Socionic Types and Eenneagram Types in Dualisation

[machintruc]

Rick said that physiological configurations may have its own contribution in relationships.

For example, I'm LII-5, and I had a SEE-7 boss for some time. That dude was pretty cool and friendly, such LII-SEE couple would usually only have information exchange problems (this includes mechanical behaviours). But I don't think I'd get along with a SEE-8 as easily as this.

ESE's are usually E2 or E3. I think I'm more attracted to the E2 variant, because Twos are more friendly.

I get along with SEI-9's usually without major problems, but SEI-4's are harder to get along with.

I find ILI-5's quite difficult to socialise with, but less than ILI-4's.

and so on.

I have some hypothesis : variants of a type are driven to other specific variants of their socionic dual.

For example, let's analyse the LIE-ESI couple :

LIE's can be : 1 3 5 6 7 8
ESI's can be : 1 2 3 6 7 8

Sorting them from the most frequent variant to the least frequent (very approximately) :

LIE : 3 6 5 7 8 1
ESI : 6 1 2 3 8 7

If this order is correct, I'd imagine LIE-3 would be driven to ESI-6, LIE-6 to ESI-1, LIE-5 to ESI-2, and so on.

Then let's analyse the EIE-LSI couple :

From most to least frequent

EIE : 2 6 7 3 4 1
LSI : 8 1 3 7

There are less variants for LSI. I imagine EIE-2 would be driven to LSI-8, because they are the most frequent variants of each socionic type. Then EIE-6 to LSI-1, and I won't say anything for other Beta Process Dyad for now.

A last example for ESE-LII :

ESE : 2 7 3
LII : 5 1 6

I didn't decompose Etypes to their subtypes because it'd be more complicated then. I think Intimate Fives are driven to Intimate Twos, Social Fives to Social Threes, or such.

But I still don't know the rules well for physiological dualisation.

[FDG]

Wait a second, what are you basing the matches on? Frequency? Because if that is your criteria I personally cannot see the rationale behind it.

[machintruc]

Wait a second, what are you basing the matches on? Frequency? Because if that is your criteria I personally cannot see the rationale behind it.

Yes. Frequency.

What's your favourite variant of ESI ? (if however you're LIE)

Another example for LSE and EII :

LSE : 1 3 6 8 2
EII : 1 6 9 2

[FDG]

Yes. Frequency.

What's your favourite variant of ESI ? (if however you're LIE)

Probably 2 (obviously given that they're in the optimistic triad). Anyway why frequency? Isn't it better to pair them according to their serotonin levels i.e. optimistic go with optimistic, neutral go with neutral, and depressive go with depressive?

[machintruc]

Probably 2 (obviously given that they're in the optimistic triad). Anyway why frequency? Isn't it better to pair them according to their serotonin levels i.e. optimistic go with optimistic, neutral go with neutral, and depressive go with depressive?

I'm already trying to figure out such hidden law.

I'm an Intimate Five, and I think my dual is Intimate Two or such.

If combinations of equal frequency dualised, it means that there won't be any theoretical problems for anyone to find a dual.

For example : T/F with Dude/Girl

Dude T dualises with Girl F. Both have equal frequency - they're frequent
Dude F dualises with Girl T. Both have equal frequency - they're less frequent

(not taking homosexuality into account)

I find it logical that it'd be the same thing with Socionics and Enneagram combinations, but in a more complex manner.

[FDG]

I'm already trying to figure out such hidden law.

I'm an Intimate Five, and I think my dual is Intimate Two or such.

If combinations of equal frequency dualised, it means that there won't be any theoretical problems for anyone to find a dual.

For example : T/F with Dude/Girl

Dude T dualises with Girl F. Both have equal frequency - they're frequent
Dude F dualises with Girl T. Both have equal frequency - they're less frequent

(not taking homosexuality into account - also, I think homosexuality is socionically wrong for this reason)

I find it logical that it'd be the same thing with Socionics and Enneagram combinations, but in a more complex manner.

Okay, but see, an ISFj 6 is the dual of both an ENTj 3 and and ENTj 8, so there wouldn't be problems.

What you need to know before constructing such theory is a way to pair up the enneagram-socionics combo. For example if you say that ENTj-3s pair up with ISFjs-6s optimally, then equal frequency equals perfect match.

Or maybe your are working from the empirics way up the theory, saying: if ENTj-3s and ISFjs-6s are both the highest frequency types, then they must dualize because otherwise there'd be mismatches. Am I correct?

[machintruc]

Or maybe your are working from the empirics way up the theory, saying: if ENTj-3s and ISFjs-6s are both the highest frequency types, then they must dualize because otherwise there'd be mismatches. Am I correct?

Yes.

Okay, but see, an ISFj 6 is the dual of both an ENTj 3 and and ENTj 8, so there wouldn't be problems.

ESI-6/LIE-8 is socio-dual only

ESI-6/LIE-3 is socio-dual AND phi-dual.

[FDG]

Okay, I understand the idea then.

(btw, I've never known as ESI 3 or 7)

[Expat]

If machintruc thinks that the most frequent enneatype for LIEs is 3, then in my opinion he doesn't understand LIEs, or 3s, or both.

To an external outsider, LIEs often behave like 3s, I agree. If that's what he means, fine. But the enneagram tries to explain their types' inner motivations, and I doubt you'll find any classical understanding of LIEs - whether based on descriptions or functional ordering - that agrees with 3's basic "self-validation by how others see him" motivation.

Unless that's not how he sees 3s, but in that case we are in disagreement about pretty much everything.

[machintruc]

If machintruc thinks that the most frequent enneatype for LIEs is 3, then in my opinion he doesn't understand LIEs, or 3s, or both.

Sorting them from the most frequent variant to the least frequent (very approximately) :

LIE : 3 6 5 7 8 1

Obviously, LIE's can't read...

[Expat]

Ah, so "very approximately" means "3 is not really the most frequent, so that ordering means nothing". Gotcha.

[Ezra]

Rick said that physiological configurations may have its own contribution in relationships.

For example, I'm LII-5, and I had a SEE-7 boss for some time. That dude was pretty cool and friendly, such LII-SEE couple would usually only have information exchange problems (this includes mechanical behaviours). But I don't think I'd get along with a SEE-8 as easily as this.

ESE's are usually E2 or E3. I think I'm more attracted to the E2 variant, because Twos are more friendly.

I get along with SEI-9's usually without major problems, but SEI-4's are harder to get along with.

I find ILI-5's quite difficult to socialise with, but less than ILI-4's.

and so on.

I have some hypothesis : variants of a type are driven to other specific variants of their socionic dual.

For example, let's analyse the LIE-ESI couple :

LIE's can be : 1 3 5 6 7 8
ESI's can be : 1 2 3 6 7 8

Sorting them from the most frequent variant to the least frequent (very approximately) :

LIE : 3 6 5 7 8 1
ESI : 6 1 2 3 8 7

If this order is correct, I'd imagine LIE-3 would be driven to ESI-6, LIE-6 to ESI-1, LIE-5 to ESI-2, and so on.

Then let's analyse the EIE-LSI couple :

From most to least frequent

EIE : 2 6 7 3 4 1
LSI : 8 1 3 7

There are less variants for LSI. I imagine EIE-2 would be driven to LSI-8, because they are the most frequent variants of each socionic type. Then EIE-6 to LSI-1, and I won't say anything for other Beta Process Dyad for now.

A last example for ESE-LII :

ESE : 2 7 3
LII : 5 1 6

I didn't decompose Etypes to their subtypes because it'd be more complicated then. I think Intimate Fives are driven to Intimate Twos, Social Fives to Social Threes, or such.

But I still don't know the rules well for physiological dualisation.

So, basically, you are trying to formulate an intertype relationship theory for the Enneagram, using the perspective you've gained from socionics and/or MBTT.

[machintruc]

So, basically, you are trying to formulate an intertype relationship theory for the Enneagram, using the perspective you've gained from socionics and/or MBTT.

Basically, yes.