Hmm I like the way socionics interprets the 16 types in relation to each other, however I think that the list could be expanded upon. The definitions of 'Mirror', 'Quasi-Identical', etc. seem kind of generic and lacking in depth. For instance, there is only one relationship that is the most desired --Dual (it appears?) --and as for the rest, there are definitely deficiencies and challenges to be anticipated. I think that since the 16 types aim to describe thinking habits and patterns; shouldn't then socionics take into consideration (when defining type relationships) how each of the types individually responds (differently) to say their own 'Identity' (among the others)? One example of this is the ENTj personality type versus the ENTp personality type in response to their own Identities. ENTj as a field marshal tends to direct, often not feeling the need to associate with another ENTj-leader type (as only one leader is needed). On the other hand, ENTps will most likely respond to their Identity by befriending them due to similar tastes. Here is a classic situation where the term 'Identity', while defined the same for both types, lacks clarity for purposeful use. Discussion about this is highly appreciated and welcomed. Also, if anyone knows the link of a more evaluative application of socionics to the 16 types please let me know.
Am I right if you are trying to say that we should have 256 relationship descriptions instead of the 16.
Well you're right that each individual type differs in the same relationship as another type, but there are so many similarities that it is preferred to use only 16 relationship descriptions.
I have however read 8 different dual descriptions on some socionics site, which gave the exact details of the different dual couples.
Yeah I guess that's what I wanted. Okay then, that is one possibility as to why it has not been done. However, since the 16 types' thinking processes and the science of sociology have already been well established for years now (which might I add took a compilation of far more than 256 descriptions for each to make them applicable to real life); it would only make sense that in combining the two such care and competence be taken as well.
Re: Socionic Curiosity?
Are you saying that ENTjs don't associate with each other because they are leader types and leaders don't associate with other leaders?
Originally Posted by HeavyMetal
I would also say that if you're looking for differences, two ESFjs would quickly be able to meet and a relationship could form quickly, while two INTjs might find it very difficult to initiate contact and start a relationship. There are a lot of individual differences to take into account.