I'm interested to know about the basis for intertype relationships - why do all the types correlate in the way they do i.e. what are duals, mirages, supervisor relationships etc. based on?
How Was Intertype Relationships Formulated?
I'm interested to know about the basis for intertype relationships - why do all the types correlate in the way they do i.e. what are duals, mirages, supervisor relationships etc. based on?
copyright 2006 Take-Two Interactive Software and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Sid Meier's Civiilization IV: Warlords, Civ, Civilization, 2K Games, the 2K logo, Firaxis Games logo and Take-Two Interactive are all trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. The ratings icon is a trademark of the Entertainment Software Association. All other marks and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. 21966-1.
Is this just to get your word count up?Originally Posted by niffweed17
INTP/ILI(Ni)
/5w4
"When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."
the scary thing is no... he really means itIs this just to get your word count up?
What the fuck?
Civ4 never worked on my computer or (later) Mac, sadly. Civ3 was average, Civ2 was legendary.
yeah I never got Civ4 to work either... but Civ3 was excellent IMO
Did you play 2?yeah I never got Civ4 to work either... but Civ3 was excellent IMO
I'm old skool... I played them all (even Call to Power(which I also liked))Did you play 2?yeah I never got Civ4 to work either... but Civ3 was excellent IMO
There's an "Introduction to Socionics" in English somewhere on the internet, written by Dmitri Lytov, it glosses over the basis of intertype relations, I recommend it
INFp-Ni
Twice in my life have I been addicted to Civ2. Once when I was between 8 and 10 years old(ish) and recently, when I was 16 or 17. There was a massive sense of novelty when I came back to it, because I started reading things I missed last time, and I looked at it from a completely different perspective. But, as with everything one gets addicted to, it became dull in time.I'm old skool... I played them all (even Call to Power(which I also liked))Did you play 2?yeah I never got Civ4 to work either... but Civ3 was excellent IMO
How about the Age of Empires series?
Thanks misutii, I found it. I'll read through that over the next few days.
Re: How Was Intertype Relationships Formulated?
Selective breeding.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Ezra, you might find this page useful - go to the bit headlined 'the origin of socionics' in particular. (You might find the other two pages of interest too - links at the top.
http://socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html
[web:b592330e26]http://socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html[/web:b592330e26]
call to power is complete trash.I'm old skool... I played them all (even Call to Power(which I also liked))Did you play 2?yeah I never got Civ4 to work either... but Civ3 was excellent IMO
aww it wasn't so bad... I've played worse gamescall to power is complete trash.I'm old skool... I played them all (even Call to Power(which I also liked))Did you play 2?yeah I never got Civ4 to work either... but Civ3 was excellent IMO
obviously there are worse games, but as far as games with some kind of interesting content go it had perhaps the worst interface i've ever seen and the strategy of the typical civ game was completely lost in all the excessive detail of that game.
Re: How Was Intertype Relationships Formulated?
Yes, but how did Augusta know who would work well together?Selective breeding.
Civ 4 sucked.
According to Augusta, the so-called DUAL PAIRS are the pairs of best compatibility at close distance, for example in family. Here we will not discuss how she came to this conclusion, how she verified it – it is a very long topic. According to her, duality is the complementariness by 3 of the 4 criteria. The fourth (rationality/irrationality) should, on the contrary, coincide.
For example, the pair INT irrational + ESF irrational is a dual pair.
Later this theory was confirmed by empiric data. Several years ago psychologists Boukalov, Karpenko, Chikirisova from Ukraine researched a several plants in different cities. After putting together results of testing of the personnel, they found, that many of them were married with each other. An additional research of the married couples had shown that out of 16 possible intertype relationships, the greatest percentage of family relationships (more than one third) belongs to dual relationships [3]. An independent statistical research of family pairs performed by Filatova (St. Petersburg, 1999) has also shown very high percentage of dual pairs (17%) compared to other relationships.
The main idea of socionics is that the type predetermines relations to certain extent.
However, socionics NEVER forgets about other factors (irrelevant to psychological types) that also influence relations, such as economic level, age, sex, culture, corporate traditions, occupation etc.
And the type is considered IN DYNAMICS. This means that the relationship between two types, e.g. INT-rational and ISF-rational, may have various options. This is probably its principal difference both from original Jung's ideas and from MBTT: considering the type not as a “list of traits”, but rather as an “algorithm of traits”.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote