Simple experience shows that when our recommendations were followed everything worked out.

I remember, in 2003 on a “Business Psychology” conference in Saint Petersburg, it was a very big conference, all over Russia and CIS, about 150 participants. There were top-managers, personnel managers. And when I was delivering a report about how we work with Socionics, including Gazprom, in the north. What’s Russian High North—freezing cold, -35-40°C, very treacherous weather, it might be -40°C today…and the next day it might be +2°C because the wind blows from the Kara Sea, it’s the Arctic Ocean, or from the continent. Why do they build and watch over winter roads? Because if you don’t care about them today, tomorrow they’ll melt, and everything will get stuck. That’s why they must be constantly looked after. And building in permafrost is very tough, because it might melt and tumble down. That’s why global warming poses a great threat for the north. Because the soil in this ice is very unstable.

Yeah, so, after my report I was approached by a personnel director of a paper integrated plant. This integrated plant produces about 40-50% of office papers. For the CIS as well, not only for Russia. And he said “You know, we were bought by a Western company, we have Western management, technologies, we’re testing employees all the time. For each employee we have about 100 pages of psychological data. We don’t know what to do with it. And you solve the problems we can’t even find.”

What is the advantage of Socionics? We don’t need 100 pages. You can expand it if you want. But these 100 pages won’t help us to decide where to effectively put a person. That’s very important. Yeah, and the most remarkable thing is that after I made my report, the next day there was a spontaneous demand for the participants, so that the organizers of the conference would invite us next year. About the methods of Socionics and Management. The official participants were asked. The interest was so high. After that we started to get invited a lot. We worked a lot in Siberia and the Irkutsk region, with local companies and holdings, and other big companies. They turned out to be more susceptible.

Our experience shows that Socionics is very effective in this field.

Let’s go further.

Interviewer: What do you think, on what stage of development is Socionics as a science right now, and what should be polished or developed more?

Bukalov: Well, on what stage, let’s see…Since 1995 we’ve been publishing a Socionics magazine. That’s our first magazine, “Socionics, Methodology and Psychology of Personality”. Here are another 2 magazines that have been published since 2012, “Psychology, Socionics of Commercial Relations”, “Management and Staff”, “Management Psychology, Socionics and Sociology”.

When Socionics started to get actively applied in pedagogy, psychotherapy, management, this brought a lot of people who required it for their work. It’s scientific. Today Socionics is more than 1,000 dissertations of various fields: pedagogy, jurisprudence, psychology, psychotherapy, sport, sociology. Almost all humanitarian sciences. People using technologies, computer systems…So, human-machine complexes are…Dissertations have been defended about this and methods of Socionics. We obtained a socionical model of interacting not only with humans, but with the outside world as well.

Many try to say that Socionics is just a primitive set of 16 types. That’s the lowest level of understanding Socionics. That’s a level of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Yeah, so I’ve mentioned these. We also have a magazine researching the fundamentals of psychic and consciousness, “The Physics of Consciousness and Life”, “Cosmology Astrophysics”. There are 2 magazines like this. The 2nd is called NeuroQuantology.
It is [not?]published in English. But we plan to publish in English too. And there was a magazine that is not published anymore, “Pedagogy. Psychology and Socionics of Education”. It’s not published because crisis broke out…and we couldn’t make it a subscription edition. Also we have another magazine, “The Origin of the Language and Culture”. That’s a more cultural magazine with historians. But Socionics allows to describe the society as well. There are many models of mentality of countries and nations, international relations fit it very well…and predicting…A model of interaction of USA’s mentality with mentality of the Arab world…Latin-American world…or Brazil or Ecuador, how it interacts with Western Europe…Britain’s mentality…How it interacts with Russia…or Ukraine. There’s a whole lecture course available online. I am working on a book about that. It is dedicated to the expansion of Socionics. As it turns out, the form of state, culture, religion are interlinked with integral type…and they interact with each other in a certain way too. The world history, the way we see it, is interactions of world leaders…. with people’s mentality. That can be seen very well when people accept or don’t accept, or they can be excited at first and then disappointed. All of this is described very well with intertype relations, withing integral Socionics. And of course, a managers team or political team must be described very well with these things. Many people are interested in this. I hope that by the end of the year or early next year the book will be published regarding this question.

Interviewer: Let’s hope. Tell us about each magazine in more detail. About the research and observations.

Bukalov: I also have a published book. Do you want me to show it to you?

Interviewer: Yes, of course.

Bukalov: Then give me a minute.

Interviewer: Ok.

Bukalov: Let’s get it in the right order. About how Socionics is developing. In addition to magazines there’s a great number of scientific works. If you look in Google Scholar library…Google Scholar Service allows to see most of the scientific publications. Not popular but scientific. If we look into Google Scholar we might find about 2,000. Or if you enter “Socionics” in Ukrainian, there will be around 2,200 . If we look in the scholarly library Russian Science Citation Index…we’ll find about 1,250 publications. What’s surprising is that they update everyday a lot of university chairs work with or are interested in Socionics. Socionics is taught as a subject in more than 180 universities in the CIS and Eastern Europe. You can find out more in the “Tradition” encyclopedia, because Russian Wikipedia describes it very poorly. There is the “Tradition” Socionics or Medical encyclopedia on Socionics. They describe a lot of things, even programs in universities. So, there are 180 universities, including MSU, Sociological department developed Bachelor program in Socionics. Yeah, it was developed by sociological department and approved by MSU’s principal. In a number of other universities too. Plus in a number of universities Socionics is being taught in 2 departments. There’s the Samara State Aerospace University. Socionics is taught there by the departments of Management and Psychology. Philosophers analyze their own terms within Socionics, and so do managers. And plus this is because we produce our magazines. Since information gets spread, people read it and take this knowledge. Our magazine is the most important: “Socionics. Methodology, Psychology of a Personality”. We plan in the next two months to make a pilot in English. An online publication. We hope people will like it and we’ll be able to continue producing it. This magazine has been published for 21 years. It comes out 6 times a year. Of course, it’s the most important magazine. The second magazine, “Management and Staff”, is dedicated to the aspects of management…and applying the methods of socionics in management. It’s not only about Socionics but about organizational psychology also. The emphasis is on socionical methods. It has been published since 2003. For 12 years has also been published the “Psychology and Socionics of Interindividual Relations” magazine. It’s more about pedagogy, psychology, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis. Once again, everything is through the prism of Socionics. The theory describing basic psychic structures. Here’s our magazine, “The Physics of Consciousness and Life”, which we…well…We tried to describe psychic and its processes more fundamentally from a physical point of view. There’s also biophysics and other aspects. What is called anthropic principles based on a living in the cosmic context, what is called
biosphere and cosmos and so on.

Interviewer: So that’s not really related to Socionics?

Bukalov: No, it’s not. It’s rather about the connection between psychic and physical processes.

Back when our “Pedagogy” magazine had been published… “Psychology and Socionics”, it was in the context of education and attitude. Now these articles are published in “Psychology and Socionics” magazine. In this case readers didn’t miss a thing.

Interviewer: All of the articles are written by you, right?

Bukalov: No, we have a lot of authors. All of the 2,000 articles and others are written by about 100 specialists gather at our conference every year.
Those are the most active authors. We also have a lot of authors from university chairs. We have candidates, doctors. There are socionical laboratories in a number of universities which develop one or another aspects. For example, evaluation of a sport, the necessity of teamwork, teamplay in figure skating, and so on.

Does that make sense? This a real developing field, which gives real results.

There was a curios case. A MIA lieutenant-general Alferov, unfortunately, he died in a car-crash. He was a famous psychologist in this field, and he published a study “Penitentiary Socionics”. It is based on the relations in a criminal environment, and interactions of officers with this environment.


So, yeah, Socionics is used on such level. There are a lot of applicable aspects. I’ll talk about this a little more. And the last magazine, “The Origin of the Language and Culture”, it touches upon the aspects of ancient cultures, integral types, mentality. Many historical processes can be understood by using Socionics. Because it allows not only see the layout of present situation, but it also contains an instrument, description of what might happen, evolution of organization. So there are certain stages of development which are described very well by these instruments and concepts. We even can say which stage the organization is on and what leaders are required on this certain stage. On the next stage they will fade into the background and others will take their place. And if they won’t go, a crisis will break out. Either a production crisis or sales crisis…or maybe structural crisis. This was traced by us time and time again, discussed with executives, and it was all checked, of course.

In 2009 I published my book, based on a number of studies: “The Potential of the Individual and Mysteries of Human Relationships”. It’s only the 1st part, I am preparing the 2nd part of the same volume. Well, it’s pretty thick, about 500 pages. Actually, it’s a textbook on Socionics with examples. That’s why if someone will be interested in its publishing…or at least publishing a part of it, we can talk about it.

If we are to talk about the use of Socionics today… where is it used the most? In management, as I said.

Second—manned cosmonautics. In a Star City in order to prepare stronauts…Socionics has been used since 1992. So, 24 years already. Doctor of Medicine professor Bardyshevsky engaged in this. He visited our conferences on multiple occasions, and told us about the use of Socionics, consulted with us, of course. Till this day Socionics is used for checking astronauts’ compatibility. When they are thrown into a survival training in desert or taiga or somewhere else, an official report is made
about their survival training. And there’s a book of Sergey Zhukov available online. It’s simply called “Become an Astronaut”!

Interviewer: He writes about it, right?

Bukalov: He writes about it and cites a fragment of a report about the use of Socionics. There are characteristics of a commander, flight engineer, and so on. And summary: what is the degree of compatibility… using the data about a week of survival. You realize it’s a whole week in a desert or taiga. Not that easy.

Interviewer: Yeah, that’s right.

Bukalov: It is available! By the way, you have a link with a quote in those electronic encyclopedias I mentioned. You’ll find everything in them.

Where else is Socionics used? Where it is crucial to get the best staff compatibility. That’s aviation Socionics, there is such field. It is being developed both in Russia and Ukraine. In Saint Petersburg there’s a 20 years old Malyshevskiy group. It’s commercial aviation. In Ukraine too. In Kiev and Kirovograd. It’s a Flying School and…with commercial aviation. And even if you’ll look at the prep program of air staff officially accepted by the Department of the Transportation, it is prescribed to study Aviation Socionics. There are 2 topics: Classic Socionics, Aviation Socionics, staff compatibility and…what I was talking about, analysis of air staff interactions of this whole system. So, everything is developed and brought to the level of instructions, because it is that important.

So, there’s Cosmic Socionics, Aviation Socionics…there’s also Pedagogy Socionics. There’s a great amount of dissertations, about 1/4, is dedicated to pedagogy. A huge amount of studies. And a great amount of studies is used for interactions between teachers and students, motivation of students. So that students acquire required information and so on. Compatibility of students, some new approaches to cases…when there’s incompatibility of a teacher and student. Interactions within pedagogy environment. That’s well developed not only in the CIS but also in Bulgaria. The Siberian University published a study on this topic. So…Sociology is developing very well. Especially Integral Socionics. And where safety is a top priority. For example, in a number of nuclear stations there are staff testings so that during working time only
compatible people work. So there were no mistakes in management. Since we had the Chernobyl Disaster, and that’s very important…This information is available online too. In special textbooks on nuclear stations’ safety there’s a chapter called “The Basics of Socionics”. So, in that sense, Socionics has already become an applied science. There are very many ways to use it. I covered the most significant ones. For example, I know that Satom sets up summer schools every year…for the youth, for those who are under 30-35 years. And in every school there’s always a course of Socionics.

Interviewer: What do you think should be improved? What is not studied enough?

Bukalov: I would say… Actually, we have already studied a lot. Maybe there’s lacking… Let’s say… There’s a lack of mass application… or mass education, because in some regions it is done. For example, our experiments showed that 10-graders comprehend Socionics really well. The basics of Socionics, and people go in life being much more prepared. So they understand their strong points…and their weak points. The problem is not in research but in mass application of Socionics, especially in pedagogy and education. Because in management many Russian and Ukrainian, and Eastern European companies use methods of Socionics. Another thing is how they use them. Some use them in a simple way, some— sophisticated…depending on their qualification. I’d say there are 2 problems: pull up the general level of knowledge of Socionics, especially applied Socionics, and mass spreading, because in many universities students obtain information about Socionics, but not in all universities it is taught in great detail. Sometimes it’s just theoretical without any practice. This causes this disruption. As for research, a lot of research has been done. From the examples that I have cited, it is clear that, practically speaking, Socionics represents a well-developed tool. The question is to apply it wisely, and for this we just need to increase the qualification level. We’ve been certifying specialists in Socionics for a long time. There’s an International Scientific Council consisting of 20 PhD’s in Psychology, Sociology, including Socionics and Biology. And this council certifies specialists. And in addition to the fact that Socionics is not taught in universities, there’s also people who studied Socionics within socionical schools. They all get… as the second higher education, they obtain a bachelors or masters degree in Socionics. If they continue working hard and have a lot of works they can even earn PhD in Socionics. But there are a lot of Doctors already. For example, right now we have about 150 bachelors in Socionics, about 50 masters and 15 Doctors of Science. So, there’s such proportion. Each year several dozens bachelors graduate.

Interviewer: Have you ever worked with Victor Gulenko? Maybe you can tell us about your collaboration or his works?

Bukalov: We are colleagues and friends with Mr. Gulenko. For many years we’ve been communicating and collaborating. He really has a lot of interesting studies, especially the early ones. They are well cited and used. We don’t have studies with our names on them, but we share many mutual citations, because we’ve developed a lot ideas together. And Kiev Socionics School is… we started, although, there were other people too. But a lot of studies started from our discussions. And…without a doubt, Victor Gulenko is one of the leading socionists. In the past few years he began to work out. This model is on the stage of development and… let’s say it…is not really accepted by all specialists. But he is developing it and teaching. Concerning his studies in the 90’s and early 2000’s, they are very popular and they get cited and published a lot. Sometimes Victor Gulenko and his students conduct experimental checks of some socionical regularities in the field. And every year at the conference he reports about the inspection in the field of some behavioral socionical aspects. Well, and he also publishes these studies. Well, stuff like that.

Interviewer: Well, if we go beyond theoretical reasoning, what are the most significant experiments have you conducted? Or maybe Victor? What most significant experiments can you describe?

Bukalov: You see, I’ll say this. We’ve worked very hard with small groups. We’ve checked them during experiments first. Then we’ve observed in real conditions… and even in extreme conditions of the deep north. Then we’ve gathered many groups in the working environment at the enterprises. Not only in the far north but also here. And we had an opportunity to observe working people for years. You see. So these significant experiments take years.

What’s good about Socionics is that it’s not about swinging arms. If these people won’t be able to work together and in 6-7 months will fight and so on, it really is worth it. We have computer software which allows us to simulate a collective and calculate the degree of comfort for each person, to calculate integral types of this collective. We’ve been using computer technologies for a long time. Because it’s impossible to manually calculate a collective of more than 10 people. And since 1992 we’ve been using software which is improving, of course, to calculate any collective.

Interviewer: What devices do you use? How do you do it?

Bukalov: Well, we calculate a collective. When we enter the data the we’ve collected about the types and other parameters, our software tells us that this collective is characterized with such degree of stability, that’s his interaction rate specific numbers, how each team member feels himself. Actually, in some way it is an interaction rate of a person. If he has positive rates then he can be trusted…and he can do something more than now. If he has negative rates then he’s already failing or hardly managing.
As they say in the north: “What is the price of the issue?” Is it possible to teach a cat to smoke? Yes, it is. But why? Right? You can make a person to work under uncomfortable functions. You can. But he’ll start getting exhausted, making mistakes, etc. And you’ll get a disastrous result. We’ve seen people that had gray hair at 35. They feel ill at ease, right? People simply get worn out, get sick a lot. But they don’t get it. They think it’s all good, that it’s his own problem. But when you look it up, you see he has a ton of conflicts. People don’t get it. They think they are ok, but they are not ok. They get liver, kidney problems, etc.

Interviewer: By the way, yes. You say that you’ve studied health and Socionics’ influence on it…

Bukalov: Yes. I’d like to say that we have a big data base…and once we’ve thought about statistics of married couples, these statistics were not about couples that visited family counseling. They had to do with random people. Because when people work there in one city, husband works at one enterprise, wife—at another one, right? But when we put it all together, it turns out that they are married and we can easily count…well… people that haven’t complained about problems. So, there won’t by any sample distortion. And we’ve taken about 140 married couples that had been living in marriage from 2 to 40 years. And we’ve looked at the statistic. It turned out that the picture is totally marvelous…and fully matches socionical beliefs. Because in inner-quadral relations, one of the best, 65% are stable couples. If you add to that social order relations, which are also considered pleasant, that’s another 12%. Thus, 77% stable couples live in relations which are directly considered pleasant by Socionics. As for others, there are neutral, business, kindred and other relations. They compose about 20% and bad relations—a couple percents. About 0.5%-3% are relations of potential conflict and so on. But even in these 77% the first place take dual relations. What Aušra Augustinavičiūtė wrote about the dual nature of men, 45% of couples live in dual relations, according to our data. That is, 45% out of 65%. Other relations take up 20%. Mirror, identical, and activation. So, the 1st place take dual relations—45%, the 2nd place—social order relations—12%, the 3rd place—activation relations—10%, and 5-6% for mirror and identity relations. They aren’t as pleasant but are more pleasant than others. So, here you go. In this way we’ve accurately checked all of this and then…this article was published in the late 90’s. It’s actively cited. Then we’ve grown our statistics and nothing changes drastically.

Interviewer: What have you studied? Their health, some indicators?

Bukalov: We’ve studied the stability criterion of a married couple. Not health but stability. If they haven’t divorced in 2-3 years and continue to live in marriage, that’s a stability criterion. But they can live in an unhappy marriage. Some live in unhappy marriages, about 1-2% of conflict, 2-3% of revision, in business relations, illusory. We can’t say that they are happy, but also that they are very unhappy.

Interviewer: What impact on health do dual relations have?

Bukalov: Dual relations help and greatly impact health because people in dual relations…might get rid of phobias and fears.

Interviewer: For example?

Bukalov: Well, if someone has non-organic psychological problems related to old fears…or strict upbringing or something else…It’s not unusual in our time. And in dual relations it all goes away. In unpleasant relations it gets worse.

Interviewer: In conflict, right?

Bukalov: In conflict, revision and some other relations. Quadral relations are great, because they heal many problems. After living together for a long time, partners adjust to each other… and everything gets smooth. Dual relations have a very small number of divorces. And they improve mental and physical health.

Interviewer: And conflict?

Bukalov: Everything is different in conflict and revision relations. Even if partners protect themselves psychologically, it still affects subconsciousness. Because you can’t hide informational interactions and subconsciousness. And people develop psychosomatic diseases. For example, it will affect one’s eyes and kidneys of another one. We’ve seen a married couple with kids, they didn’t know anything about Socionics but they found a psychological exit. Every night, almost till 12, they had guests. Friends, neighbors, relatives, someone else…who diluted them. Then they went to sleep, went to work in the morning, and when they came back, someone was visiting them. And in this way they’ve been living for years. But what I said about eyes, liver, and kidneys, they had severe symptoms. In unhealthy marriages very often one partner shrivels. That’s a slim disease syndrome. “I am sick, don’t touch me”. Because once they do something, they get criticized the same moment. And all of this later comes in form of psychosomatic diseases. So, people in dual relationships even live longer. Right? The thing is in Petersburg…physicians and others made experiments…I probable have told you already.

Interviewer: Yes, you did.

Bukalov: That we just sorted them by quadras, and then we applied… A number of psychotherapists gather groups by diads or quadras. There is collective psychotherapy, it is better to gather such groups for it by diadras or quadras. Efficiency increases greatly. And there are psychotherapists that use special formulas of influencing people to cure of bad habits. Smoking, for example. So, there are verbal formulas that affect
activation function of a person, personality type carrier. This verbal formula is told this person from time to time, during psychotherapy. And they write that the result is great. That just works. Same goes for the treatment of phobias. You can know how information looks in model. You can work over one phobia with each function on vital and mental ring. And this will cure a person from his initial phobias. Fear of darkness, rats, and so on.

Interviewer: How do you think… is there something in dual relations that
makes them special? Or is there something to prove that dual are not the best relations?

Bukalov: Well, dual relations give a feeling of safety and comfort, and mutual supportiveness. When people understand each other not just at a glance…You’ve just thought of it, and the other person has already done it…That’s an interesting phenomenon. Because there’s a synchronization of data processing in mental processes. That is amazing. I used to live in a dual marriage myself. I can say for sure that… You don’t have to say a word, as it’s already happening. That’s the duality phenomenon. Activation relations are very good too but they are very bright, strong…They are too energetic, that’s why they are more rare. There are probably more people that live active dynamic lives with frequent separations. For example, actors. Their marriages are very often short. Because of tours, shootings, and so on. Many reactions of people are due to, as Aušra Augustinavičiūtė noticed, people have dual nature. Most of our involuntary actions are unconsciously intended for our dual partner to accept. Sometimes if people belong to different types they might not understand them. You see. But people send personality signals because of the dual aspect. There are quadral aspects and more complex, but first above all people show their dual nature.

Interviewer: And what about conflict relations? They are opposite, right?

Bukalov: We all know about the American Myers–Briggs typology. There are 16 types also. They are very similar to socionical, but the problem is that they didn’t go further. A simple human typology and Myers-Briggs typology are on the lowest level. And then there’s the structure of psychic. That’s the basics of Socionics. Then how information is processed, how intertype relations form. There’s my article about it.
About the level of perception and understanding of Socionics. It is available in our large socionical library of the Institute of Socionics. So, there’s my article, which shows… Of course, when people first get into this topic, at first they understand separate personal features. Rationality, irrationality, logic, ethics. Then they realize there are types, just like Myers-Briggs. And then comes Socionics with psychic functions or functions of informational exchange, that they are connected in a system,
they process information. They interact and people constantly get into intertype relations or psychological relations. That is Socionics. There’s no such thing in any typology, including Myers-Briggs. I’ve read article in a newspaper the other day. A journalist student studied Myers-Briggs in a college, in many colleges and universities they are tested. And then she found out about Socionics and wrote “Did you know that Myers-Briggs sucks in comparison to Socionics, and Socionics is 2.0. These versions are common to them, right? And you should study Socionics”. So she wrote it, and I accidentally found this article online. There’s understanding that Myers-Briggs had played its role. It is very widespread, because it’s the USA. And USA’s technologies cover the whole world, right? But if we take Eastern Europe and CIS, Myers-Briggs typology did not stick here. Because its place was taken by Socionics. And everyone could see how superior Socionics was. Although, many are impressed with 16 types.
And we say, “Wow, it’s the lowest step”. And everyone’s like, “Yeah?”. We attended psychology conference in Krakow, Britain and Eastern Europe. And they were very impressed with our theses and proposed us to hold a symposium within the Congress. It’s about half a day, 3 reports with arguments. Well, that is… They held only 2 symposiums within the Congress, so you know. Ours and another one. They were so impressed. And there was this Myers-Briggs typology professor from Chicago. He was very impressed. And he said, “Yes, that’s a far more developed system”. Now Socionics got to Internet, many know about it. Everything is heading towards understanding that Myers-Briggs is yesterday news…and its place will be naturally taken by Socionics. That’s just the next stage of development. The problem with Myers-Briggs is that we understand how the type is built and they mixed up…Well, they know that the type has 2 functions, and they mixed these 2 functions up in a number of types. This led to cessation of its progress about 40 years ago. Yes, knowing that there are types, they made very detailed descriptions. And that’s it. They can’t say anything about intertype relations…because they have nothing to build them from. Moreover, without understanding this…There’s a professor, David W. Keirsey, who popularized this typology. He wrote a book “Please Understand Me”, and in the early 1970’s he popularized Myers-Briggs typology. Before that it wasn’t very famous. And he tried to understand their relations and simply postulated. “Let’s say that the best relations comply with the proverb…opposites attract”. So, all scales must be opposite. The problem is that in Socionics opposite Jung’s scales match conflict relations.

Interviewer: So, the opposites after all.

Bukalov: Yes, because duals have 3 opposite scales, and the 4th ones, rationality and irrationality, match. This is important, because even typologists know that rational and irrational people have different ways in life. Rationals irritate irrationals, and here’s such confusion. As a result, David W. Keirsey had been advocating for 40 years as the best relations which in Socionics are considered conflict or revision.

Interviewer: Opposites attract comes from this probably?

Bukalov: No, it’s just a proverb. He used it. He assumed that opposites attract and so on. He did it mechanically and advocated for 40 years. And in the early 2000’s the world had to accept that this was nonsense. And under the influence of Socionics he removed all of these statements. I have the last edition translated to Russian and there’s no track of it. Simple as that. He didn’t understand it anyway. He didn’t write about Socionics, as he was quite old, over 80. But he understood to remove it. And people always get assured that their relationships are the best. Sometime ago Keirsey’s follower came to Kiev from Canada. He was assigned as the head of Management Institute, and I asked him, “How can you live like that?”, and he said “You don’t understand! Such relations are awesome! Such passionate quarrels, fat-faced passions! It is so valuable”. I say, “Yeah, yeah, valuable. For a week. And what then?”. Then I told him about Socionics, and he just got afraid. He understood how important it was and he said, “It’s a weapon. How can it be allowed to talk about it?”, and so on. He got scared. He wasn’t even glad that there was such a tool for management too. He just got scared.

Interviewer: Yes, that’s funny.

Bukalov: Such things happen too. It was a long time ago, in the 90’s. You’ve asked about astrology too.

Interviewer: One second. I wanted to talk about health a little more. When you studied health groups or bouquets, Rainin published studies about them. What do you think about them? Do you know how these experiments were carried out? Maybe some vitals were measured? Heartbeat, pressure, anything.

Bukalov: We haven’t worked with health groups. Unfortunately, I can’t say anything about these experiments. Experiments were carried out by Rainin’s students. We were working on other groups. Well, rings of social order, rings of revisions. We weren’t interested in the health aspect, we were interested in the management aspect. But while interviewing people who worked in such relations, we noticed the patterns. Here’s a direct speech of the Director of Human Resources of one company: “I don’t get it. We are preparing for a weekly briefing. We sit for an hour, for two. Everyone’s mad, head is aching. Then there’s a metallic aftertaste. And we can’t solve any issue. We looked at what was going on. And it turned out that a revision ring gathered at the briefing. When one person reviewed the other, and there was this loop. Moreover, there were 2-3 persons of this type. So it was reinforced. And here you go. We made a report, and when he saw it, he just went “wow”. We’ve encountered such problem 2 or 3 times more. So people describe it like this: occurring of headache, metallic aftertaste, and general sickness. It’s obvious that if you lock people up in such group, they will be uncomfortable. We laugh at one thing now. The American writer O. Henry has this novel about gold miners. And there’s a joke. If you want to encourage the craft of manslaughter, lock 2 people in a 5×6 foots hut. Human nature would have no chance. That’s exactly about such relations. About mirage relations, yeah. We haven’t used any devices for our studies but studying subjective impressions of people who worked and relaxed in different relations, and mirage ones too. And yeah, it was very pleasuring
and comfortable. They couldn’t work but relaxing was good.

Interviewer: What about dual?

Bukalov: Or maybe people were in business trips for a few weeks and so on.
About such things, yes.

Interviewer: And dual?

Bukalov: Well, dual relations are universal. They cover all of the aspects. It is important to find someone whose yours and not someone else.

Interviewer: Yeah, that’s for sure.

Bukalov: So that they matched your configuration.

Interviewer: So, you haven’t made any experiments measuring with devices?

Bukalov: No, we didn’t use any devices. Our colleagues did and they say that it works. But we didn’t do it. We worked with management, consulting, theoretical studies, some sport Socionics. But we didn’t measure anything. There are other people that do it.

Interviewer: And based on this, you don’t know what is happening in physical way during conflict relations? Maybe people sweat in addition to headaches.

Bukalov: No, that’s not conflict relation, that’s revision.

Interviewer: But what about conflict?

Bukalov: It’s not that simple in conflict relations. You see, it’s not that simple at all. In the beginning partners are interested in each other. They are too unusual. Our colleague in Lvov made a huge experiment at the registry offices of Lvov. It was back in the 90’s, 2000’s. He tested couples that were getting married. And then he observed for how long they lived together. As it turned out the first marriage among the youth…in 40-50% of cases people get into conflict relations. And in 80 months this marriage breaks down. It was the most huge experiment. This unusualness attracts. But it takes for a great conflict about a year at work, in personal relation a little sooner. From a couple of months to 9-10 months. He also tested their values…various. How people felt about a family, partner, life…some additional responsibilities. And it turned out that in all relations apart from conflict values of partners after some time started to be similar. Some had stronger similarities, some weaker but they were nearing. They only differed in conflict relations. That’s the development we get.

Interviewer: That’s interesting. Can we always consider conflict relations as unhealthy?

Bukalov: If there’s a production necessity…then it can work out. But it would be better, if there were not 2 but 3 persons. So there’s an interpreter who smooths everything, a middle-man. We have developed different approaches to different cases. That can help solve the issue.

Interviewer: I’ve seen different typologies, for example, by goals. If the goal is marriage then there’s such typology. What are the best and the worst relations. There are also for work, for some goal. And depending on the goal there’s a typology of relations from best to worst. What do you think about it?

Bukalov: Typology of what relations?

Interviewer: Well, intertype relations.

Bukalov: Socionical?

Interviewer: Of course, yes. For example, for marriage dual are best. The worst are revision. And there’s some gradation between them. For work, for some goal.

Bukalov: It depends on the goal of people. In this sense dual relations are universal and other relations…other relations are less universal.

Interviewer: I see.

Bukalov: Dual relations are universal for everything. Activation relations are less universal, as there are more limitations in relations of identities. You see?

Interviewer: Let’s talk about visual classification then. How do you think…what do scientific researchers say about visual classification, and what can you tell us? Maybe you’ve found some special indications. So you can look at a person and see right away.

Bukalov: That’s not for interview. It’s a topic of a huge course we conduct. I can’t tell you, you see?

Interviewer: You can’t tell us a few words?

Bukalov: No, of course, not. Yeah, there are certain indicators. But that’s only a complex testing. You can’t dot on neither on visual nor test method. Only complex testing gives a chance to know the type of a person. Well, and “I can tell person’s type” is a scam. I can tell.

Interviewer: What do you think about self-identification? Is it possible?

Bukalov: It’s possible. In 40 cases out of 100.

Interviewer: Aha, I see.

Bukalov: According to our observations. Because people build completely different image in their minds. And all too often, they don’t see it. In this sense, visual analysis is much more effective. No matter what they think of themselves.

Interviewer: So an expert visually can tell more.

Bukalov: Yes and not one. At least 2 people carry out the testing. One expert—it’s a too great risk of a mistake. Two or three experts might minimize this mistake.

Interviewer: I see. We talked about masks. That people can wear socionical masks.

Bukalov: That’s a separate topic. Yes, when 2 experts are testing, one can look from a side and see person’s masks. And one person can’t see it. You see? It’s very simple.

Interviewer: Then let’s talk about Astrology. What do you think, is there a connection between Astrology and Socionics?

Bukalov: Well, since this issue was raised by different enthusiasts, we have a big data base, thousands of people. So, we just made a direct research. And it turned out that there’s no correlation. Types are born in any season, under any sign. Zero correlation. I don’t know if this article is available online, but it was published. It checked Zodiac signs and Chinese horoscope. There’s no correlation, zero.

Interviewer: But there’s information that astrological horoscopes are connected with…

Bukalov: No, there’s no connection. Astrologists haven’t managed to determine the type with a horoscope. Even famous Moscow astrologists, they came to our conference, tried to do something. And they couldn’t hit the mark once.

Interviewer: So, you don’t think that horoscopes influence personality?

Bukalov: That’s not science.

Interviewer: Good. Then tell me a little bit more about your most significant area of focus, about Management. Which relations work best in a big collective? And if there exists an already coherent collective, how do you build healthy relations there? What do you usually do?

Bukalov: Well, first, we look at the relations in this collective, how we can adjust them. And then we base on good relations and try to minimize bad by moving the person to the necessary psychological and business distance. If the person is required for the job but is in conflict with someone, then they should be seated in different rooms. Same happens when people share desks and traumatize each other by the sole look. So, we have to seat people in different rooms. Once we suggested that manager should…Two employees were sitting against each other, and as a result they traumatized each other. They were even shivering a bit. And we suggested to seat them in separate rooms, because they had an adjoining room. And so they did. But then they removed a door in this room, and on the opposite side there was a mirror, so they started seeing each other in the mirror. That was really funny. “Remove the mirror or seat this person elsewhere”. That was an accountant department, finance department. That’s a tiny example but such things cause neurosis and tension. And it’s not even people working together. If they work together, everything’s much worse. They get rattled, fight and shout at each other, make mistakes. And then they can take revenge. So, there’s a lot of such things.

I beg your pardon. We’ve been talking for a very long time.

Interviewer: Ok, we’ve actually discussed everything. The only thing I’d like to ask you… Maybe you have some studies about health which you can send me. I’d really appreciate it.

Bukalov: Please, send me a request via e-mail. Because I’ll take care of other matters and I’ll just forget about it. And later I’ll send you a list of articles, not only mine but others too.

Interviewer: Great, it’s a deal. Thank you very much!

Bukalov: You are welcome!

Interviewer: Thank you! I’ll get back to you later then.

Bukalov: Thank you.