Irregularities in intertype relations

[Jimbean]

Does anyone here have better relations outside their quadra than in it?

I am not into some discussion that I am type X because of some irregularity. It is just that I find it somewhat irritating that every basic part of socionics works except for my own personal experience. It has led me to believe that relations with people have more to do with personal values than anything else. It just happens that people generally get many of those deep rooted values from their type. However, I think I broke the link between my personal values and my inherent values a long time ago. This might explain why I don’t get along with people I should and visa-versa according to socionics theory.

I have seen examples of my case in many other people, albeit in much smaller degrees. What do you guys think? I am looking for different points of view, and not the “you are type X” explanations.

[strrrng]

It has led me to believe that relations with people have more to do with personal values than anything else. It just happens that people generally get many of those deep rooted values from their type.

agreed. I have found that intertype relations generally corresponds with who I get along with, but there are always people who have unique characteristics not type-related that cause me to be attracted to them. I personally don't focus too much on that aspect of socionics.

[aestrivex]

probably anybody that doesn't consider the effects of intertype relations to be of primary importance is doing something very very wrong.

[Expat]

probably anybody that doesn't consider the effects of intertype relations to be of primary importance is doing something very very wrong.

Yes, like not typing correctly, and not understanding what functions are, and why the base function necessarily leads to a particular dual-seeking function.

[UDP]

Yes, like not typing correctly, and not understanding what functions are, and why the base function necessarily leads to a particular dual-seeking function.

indeed

[mm]

Yes, like not typing correctly, and not understanding what functions are, and why the base function necessarily leads to a particular dual-seeking function.

I basically agree with you, but I noticed that when being around my parents (LIE+ESI) I tend to resent typical (irrational) beta behaviour. Or otherwise when I'm watching a beta movie or something and they enter the room, I pick up how weird they find it or even disgusting sometimes, that I simply cannot enjoy it anymore or feel ashamed for enjoying it and such, and I want to switch it off. They take beta spirit way too seriously in my opinion. So I can definitely understand that your own beliefs and the way you see yourself, affects how you see certain relationships. For me, it wasn't until I said my parents could go to hell so to speak, that I started to have good beta (and alpha) relationships.

[strrrng]

probably anybody that doesn't consider the effects of intertype relations to be of primary importance is doing something very very wrong.

I guess, but you can't take it too seriously, and you definitely shouldn't be preconceiving whether or not you can get along with someone or you will end up limiting yourself.

Yes, like not typing correctly, and not understanding what functions are, and why the base function necessarily leads to a particular dual-seeking function.

yeah, like how you think you're ENTj. Is it a stretch for me to ask you why you think you are some "guru" of socionics, atleast on this forum?

[Expat]

Is it a stretch for me to ask you why you think you are some "guru" of socionics, atleast on this forum?

Why do you think I think that?

[strrrng]

first, let me say that you are very versed on socionics. I just get this "Ni-vibe" (lol) from your posts and they all seem like dry proclamations or teaching. and I don't think you're ENTj. I'd be interested to hear why you think you are, as opposed to ESTj.

[Expat]

First, I'd like to ask you again why you think that I think I am some sort of guru, since I certainly never made that claim. I say what I think, and people may listen to me or not, as they prefer.

Second, sorry but I'm not going to write anything at length on my type here, just because you're asking. I can't be bothered.

My views on socionics, and on the LIE type in particular, are in the wiki. I wrote most of the bits on LIE, Te dominance, Ni creative, quadras, temperaments, etc, and so my views can be understood from what it's there. That understanding of socionics is the same as regarding my type - especially, obviously, since I wrote a fair chunk of what's there. If you don't agree with that understanding of socionics, then it's obvious that we won't agree on my type, and on many other things.

[strrrng]

First, I'd like to ask you again why you think that I think I am some sort of guru, since I certainly never made that claim. I say what I think, and people may listen to me or not, as they prefer.

Second, sorry but I'm not going to write anything at length on my type here, just because you're asking. I can't be bothered.

My views on socionics, and on the LIE type in particular, are in the wiki. I wrote most of the bits on LIE, Te dominance, Ni creative, quadras, temperaments, etc, can all be understood from what it's there. That understanding of socionics is the same as regarding my type - especially since I wrote a fair chunk of what's there. If you don't agree with that understanding of socionics, then it's obvious that we won't agree on my type, and on many other things.

If you were actually Ni, you would understand, because like I said, it's not some tangible thing like you coming out and saying you know it all, it's an underlying tone in your posts based off of connected pieces of information I've gathered from your writings. I've seen your views at wiki and know you wrote a fair amount of the stuff, the descriptions and whatnot being accurate. I'm not sure what you mean by "that understanding of socionics"...there is only accuracy, and some people have more accurate understandings. even this new response of yours has a dogmatic, unbending feel to it. I see no Ni interpretation or insight in your posts, but rather, an overuse of Te followed by an attempt at Ni understanding, which ultimately fails, as can be seen in the discussion of ashton's type over at wiki, specifically in this quote:

Steve, your concept of "Gamma values" as in "alternate universe" and "stuff upside down" does not seem to find backing in classical socionics concepts. Is that based on your observations of people you think are Gammas? "Gamma values" usually refer to preferences for Te, Se, Ni, Fi, and what those lead to. If you mean something else, based on observations of individuals, it becomes a bit like circular thinking. The stuff about "alternate universe" and "stuff upside down", whatever that means, could be a sign of Ni; not necessarily of Gamma.

this was absolutely banal and I will not expand...then, as if to reassert your limited interpretation, you stated

The rest of what he said, about types being able to use other functions, is trivial and doesn't require addressing. The only thing that seemed different was that analogy, which you are now saying that it wasn't a case at all. So, as you seem to agree, what he said is, essentially, nothing.

now, that is called missing out on the essence and getting caught up in mindless details.

[Expat]

*shrug* whatever. What you call "overuse" of Te I can call "proper use"; what you call "Ni" I call "Ni unsupported by Te"; and in something like socionics, which can't be proven mathematically or whatever, especially not online, we'll necessarily have different understandings. Yes, there is only accuracy. I think my views are accurate and yours aren't; and you may think the opposite, but discussions on that, again especially online, will get nowhere and are a waste of time. Your views on my type are a matter of no consequence to me, so that's ok. I don't even know or remember which type you are, btw.

[Jimbean]

I don't know what to say, I am now left in a position where now I have to prove that I am an ILE, and thus that I am not making this stuff up. However, I don't think I can do that on this forum.

For me, I think ISFp’s are interesting, but I think the duality link is not very strong between me and them. My personal values dictate that I have to be able to have something in common with another person, or have some reason to be friends with that person. Come to think of it, it is difficult for me to explain my supposed situation. It could just be that I am looking for something that was never there to begin with.

[hellothere]

I guess, but you can't take it too seriously, and you definitely shouldn't be preconceiving whether or not you can get along with someone or you will end up limiting yourself.

I agree completely

[Jimbean]

Here is a long story short (so to speak). I value the things that I get into, so functionally it is like this:

I don't respect it very much beyond the reality aspect of it. It can be annoying or beneficial from other people that have it. With the things that I get into, I do not need this, except for creativity, it can be fun for other people, but I often don’t like to use it.

I respect those who have this function to at least some degree, I consider it to be an important aspect of reality. I do not consider anything complete without this function

I don't get anything from people who have this function. It is useful to me though, I cannot imagine not having it.

This function can be interesting in that brings up things that I did not think was important enough to say, but knew nevertheless. Based on my personal value system, this function does not have many uses because it only points to the most obvious.

Interesting function, I respect it in other people. I like having people around that have Te

I really like what comes out of it form other people. I get along well with people that have this function. I don’t know what it would be good for in the business world beyond the obvious.

I like this function in other people. Again, I don’t know what it would be good for in the business world beyond the obvious.

This is another good aspect of reality to have, unfortunately, I am not the best at perceiving it.


All of the functions are aspects of reality, but since I concentrate on certain ones, it affects my relations that I have with other people. For example, I value Te due to past experiences. Therefore should I have the added tolerance with gamma types?

::Edit::

Actually it is either Se or Ni, or both, that I tolerate more of. I believe this because I get along better with Beta and Gamma types.

[Gilly]

first, let me say that you are very versed on socionics. I just get this "Ni-vibe" (lol) from your posts and they all seem like dry proclamations or teaching. and I don't think you're ENTj. I'd be interested to hear why you think you are, as opposed to ESTj.

Man, piss off. If you want to attack someone for being arrogant or condescending about Socionics, here I am. Expat only ever tries to help people here.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

First, I'd like to ask you again why you think that I think I am some sort of guru, since I certainly never made that claim. I say what I think, and people may listen to me or not, as they prefer.

Come on, stop playing games with him. You know exactly what he's talking about. You always state your fucking opinion on this shit more than anybody else. You come across as a know-it-all on these boards and you know it. Don't try to logic your way out of this one. As for saying what you think, yeah so what- everybody in the world does that.

It's not about what you say it's how you're coming across. You don't have to say 'I was in the sewer' for us to smell the rat poop on you. For example.

You frequently prove without a doubt that you don't want mutual discussions. You just want to be right. It's irritating as hell. So basically, we just smile and nod and pat you on your head- because we realize it's not a big deal. Even if you are right in a very technical way, that still is no excuse for the uppity tone in your posts and the way your stench drives away new users.

You could give an inch and really open your mind to what the other person is saying, but you are so arrogant that you have all the answers (that we might contribute to your strong ), that this never happens. You have a 'Period' vibe in your posts that other people don't like. If we wanted to be preached at instead of finding friends to discuss, I think we'd all visit a church in redneck woods.

Life is so complex and ambiguous, you could discuss the fluidity of things for all of time without coming to some sort of resolution or 'final say so' and I have the feeling that this drives you insane. I understand that the 'final say so' is crucial to have a functioning society. But I hate it because it creates authority and unfair power advantages that I don't like. Who are you to get that last word in? I admit you do it well but blarggh. There's gotta be a human underneath that bull dyke somewhere.

So is this the part where you say "Tough shit, pussy-boy. I just speak my mind. If you don't like it TOUGH" Or "I wouldn't be a mod if I didn't know what I was talking about." Or my favorite: "If you don't like it - fine, but I'm going to say what I think anyway."

Well then, fuck you. If you really think those things deep down in your *heart and soul* not just your mind - that's just being a hard-headed bully and there's no excuse for that. The only annoying thing about you is, smart as you indeed are, you don't budge an inch for other people's perceptions about things (that don't have to do with being right) when it could do you a world of good. Are you really the type of asshole that will tell a prostitute to stop being a whore without being her friend first? I don't think so- I know you're much more caring and humane than that- but that's the way you're PERCEIVED BY OTHERS DAMNIT. IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S THE WAY YOU'RE COMING ACROSS! Presentation, presentation, presentation! If you don't get this- if you go 'well at least I'm right' then you totally lost the point!

You don't get to fuck us in the ass without us returning the favor now and then.

This ownage of Expat hath ended.

*gets off the stage and bows*

((btw, if I totally didn't like you I wouldn't bother. So don't read more into this than what it is: just a friendly debate.))

[Gilly]

He's not being a hard-headed bully. He's saying what he thinks. I don't see why everyone expects him to tiptoe through the tulips and dumb himself down just for their egos. He knows a lot and he says it; big fucking whoop.

Honestly, I think it's partly that he's NOT arrogant or overblown about it that makes people feel odd about it. I tout my proficiency all over the place and make no qualms about straight up telling people that I know more than them, and yet people only argue with me. People would LOVE a reason to argue with Expat, I think, because his aloofness makes him seem less "human," which is why stuff like this happens; you all can't stand that he knows more than you and doesn't feel the need to defend that fact by being reactive like me.

[Joy]

If you were actually Ni, you would understand, because like I said, it's not some tangible thing like you coming out and saying you know it all, it's an underlying tone in your posts based off of connected pieces of information I've gathered from your writings. I've seen your views at wiki and know you wrote a fair amount of the stuff, the descriptions and whatnot being accurate. I'm not sure what you mean by "that understanding of socionics"...there is only accuracy, and some people have more accurate understandings. even this new response of yours has a dogmatic, unbending feel to it. I see no Ni interpretation or insight in your posts, but rather, an overuse of Te followed by an attempt at Ni understanding, which ultimately fails, as can be seen in the discussion of ashton's type over at wiki, specifically in this quote:

this was absolutely banal and I will not expand...then, as if to reassert your limited interpretation, you stated

now, that is called missing out on the essence and getting caught up in mindless details.

The differences between yourself and Expat are more likely related to Te vs. Ti than Ni vs. Si, based on this post.

[Joy]

*shrug* whatever. What you call "overuse" of Te I can call "proper use"; what you call "Ni" I call "Ni unsupported by Te"

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at.

[Joy]

Does anyone here have better relations outside their quadra than in it?

I am not into some discussion that I am type X because of some irregularity. It is just that I find it somewhat irritating that every basic part of socionics works except for my own personal experience. It has led me to believe that relations with people have more to do with personal values than anything else. It just happens that people generally get many of those deep rooted values from their type. However, I think I broke the link between my personal values and my inherent values a long time ago. This might explain why I don’t get along with people I should and visa-versa according to socionics theory.

I have seen examples of my case in many other people, albeit in much smaller degrees. What do you guys think? I am looking for different points of view, and not the “you are type X” explanations.

This could be a fluke due to other similarities or differences you've had with the people you've known. Socionics is primarily an intertype relation theory though. It's all about the axes. If you don't need and appreciate Si + Fe over any other combination, you are not ILE.

[Joy]

He's not being a hard-headed bully. He's saying what he thinks. I don't see why everyone expects him to tiptoe through the tulips and dumb himself down just for their egos. He knows a lot and he says it; big fucking whoop.

Honestly, I think it's partly that he's NOT arrogant or overblown about it that makes people feel odd about it. I tout my proficiency all over the place and make no qualms about straight up telling people that I know more than them, and yet people only argue with me. People would LOVE a reason to argue with Expat, I think, because his aloofness makes him seem less "human," which is why stuff like this happens; you all can't stand that he knows more than you and doesn't feel the need to defend that fact by being reactive like me.

Makes sense.

[Jimbean]

This could be a fluke due to other similarities or differences you've had with the people you've known. Socionics is primarily an intertype relation theory though. It's all about the axes. If you don't need and appreciate Si + Fe over any other combination, you are not ILE.

Is that it, or is it possible to value a function, and that value determination affect interpersonal relations, but not be strong it?

[Gilly]

Is that it, or is it possible to value a function, and that value determination affect interpersonal relations, but not be strong it?

That's the Super-Id.

[Joy]

I would think though that generally speaking, the only time you would get along better with people who you're not as functionally compatible with than ones you are is if they happen to be more compatible with you in other ways and/or you haven't been all that close to them for all that long. I think it's possible to get along well with people of any intertype relation, especially at first or from a distance.

If I were you I'd ask myself what it is about those people that clicks with me, why I get along well with them.

[Jimbean]

That's the Super-Id.

Values can either be inherent, or developed. So if I value a function from other people, but I am not strong in that function, and if it is not in my super id, does that not mean that I would get along better with that person that has the said function in their ego block?


I have a feeling that this argument is going to be stupid on my part though.

[Gilly]

Values can either be inherent, or developed. So if I value a function from other people, but I am not strong in that function, and if it is not in my super id, does that not mean that I would get along better with that person that has the said function in their ego block?


I have a feeling that this argument is going to be stupid on my part though.

Yeah, it is, because according to Socionics, if you value a function, and are not strong in it, it's in your Super Id. No way around that, really.

[Joy]

So if I value a function from other people, but I am not strong in that function, and if it is not in my super id

Not possible (at least according to model A).

[Jimbean]

Alright, so, I like Ni, I am not that strong in it (well, I am to some degree).

Well, good grief and holy crap.

[Slacker]

I think there are a few main possibilities:

1. Socionics is not valid. Or maybe Socionics is not valid as currently viewed.

2. You are mistyped.

3. You have mistyped everyone around you.

4. Some combination of the above. Particularly the combination of 2 and 3.

[Gilly]

Alright, so, I like Ni, I am not that strong in it (well, I am to some degree).

Well, good grief and holy crap.

I really think that if you can glaze over the stereotypes you will find that you fit better in Beta than Alpha.

[Gilly]

i personally think this point to beta>alpha.

I agree. Ni seems more Super Id and Si is quite clearly Id > Super Id.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm about to say something, and I although I know it won't be well received it needs to be said:

Relations are the most insignificant aspect of socionics. Period.

I'm not saying that they are completely insignificant; but the idea that a person could be "in conflict" with another person purely on basis of having "conflictor" types is ridiculous.

The rest of socionics, the general public could eventually grow accustomed to. But the relations bit, is almost completely unnecessary to human relations. Completely. There are billions of people all over the globe who function every day without having a clue what type relations are. And how do they do it? By acknowledging their own shortcomings and trying to assess what other's strengths are. That's all they need to know to get work done.

Asserting that type relations are the end-all/be-all of (non-cultural) human relational dynamics is outright pathological, and I've not come upon a psychologist yet who thought differently.

There is a lot that people should know about socionics; people need to know that information elements exist, for example. Duality between functions... people need to look for that. But relations are something that we need not twiddle with particularly, because our own natural hardware appears to do the job just fine. What our hardware needs help with, is apprehending that not everyone is "just like us", and that there are some things about people that you simply cannot change. What you cannot change, you should learn to live in harmony with.

[Logos]

I'm about to say something, and I although I know it won't be well received it needs to be said:

Relations are the most insignificant aspect of socionics. Period.

I'm not saying that they are completely insignificant; but the idea that a person could be "in conflict" with another person purely on basis of having "conflictor" types is ridiculous.

The rest of socionics, the general public could eventually grow accustomed to. But the relations bit, is almost completely unnecessary to human relations. Completely. There are billions of people all over the globe who function every day without having a clue what type relations are. And how do they do it? By acknowledging their own shortcomings and trying to assess what other's strengths are. That's all they need to know to get work done.

Asserting that type relations are the end-all/be-all of (non-cultural) human relational dynamics is outright pathological, and I've not come upon a psychologist yet who thought differently.

There is a lot that people should know about socionics; people need to know that information elements exist, for example. Duality between functions... people need to look for that. But relations are something that we need not twiddle with particularly, because our own natural hardware appears to do the job just fine. What our hardware needs help with, is apprehending that not everyone is "just like us", and that there are some things about people that you simply cannot change. What you cannot change, you should learn to live in harmony with.

Holy cow, I actually agree with TC on how overblown intertype relations seem to be in Socionics.

[Gilly]

...except that the whole theory is completely caput without them. Oops?

[Expat]

You frequently prove without a doubt that you don't want mutual discussions. You just want to be right. It's irritating as hell.

I do get into mutual discussions if I think that the other person has valid points. If I don't think that, then I don't get into the discussion. I may of course be wrong. And it has nothing to do with "wanting to be right". I realize that I may be wrong, at all times, and I can change my views if someone else raises valid points. But when I decide that it's not worth my bother to get into a detailed discussion with someone, I won't. Simple as that.

So basically, we just smile and nod and pat you on your head- because we realize it's not a big deal.

Really? I had no idea. That's so generous of you (yes I am being sarcastic). It's unnecessary, though, since that is of no consequence to me.

But you say "it's not a big deal", and then go on to say how it is, indeed, a big deal to you.

Even if you are right in a very technical way, that still is no excuse for the uppity tone in your posts and the way your stench drives away new users.

Everyone's stench might drive away some people, we can't please everyone. Ever thought how your kind of humor - like harassing Ezra - might drive away some people? Not him as he doesn't give a shit, but others? Ahh, but you're the kind of funny guy everyone likes, aren't you?

You could give an inch and really open your mind to what the other person is saying, but you are so arrogant that you have all the answers (that we might contribute to your strong ), that this never happens. You have a 'Period' vibe in your posts that other people don't like. If we wanted to be preached at instead of finding friends to discuss, I think we'd all visit a church in redneck woods.

What makes you so certain that you are right in generalizing "other people"? You think everyone, or even the majority, shares your own personal perceptions?

Life is so complex and ambiguous, you could discuss the fluidity of things for all of time without coming to some sort of resolution or 'final say so' and I have the feeling that this drives you insane.

Your feeling is totally wrong, but this is a good example of discussions that I see as unworthy of getting into. Would I ever be able to convince you that your "feeling" is wrong? I very much doubt it. Do I care about you "feeling" that? Not in the least. So, why should I waste my time discussing this with you? I shouldn't.

You see? That's how it works.

So is this the part where you say "Tough shit, pussy-boy. I just speak my mind. If you don't like it TOUGH" Or "I wouldn't be a mod if I didn't know what I was talking about." Or my favorite: "If you don't like it - fine, but I'm going to say what I think anyway."

My being a moderator here has very little to do with my socionics knowledge or lack of it.

Well then, fuck you. If you really think those things deep down in your *heart and soul* not just your mind - that's just being a hard-headed bully and there's no excuse for that. The only annoying thing about you is, smart as you indeed are, you don't budge an inch for other people's perceptions about things (that don't have to do with being right) when it could do you a world of good. Are you really the type of asshole that will tell a prostitute to stop being a whore without being her friend first? I don't think so- I know you're much more caring and humane than that- but that's the way you're PERCEIVED BY OTHERS DAMNIT. IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S THE WAY YOU'RE COMING ACROSS! Presentation, presentation, presentation! If you don't get this- if you go 'well at least I'm right' then you totally lost the point!

You think you understand me, but you do not. First, the fact that I write my own views in a direct, even arrogant if you will, way doesn't mean that I think I'm always right or that I have a need to be always right. Second, here, on this forum, I don't see such perceptions of people as my responsibility. My sole objective is to try to share my views with those who might value them for what they're worth. Those who think I'm wrong don't have to take them into account.

And I do appreciate your kinder words, but what I would wish you'd understand is that my own views of being caring and humane include being straightforward in what I say, for the sake of those who are interested in my views.

You don't get to fuck us in the ass without us returning the favor now and then.

That you see what happens in this way is one of the reasons why I see little point in addressing the issue of your perceptions.


@Gilly: thank you.

[Expat]

...except that the whole theory is completely caput without them. Oops?

Yes. Socionics is held together by the relationships; I don't think you can truly understand what a type really is without understanding why precisely that type is supposed to interact with others in that way. For instance, in socionics, you don't understand LII and ESE as types, and and as functions, if you don't understand why, and how, that makes them duals. And going all the way to as to why and how the LII supervises the IEE. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how socionics truly works.

Of course you can learn to type people correctly without thinking of relationships, but if you think the above is of lesser importance, then you're not thinking of socionics.

[Minde]

People would LOVE a reason to argue with Expat, I think, because his aloofness makes him seem less "human," which is why stuff like this happens; you all can't stand that he knows more than you and doesn't feel the need to defend that fact by being reactive like me.

Funnily enough, Expat seems to me one of the most "human" people on this board. Even when I disagree with what he says or thinks I still quite like him. A long time ago I said he feels safe. That hasn't changed.

[MysticSonic]

Yea, generally speaking if there are irregularities that persist across specific types of interpersonal relations: eg. your identical relationships are always really awkward and stinted, your dual relationships are always horrible, then there's something probably wrong with either your understanding of their type, your type, or the relationship in particular. Something's gone wrong with your understanding. That isn't to say an irregularity in a particular relationship, even a very substantial one, necessarily means that you've gotten something wrong in your understanding of that whole relationship and its components, but if you have good and bad relationships with those you shouldn't all across the board, there's something definitely off in your analysis of something important, SOMEWHERE.

[tcaudilllg]

Yes. Socionics is held together by the relationships; I don't think you can truly understand what a type really is without understanding why precisely that type is supposed to interact with others in that way. For instance, in socionics, you don't understand LII and ESE as types, and and as functions, if you don't understand why, and how, that makes them duals. And going all the way to as to why and how the LII supervises the IEE. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how socionics truly works.

Of course you can learn to type people correctly without thinking of relationships, but if you think the above is of lesser importance, then you're not thinking of socionics.

I'm talking about it in a macrosocial context.