Method for Analyzing the Influence of the Parental Information Environment on Child Development

Following the article "Children of Conflict," which described the unique situation of a child's Information Metabolism Type (TIM) being functionally distorted under the influence of the conflicting informational environment of the parents, many questions arose regarding the specificity of the informational environment in other intertype pairs and its influence on the development of the child's information metabolism.

The case of conflicting intertype relationships is unique, and the method of analysis used in the article "Children of Conflict" is not universal, unfortunately making it unsuitable for analyzing other types of intertype relationships.

This article proposes a more general approach, which can help guide and organize the analysis of how the intrafamily informational environment influences the child, regardless of the intertype relationship between the parents.

The described method has been tested over ten years based on the self-analysis of graduates from our socionics school, and it has repeatedly confirmed the proposed theoretical assumptions.

For this analysis, two factors must be determined: the structure of the informational environment formed by the parental pair and the child's perception of this environment through their psychological information structure.

Structure of the Parental Information Environment

Each participant in intertype relationships brings informational signals to the shared environment, determined by their TIM. Within each informational aspect, the signal has both strength and value, which can be conditionally encoded in points and a sign.

The strength of the signal can be calculated in points corresponding to the dimensionality of the function processing a specific aspect.

The value can be indicated as "+" (positive), while displaced value is indicated as "-" (negative).

For example, the strength and sign of informational signals in Model A can be represented as follows:

In the process of informational interaction, opposing signals of the participants intersect within each informational aspect. The resulting influence is determined by the dominant signal (not by their sum). For example, if the influence of one partner’s four-dimensional base function (+4) intersects with the two-dimensional role function of the other partner (-2), the four-dimensional base function will dominate the control of this aspect in the pair’s informational environment, leading this aspect to hold the value and sign of +4.

The general meaning and context of each score can be described as follows:

• +4: The aspect is seen as self-sufficient, key to forming the informational picture of what is happening, crucial for decision-making.
• +3: The aspect represents creative activity. It is suggested that mastery and innovation are best pursued in this area.
• +2: The aspect involves engaging in dynamic learning, enjoyable without long-term plans (like a hobby).
• +1: The aspect is associated with pleasure, but may lack immediate access to resources.
• -1: The aspect is linked to avoidance, fear, or perceived difficulty, often triggering negative emotions.
• -2: The aspect focuses on social conformity, aligning with group norms and societal standards, and can cause anxiety in evaluative settings.
• -3: The aspect relates to preventive defense and warnings, with the general message being that the situation is unstable and problematic.
• -4: The aspect represents control over a situation deemed "necessary and sufficient." Anything beyond this boundary is viewed as abnormal and is mercilessly excluded or corrected.

When signals of equal strength but opposite signs intersect, the aspect is considered to be in an unstable value position within the informational structure.

If multidimensional functions intersect (e.g., a situation involving +/-4 and +/-3), the result is continuous manifestations of active opposition. If the situation involves +/-2 or +/-1, it indicates relatively insignificant, discrete opposition.

It is important to note that such opposition is informational, not psychological. Within the informational space of the aspect, opposing beliefs and contradictory positions coexist. The emotional experiences accompanying this opposition in an informational aspect depend on many factors, which are beyond the scope of this article.

By applying the proposed principles of encoding and intersecting influences, the structure of a pair’s informational space can be represented as follows:

Example 1:

In super-ego relationships (as in all complementary club relationships), the informational environment is formed entirely by the dominance of multidimensional functions (scores of 3 and 4), making it self-sufficient, resistant to external influence, and exerting dominant influence.

Example 2:

In relationships between representatives of neighboring socionic clubs, there are aspects where no dominant influence exists within the pair, leaving the area open to external influence without establishing firm standards.

Example 3:

Kvazi-identical relationships are a good example of value conflict in each informational aspect.

Such a representation of a pair's informational environment directs analytical thought and highlights key points for a comprehensive assessment of the situation. The next critical step in this analysis is projecting the parental environment’s structure onto the child's psychological information structure.

Influence of the Parental Environment on the Child

In the child’s information structure, described by Model A of their TIM, the aspect evaluations of the parental environment are assigned to specific functions in the model, influencing how the child perceives the questions governed by those functions.

Ego Block – The block of informational identity, the informational "self" of the individual.
The base function – self-worth, foundation.
Creative function – freedom and skill in problem-solving, creative expression.

Super-Ego Block – The block of social adaptation, aligning with societal standards and expectations.
Role function – implementation of social norms and rules.
Vulnerable function – fear of social evaluation, avoidance, overload point.

Super-Id Block – The block of personal interest, rest, recovery, and nourishment.
Suggestive function – the source of personal happiness and pleasure, suggestion, trust.
Mobilizing function – the point of active learning, interest, hobby.

Id Block – The block for implementing vital survival programs, social control, and social immunity.
Limiting function – preventive defense, limitation, and self-limitation.
Background function – survival guarantee, dominant control, and environment correction in line with one’s programs.

For instance, in the case of a parental pair of SLE and IEE, the structure of their environment includes the following evaluations:
BL +3, CL -4, BE +3, CE -4, BS -3, CS +4, BI -3, CI +4.

Suppose their child has the TIM of an ILE. In that case, these evaluations will be distributed within their Model A as follows:

Example 4

This framework can guide the analysis of parental influence.

First, the parental pair is informationally self-sufficient (all aspects hold the values of multidimensional functions). The child is under dominant parental influence for each function.

Second, there is absolute agreement between the environment and the child's psyche in terms of the signs and values in the Ego and Id blocks of the child's Model A. We can assume that the Ego block (informational identity) and the Id block (resilience and survival in society, social immunity) will be developed in a maximally healthy and complete way in the child.

Third, the value emphasis is placed on the Super-Ego block, in contrast to the Super-Id block. It can be assumed that the child will grow up with a strong focus on social achievement, the necessity to conform to societal standards, and a strong awareness of them. At the same time, the child’s curiosity regarding personal interests in the Super-Id block will not be actively supported, which may lead to difficulties in trusting and engaging in close personal relationships. The child may be oriented towards a critical or reproachful partner.

As another example, consider the parental pair of SLE and ILI, with the following values:
BL -4, CL -4, BE +2, CE +2, BS -3, CS +4, BI +4, CI -3.

For a child with the ILE TIM, the evaluations would be distributed as follows:

Example 5

The first thing to note here is the simultaneous suppression of the Ego block (negative expert evaluations), which may lead to difficulties in identity formation, potentially resulting in self-negation.

In contrast, we observe support for the Super-Ego block, emphasizing social realization. Given the negative evaluations in the Ego, the formation of a Super-Ego mask as a stable behavioral pattern and self-identification through the Super-Ego block is likely.

The Super-Id, which shapes perceptions of potential partnership and the ability to trust, is in a challenging situation. The suggestive function (the source of pleasure and emotional nourishment) is under the control of one parent’s limiting function (-3). This creates an expectation that the partner will not share the child’s joy and will restrain it. Consequently, joy either disappears or must be pursued independently, potentially hidden from the parents, and in the future, from a partner.

The mobilizing function is supported by one parent’s mobilizing function (+2), providing the child with a like-minded individual. However, the parent is not a mentor but is in a similarly dependent position, suggesting that the child may feel they cannot rely on a partner and must solve tasks independently.

Thus, this distribution of values in the Super-Id may foster early maturity, emotional detachment, and distrust of the concept of partnership.

In the Id block, the background function is naturally supported by one parent (-4), while the limiting function is under the control of the other parent’s base function (+4). This is an ambiguous influence. On the one hand, the limiting function as a weapon against the base function is powerless, which may lead to feelings of defenselessness. On the other hand, the constructive attitude of the base function helps alleviate the intensity of the self-limitation experienced by the limiting function.

Overall, we can assume that the Id block will be a relatively healthy and solid foundation in this case.

Principles of Analysis

When conducting an analysis, it is important to pay attention to the agreement or disagreement between the values of the parental environment and the child’s values (positive and negative evaluations).

• Positive evaluations (“+”) establish significance, while negative evaluations (“-”) suppress activity.
• The influence of multidimensional functions (evaluations of 3 and 4) can establish stable focal points that shape the functional state of Model A.
• The influence of lower-dimensional functions (evaluations of 1 and 2) opens up opportunities for third-party influences.
• When assessing the functional state, it is useful to consider not only the horizontal blocks of Model A but also the vertical ones.

Correction Methods

During analysis, potentially problematic areas (as seen in Example 5 with the risk of self-negation and the formation of a Super-Ego mask) may be identified.

Such situations at the very least require preventive measures. The most effective approach is to alter the structure of the forming environment.

This can be achieved through either separating the parents (i.e., alternating between each parent’s interaction with the child), which is not always possible and is often less effective, or by introducing targeted influence from third parties. These third parties can be relatives, educators, or coaches with whom the child spends a significant amount of time. Ideally, these third parties should be dual partners of the child’s socionics type, as this optimizes interaction.

It is important to note that merely expanding the child’s interactions with adults will not produce a developmental effect. The adults must hold authority in the child’s life, both in terms of their status and their relationship with the child, as well as authority delegated by the parents (for instance, the parents can authorize a coach or educator).

Why This Makes Sense

Why do we consider the structure of a parental family as a pair structure without factoring in the influence of the child? Why don’t we view these relationships as triadic, or in families with multiple children, as multilateral?

The reason is that, according to observations and research into the formation of a child’s psyche within the framework of Model A (as discussed in the article “The Periodization of Thought Development within Model A”), the maturation of the mental apparatus to a level capable of processing information in alignment with at least the third parameter occurs during the adolescent crisis (with the crisis itself triggered by this shift in the quality of information processing).

Until this stage, a child’s psyche develops by accumulating experience, exploring norms, and adapting to them, with the parental pair being the main source of this environment (this includes all real caregivers, not necessarily biological parents).

During adolescence, the third parameter for processing information “activates,” followed by the fourth during the youth crisis. As these multidimensional functions are realized, the child shifts from being an object in relationships to a subject, which inevitably affects these relationships. During this period, parents often note changes in their relationship with their child (such as opposition, denial, or cooling of emotional ties). At this point, the child begins to influence the parental environment, making it appropriate to start considering triadic or multilateral relationships that now require parental adaptation to the new dynamics.

It is important to highlight that once the third and later fourth parameters are activated, an individual begins forming their own expert evaluations of the corresponding aspects. While this opens the door to self-correction, it does not negate the fundamental experiences accumulated within the parental environment. These experiences can influence the individual’s self-generated expert evaluations.

Regarding lower-dimensional functions, the Super-Ego block, in a healthy functioning state, adapts relatively easily to a new environment, thanks to the role function. The Super-Id block, however, is more inert and “distrustful.” Its two-dimensional mobilizing function, which can be realized only through personal authorities, may remain oriented toward the same figures even if the environment changes.

In general, corrections are easier within the mental ring compared to the vital ring, and contact blocks are more easily adjusted than inert blocks. As a result, values imparted by parents through the mobilizing and limiting functions are more stable, while values imparted through the creative and role functions are less so.

The development and formation of the child into an adult show that distortions from childhood are not hopeless; however, they may hinder natural development and require correction (either through self-effort or with the help of a psychologist). Without such corrections, functional distortions can deepen and become entrenched.

Thus, the analysis of the influence of the parental environment on a child's development has practical significance and is highly relevant. The proposed method not only provides a framework for analysis but also outlines potential corrective measures based on the results.