Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The superior/inferior dichotomy & asymmetrical relationships

  1. #1
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    31 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The superior/inferior dichotomy & asymmetrical relations

    This is an idea that I've been bouncing around for a while. I now believe the dichotomy that opposes functions 1, 4, 5, and 8 with 2, 3, 6, and 7 (called "evaluatory"/"situational" on Wikisocion) should be called "superior"/"inferior", as opposed to "central"/"peripheral" as I suggested in another thread. The reason is that the ego elements of one's supervisor and benefactor both occupy the "superior" functions in one's own Model A, and the opposite for one's supervisee and beneficiary.


    Se, Ti, Ni, & Fe are superior functions for INTj. Supervisor ESTp has SeTi ego; benefactor INFp has NiFe ego.
    Si, Te, Ne, & Fi are inferior functions for INTj. Beneficiary ISTp has SiTe ego; supervisee ENFp has NeFi ego.

    Thus it is apparent why one is in awe of the strengths of one's benefactor or supervisor, and unimpressed with those of one's beneficiary or supervisee. It all fits together quite nicely. (Who said relationships can't be explained with dichotomies? )

    This also naturally explains the progression of asymmetrical relations through the quadras, so you can refer to the quadra of one's benefactor and supervisor as the "superior quadra", and vice versa. Thus,

    semidual and comparative: "mutually superior"
    illusionary and look-a-like: "mutually inferior"
    all intraquadra and opposite-quadra relations: "mutually mixed", or simply "neutral"

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    In front of the computer
    1 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Sounds interesting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts