Author: Aushra Augusta
Through the prism of socionics, a writer’s talent and class can be measured by the number of types of IM they can see, understand and describe.
In the works of the “flash in the pan” writers, the characters are usually divided into “good” and “bad,” and their types of IM cannot be discerned at all. A writer who describes two to four types usually becomes widely known. In classic pieces of literature we can easily recognize eight to ten types of IM. Leo Tolstoy has all 16 types! A selection of examples appears below*:
Quadra α (alpha):
ILE – Marya Dmitriyevna Akhrosimova, Vera Rostova-Berg, Balaga
SEI – Berg, Dolokhov, Andrei Bolkonsky’s wife
ESE – Count Rostov and Nikolai Rostov
LII – Prince Bolkonsky (the father)
Quadra β (beta):
EIE – Andrei Bolkonsky, Platon Karataev
LSI – Marya Bolkonskaya, Pelageya
SLE – Hélène
IEI – Julie Karagina
Quadra γ (gamma):
SEE – Natasha Rostova, Petya Rostov, Andrei Bolkonsky’s son, Napoleon
ILI – Countess Rostova, Sonya, Kutuzov, Pierre Bezukhov
LIE – Freemason Bazdeev, Prince Vasili Kuragin
ESI – Tsar Alexander I (as described by the author)
Quadra δ (delta):
LSE – Anna Mikhaylovna Drubetskaya
EII – Boris Drubetskoy
IEE – Anatole Kuragin, Anna Pavlovna Scherer, Denisov
SLI – Scout Tikhon
* Translator’s note: all listed characters are from Leo Tolstoy’s novel War and Peace.
This is a list of the types we have discerned; undoubtedly, it is possible to discern the types of many other characters in the book, I just have not tried to do it.
The author beautifully describes complementary (dual) relations between Natasha and her mother Countess Rostova, Natasha and Sonya, Andrei Bolkonsky and his sister Marya, Anna Drubetskaya and her son Boris, Berg and Sonya*, and especially Pierre and Natasha. Nikolai Rostov and his wife (Marya Bolkonskaya) are semi-duals, and although this relationship is not bad and they do not have serious fights, it is still not the same as the relationship between Natasha and her husband (Pierre). The author clearly notices that duality is common between a mother and her children, and between siblings.
* Translator’s note: this is a likely oversight by Augusta – according to her typing of the characters, Berg (SEI) and Sonya (ILI) are in a relationship of super-ego rather than duality. It is likely that Augusta meant Berg and his wife Vera Rostova (ILE), who are duals.
Usually it is very difficult to notice the conflict relation between one’s dual and the dual’s conflictor*. This is why the relationship between Countess and Count Rostov does not seem to be conflictual – just colorless and lifeless in a way. However, in extreme situations the fact that the spouses irritated each other was evident enough (the departure from Moscow, the news of Petya’s death). The same conflict relation exists between Nikolai and Sonya, even though they could have gotten married. But even in real life there are a lot of conflict marriages. Count Rostov’s impracticality is only explained by the impossibility of establishing serious business-related communication between the spouses, as well as by the fact that they were constantly somewhat afraid of each other.
* Translator’s note: Augusta typed Leo Tolstoy SEE. Countess Rostova – ILI, SEE’s dual. Count Rostov – ESE, ILI’s conflictor.
The identity relation is described very well. For example, the way Count Rostov understands his son when the latter loses a card game.
Two characters in the novel are clearly idealized. These are Andrei Bolkonsky and Platon Karataev. This is understandable – each author idealizes their own benefactors*. No wonder that, when Pierre tries to implement his economic reforms, everything he does not manage to do right is also something that, for Andrei, gets solved as if by itself and without superfluous words – thanks to the latter’s particular “benefactor” reasonability.
* Translator’s note: Andrei Bolkonsky and Platon Karataev are typed EIE, which is the benefactor of SEE (Leo Tolstoy’s type).
To some extent, Pierre is also idealized. Apparently, in him the author tried to describe the hidden corners of his own soul, which did not actually manifest themselves in life. Perhaps Tolstoy considered himself a clumsy, absent-minded dreamer, but in Pierre he described not his own type, but rather his dual. Other people only see ILI that way, not SEE.
The irritating relation of supervision between Andrei and his wife is described exceptionally well. But the author failed to notice the same relation between Pierre and Andrei (Andrei is Pierre’s supervisor). It could not have occurred to the author that someone as calm and all-around likable as Pierre could be irritated by a person as perfect as Bolkonsky. The same mistake is made in the description of the relationship between Andrei and Kutuzov.
In addition, even the most genius author cannot be demanded to fully accept the perspective of a different personality type when describing a character from the point of view of another character. Therefore, if e.g. we want to discern the type of some character based on Nikolai’s thoughts, we should take into account the fact that this character is mostly described from SEE’s perspective instead of ESE’s perspective.
The relation of extinguishment* is also well illustrated. The book vividly depicts three SEIs, and all of them are essentially incomprehensible to the author. They are portrayed as people without their own life, who live by dry calculations instead of spontaneous feelings (the latter being the way sensoric-ethical types are “supposed” to live). This is exactly right – one can see the actions of the contrary type, one can calculate what these actions are going to be, but the motivations, feelings, and spiritual life of these people is always under lock and key. This is why a person not knowledgeable in socionics can consider such people dry, heartless, and selfish.
* Translator’s note: SEI is the extinguishment type of SEE (Leo Tolstoy’s type).
Françoise Sagan: Bonjour Tristesse (Hello Sadness)
Cécile is SLI, her father Raymond is IEE, and Anne is ESE. Anne was Raymond’s benefactor, which is why she was an authority to him and controlled him to a fairly large extent. For Cécile Anne was an irritating supervisor, and Cécile secretly did everything she could to break off the connection between Anne and Raymond.
Françoise Sagan herself – SLI.
Classic Socionics 