Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: "The Strength in Relationships"

  1. #1
    Creepy-

    Default "The Strength in Relationships"

    I came across this article, which I think is fairly interesting. Here it is, copy-and-paste-style.

    SOURCE: The Strength in Relationships

    The Strength in Relationships
    19 May 2010

    by I/O

    The four strongest inter-type relations are Dual, Super-ego, Semi-Dual and Illusionary pairs with Super-Ego being the easiest to start. This article assigns strength factors to Socionics' inter-type relations based on Maslov's hierarchy of needs. Successful relationships provide a sense of security and mutual understanding for both partners. These needs underpin communication, trust, friendship, intimacy, and or a sense of belonging or family. A strong relationship would also have to promote the esteem and actualization of both partners. Although Socionics inter-type descriptions are fairly accurate, the relative strengths of relationships do not appear all that well delineated. Note that you should first read about Maslov as well as my articles entitled My Take on Temperament and The Functioning of Type, which differ from traditional Socionics' explanations.

    Security is a sense by both partners that they are stronger in a relationship than they would be alone; they both sense that some of their weaknesses are covered off by the other partner. This complementing occurs between Types when one partner primarily operates in closed-loop mode and the other open-loop, and when the preferences of one partner complement rather than compete with those of the other (thinking, T complementing feeling, F, and sensing, S complementing intuitive, N).

    Understanding occurs when the root processing (habitual, problem solving and communication styles) of one partner is understood by or familiar to the other, and both instinctively know that the other really does understand. Note that understanding does not imply agreement. Therefore, understanding is better supported when the temperament of both partners operate in similar modes (either open or closed-loop) and or both share preferences (T or F and S or N).

    Esteem is promoted when both partners think and feel they contribute equally to the relationship. This implies that a partner will not normally think or feel that he or she can better fulfil the other's role. Note that role does not refer to specific tasks. Both partners need to sense that they are best suited for their particular roles and should instinctively know that their partner benefits from their efforts. Esteem is better supported when preferences are not shared so partners do not trample each other's turf.

    Actualization is promoted when both partners feel they are able to freely function outside the relationship as individuals. This state is better supported when both partners are travelling the same path or sharing a life philosophy. Therefore, both partners tend to be more comfortable stepping out when both temperaments are either input or output oriented (p or j).

    Now, let's assign values to the above paragraphs based on Maslov's hierarchy: security a value of 4, understanding 3, esteem 2 and actualization 1. The numbers themselves are not significant other than indicating the level in the hierarchy, 4 being the greater need or higher value. Based upon the above, the mix of temperament in a relationship supports some of the above needs so hence can be assigned values:

    -one partner primarily operates in open-loop mode, the other closed-loop
    (covers each other's weaknesses creating a more secure environment) 4
    -both partners primarily operate in open-loop or closed-loop mode
    (there's inherent understanding between partners) 3
    -both having either input (p) or output (j) leading temperament
    (similar understanding of needs for achieving goals plus actualization potential) 5 (4+1)
    -input leads the temperament of one, output leads the other
    (divisive vision of how life should proceed such as how to set or achieve goals) 0

    The mix of preferences in a relationship can also be assigned values:

    -one partner has a dominant or secondary T preference, the other F
    (covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) 6 (4+2)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary T or F preference
    (inherent understanding of rationalization preferences between partners) 3
    -one partner has a dominant or secondary S preference, the other N
    (covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) 6 (4+2)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary S or N preference
    (inherent understanding of perception preferences between partners) 3

    One can estimate a relative strength for each inter-type pair by multiplying the sum of the applicable temperament values to the sum of the applicable preference values, which gives the following results:


    Duality (4+5)*(6+6) = 108
    Super ego (3+5)*(6+6) = 96
    Semi-dual (4+5)*(6+3) = 81
    Illusionary (4+5)*(3+6) = 81
    Comparative (3+5)*(3+6) = 72
    Look-alike (3+5)*(6+3) = 72
    Contrary (4+5)*(3+3) = 54
    Identical (3+5)*(3+3) = 48
    Activity (4+0)*(6+6) = 48
    Conflicting (3+0)*(6+6) = 36
    Benefit (4+0)*(6+3) = 36
    Supervision (3+0)*(6+3) = 27
    Quasi-identical (4+0)*(3+3) = 24
    Mirror (3+0)*(3+3) = 18

    Note that it is assumed that preferences are superimposed on temperament; hence, multiplication (*) of temperament and preference totals is necessary. These calculations also assume that the separations among Maslov's levels of need are equidistant. A higher total indicates a greater potential for success in a relationship, but this by itself is no guarantee of success.

    Let's now digress to when we first meet someone who could be a potential partner or mate; the perception of needs would be different from those described above, and visceral gratification would become a common goal whether it be of a sexual, curiosity or alliance nature. Both would be somewhat guarded so security would no longer be a discriminating factor. The temperament values would therefore change to:

    -one partner primarily operates open-loop, the other closed-loop
    (partners' primary temperament processes out of sync, unfamiliar) 0
    -both partners primarily operate open-loop or closed-loop
    (partners' primary temperament processes in sync, familiar) 3
    -both partners having either input or output leading temperament
    (one has an inherent understanding how the other operates) 3
    -input leads one partner called the receiver, output leads in the sender
    (output feeds input - symbiosis promotes esteem plus actualization) 3 (2+1)

    The preference values would also change to:

    -one partner has a dominant or secondary T preference, the other F
    (bringing different strengths feed esteem plus actualization of both) 3 (2+1)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary T or F preference
    (inherent understanding of rationalization preferences between partners) 3
    -one partner has a dominant or secondary S preference, the other N
    (bringing different strengths feed esteem plus actualization of both) 3 (2+1)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary S or N preference
    (inherent understanding of perception preferences between partners) 3

    The above values indicate that people who share either open-loop or closed-loop temperaments would initially gravitate toward one another because all other contributing factors would cancel each other. Note that Dual pairs do not have this initial attraction. There is also an implication that super-ego, long-term relationships may be the more common - an 80% solution that can be kindled by a visceral attraction. Other easy-to-start, relatively strong relationships would be Comparative and Look-a-like pairs. However, as one may initially have very strong attraction to a particular type, long-term coexistence may develop unforeseen complications as temperaments and preferences emerge and interact.

  2. #2
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,728
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree. Math has nothing to do with relationships. Super-ego in second place is a rediculous claim; my relationships with EIEs have always been informative and polite, yet somehow strained. From what I've seen of couples, beneficiary relationships are second only to dualism.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  3. #3
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Establishing Maslows Pyramid of Needs as the absolute paradigm for relationships and then applying socionics to each level of the pyramid one by one in a haphazard fashion (making superficial associations and then counting?) is completely arbitrary.
    The resulting wall of worthless, meaningless bullshit could only be the product of an Ne type with weak Ti, like yourself.
    INTp

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Super-Ego being the easiest to start
    dubious statement.

    Super-ego in second place is a rediculous claim
    I agree.

  5. #5
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoapOfSapphire View Post
    I came across this article, which I think is fairly interesting. Here it is, copy-and-paste-style.

    SOURCE: The Strength in Relationships

    The Strength in Relationships
    19 May 2010

    by I/O

    The four strongest inter-type relations are Dual, Super-ego, Semi-Dual and Illusionary pairs with Super-Ego being the easiest to start. This article assigns strength factors to Socionics' inter-type relations based on Maslov's hierarchy of needs. Successful relationships provide a sense of security and mutual understanding for both partners. These needs underpin communication, trust, friendship, intimacy, and or a sense of belonging or family. A strong relationship would also have to promote the esteem and actualization of both partners. Although Socionics inter-type descriptions are fairly accurate, the relative strengths of relationships do not appear all that well delineated. Note that you should first read about Maslov as well as my articles entitled My Take on Temperament and The Functioning of Type, which differ from traditional Socionics' explanations.

    Security is a sense by both partners that they are stronger in a relationship than they would be alone; they both sense that some of their weaknesses are covered off by the other partner. This complementing occurs between Types when one partner primarily operates in closed-loop mode and the other open-loop, and when the preferences of one partner complement rather than compete with those of the other (thinking, T complementing feeling, F, and sensing, S complementing intuitive, N).

    Understanding occurs when the root processing (habitual, problem solving and communication styles) of one partner is understood by or familiar to the other, and both instinctively know that the other really does understand. Note that understanding does not imply agreement. Therefore, understanding is better supported when the temperament of both partners operate in similar modes (either open or closed-loop) and or both share preferences (T or F and S or N).

    Esteem is promoted when both partners think and feel they contribute equally to the relationship. This implies that a partner will not normally think or feel that he or she can better fulfil the other's role. Note that role does not refer to specific tasks. Both partners need to sense that they are best suited for their particular roles and should instinctively know that their partner benefits from their efforts. Esteem is better supported when preferences are not shared so partners do not trample each other's turf.

    Actualization is promoted when both partners feel they are able to freely function outside the relationship as individuals. This state is better supported when both partners are travelling the same path or sharing a life philosophy. Therefore, both partners tend to be more comfortable stepping out when both temperaments are either input or output oriented (p or j).

    Now, let's assign values to the above paragraphs based on Maslov's hierarchy: security a value of 4, understanding 3, esteem 2 and actualization 1. The numbers themselves are not significant other than indicating the level in the hierarchy, 4 being the greater need or higher value. Based upon the above, the mix of temperament in a relationship supports some of the above needs so hence can be assigned values:

    -one partner primarily operates in open-loop mode, the other closed-loop
    (covers each other's weaknesses creating a more secure environment) 4
    -both partners primarily operate in open-loop or closed-loop mode
    (there's inherent understanding between partners) 3
    -both having either input (p) or output (j) leading temperament
    (similar understanding of needs for achieving goals plus actualization potential) 5 (4+1)
    -input leads the temperament of one, output leads the other
    (divisive vision of how life should proceed such as how to set or achieve goals) 0

    The mix of preferences in a relationship can also be assigned values:

    -one partner has a dominant or secondary T preference, the other F
    (covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) 6 (4+2)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary T or F preference
    (inherent understanding of rationalization preferences between partners) 3
    -one partner has a dominant or secondary S preference, the other N
    (covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) 6 (4+2)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary S or N preference
    (inherent understanding of perception preferences between partners) 3

    One can estimate a relative strength for each inter-type pair by multiplying the sum of the applicable temperament values to the sum of the applicable preference values, which gives the following results:


    Duality (4+5)*(6+6) = 108
    Super ego (3+5)*(6+6) = 96
    Semi-dual (4+5)*(6+3) = 81
    Illusionary (4+5)*(3+6) = 81
    Comparative (3+5)*(3+6) = 72
    Look-alike (3+5)*(6+3) = 72
    Contrary (4+5)*(3+3) = 54
    Identical (3+5)*(3+3) = 48
    Activity (4+0)*(6+6) = 48
    Conflicting (3+0)*(6+6) = 36
    Benefit (4+0)*(6+3) = 36
    Supervision (3+0)*(6+3) = 27
    Quasi-identical (4+0)*(3+3) = 24
    Mirror (3+0)*(3+3) = 18

    Note that it is assumed that preferences are superimposed on temperament; hence, multiplication (*) of temperament and preference totals is necessary. These calculations also assume that the separations among Maslov's levels of need are equidistant. A higher total indicates a greater potential for success in a relationship, but this by itself is no guarantee of success.

    Let's now digress to when we first meet someone who could be a potential partner or mate; the perception of needs would be different from those described above, and visceral gratification would become a common goal whether it be of a sexual, curiosity or alliance nature. Both would be somewhat guarded so security would no longer be a discriminating factor. The temperament values would therefore change to:

    -one partner primarily operates open-loop, the other closed-loop
    (partners' primary temperament processes out of sync, unfamiliar) 0
    -both partners primarily operate open-loop or closed-loop
    (partners' primary temperament processes in sync, familiar) 3
    -both partners having either input or output leading temperament
    (one has an inherent understanding how the other operates) 3
    -input leads one partner called the receiver, output leads in the sender
    (output feeds input - symbiosis promotes esteem plus actualization) 3 (2+1)

    The preference values would also change to:

    -one partner has a dominant or secondary T preference, the other F
    (bringing different strengths feed esteem plus actualization of both) 3 (2+1)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary T or F preference
    (inherent understanding of rationalization preferences between partners) 3
    -one partner has a dominant or secondary S preference, the other N
    (bringing different strengths feed esteem plus actualization of both) 3 (2+1)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary S or N preference
    (inherent understanding of perception preferences between partners) 3

    The above values indicate that people who share either open-loop or closed-loop temperaments would initially gravitate toward one another because all other contributing factors would cancel each other. Note that Dual pairs do not have this initial attraction. There is also an implication that super-ego, long-term relationships may be the more common - an 80% solution that can be kindled by a visceral attraction. Other easy-to-start, relatively strong relationships would be Comparative and Look-a-like pairs. However, as one may initially have very strong attraction to a particular type, long-term coexistence may develop unforeseen complications as temperaments and preferences emerge and interact.

    well i will be the minority report here and attest to the face validity of this article, which seems to hold true in the relationships that i can remember. in 46 years of aliveness, have had the following romantic relationships:

    identity, 1 year
    activity, 3 years
    activity, 6 months
    illusionary, 4 years
    lookalike, 15 years
    illusionary, 4 years so far

    the worst by far was identity. activity was good but the problem was they could not handle my irrationality. in one case it hurt them; in the other, they left before they got hurt.

    out of these illusionary has the most savoir faire, complementarity, and positive energy. i have not had a dual relationship unfortunately.

    the superego hypothesis is interesting but it goes against classical socionics. i agree that they are easy to start. i have to say i am always attracted to SEE, but mostly these have been friendships with other women and we often get to a place of major misunderstanding.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  6. #6
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Super-Ego being the easiest to start
    I agree with this, although I always thought of it in context of shared temperament and thinking style. If there's some distance in relationship - let's say, it's not a person you live with - it can be surprisingly good. I wouldn't say it's second only to duality in long term, though.

  7. #7
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From an IM standpoint, the broad overarching statement "T complements F, N complements S" is an over-generalization. complements , yes, but it sharply conflicts with . The failure to account for this, instead relying on incomplete dichotomies, results in the gross overestimation of the success of Super-Ego pairs.

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The annoying thing about the "super-ego is good" claim is that people are going to parrot the claim without adequate reason just because someone randomly got the idea for once.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can't use socionics to demonstrate the strength of a relationship, I don't think. Unless you're talking about interaction frequency. I could totally imagine seeing an ISFJ Christian conservative extremist as an intransigent obstacle to my goals. (and they probably would be, because I can hear them now condemning me for not accepting "god's plan" and "my lot", amidst general arguments that this world is not important, that I should seek spiritual salvation in Christ, etc.)

  10. #10
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,477
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think super ego might "seem" good from a distance, like admiring each other from across the room or on TV. I like SEE's SF qualities and certain aspects of their (my role function) and they usually admire my NT qualities and . Kira Nerys from DS9 is an example of an SEE (?) character I really liked. But as soon as you try talking to them major differences start to creep up immediately.

    God forbid you have to work together. I want to brainstorm some ideas and the SEE uncompromisingly wants to get things finished asap, get as much practical benefit as possible from existing ideas and finish the project any which way he can. Which is where can be really annoying.

    And if I'm not feeling interested, he takes it upon himself to try to "motivate" me somewhat forcefully. Which is the best way to put a spotlight on someone's weak / role and create an embarrassing situation for that function. I can be pretty energetic and hardworking, I just need to be enticed by an active interest first, which I suppose doesn't always seem practical from his perspective.

    One of the intertype descriptions was right on when it said that, when working together, you feel the super ego is doing everything wrong on purpose. That's how I feel around my brother anyway.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  11. #11
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    I disagree. Math has nothing to do with relationships. Super-ego in second place is a rediculous claim; my relationships with EIEs have always been informative and polite, yet somehow strained. From what I've seen of couples, beneficiary relationships are second only to dualism.
    Beneficiary is second-best in your experience? Interesting... I have never been in a long-term relationship of benefit, partly bc it doesn't seem all that great once you get close ime. What do you like/see as particularly good about benefit, in particular? And is it better in your experience when you're the benefactor or beneficiary, or does that make a difference at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze View Post
    well i will be the minority report here and attest to the face validity of this article, which seems to hold true in the relationships that i can remember. in 46 years of aliveness, have had the following romantic relationships:

    identity, 1 year
    activity, 3 years
    activity, 6 months
    illusionary, 4 years
    lookalike, 15 years
    illusionary, 4 years so far

    the worst by far was identity. activity was good but the problem was they could not handle my irrationality. in one case it hurt them; in the other, they left before they got hurt.

    out of these illusionary has the most savoir faire, complementarity, and positive energy. i have not had a dual relationship unfortunately.

    the superego hypothesis is interesting but it goes against classical socionics. i agree that they are easy to start. i have to say i am always attracted to SEE, but mostly these have been friendships with other women and we often get to a place of major misunderstanding.
    Thanks for posting this! It's exactly what I was hoping for in posting this: that people would comment, either in agreement or disagreement w the article, with reflections on their own experience w different relations.

    Interesting that lookalike and illusionary have been best for you. I have similar experience, w a long-term illusionary relationship that was very good overall [we're still great friends] and a couple of very good lookalike relationships as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I agree with this, although I always thought of it in context of shared temperament and thinking style. If there's some distance in relationship - let's say, it's not a person you live with - it can be surprisingly good. I wouldn't say it's second only to duality in long term, though.
    Yeah... I'm not convinced super-ego relations are second-best, either. But I do know a fair number of people in super-ego relationships, and they seem to be happy in general [though who knows what's beneath the surface], which I wouldn't have predicted but this article seems to suggest is normal. I don't know, though... super-ego seems a great deal less than ideal.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    You can't use socionics to demonstrate the strength of a relationship, I don't think.
    Yeah, I'm not sure you can either, and that's part of why I found the article interesting: the author is making a prediction about how relations will play out, based on a mathematical formula... it seems outlandish to me at first glance, but then I thought maybe there's some merit to it [and maybe not]. That's why I posted it here: to get real people's input from real life experiences and to see how that matches up [or clashes] w the theory here.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    I think super ego might "seem" good from a distance, like admiring each other from across the room or on TV. I like SEE's SF qualities and certain aspects of their (my role function) and they usually admire my NT qualities and . Kira Nerys from DS9 is an example of an SEE (?) character I really liked. But as soon as you try talking to them major differences start to creep up immediately.

    God forbid you have to work together. I want to brainstorm some ideas and the SEE uncompromisingly wants to get things finished asap, get as much practical benefit as possible from existing ideas and finish the project any which way he can. Which is where can be really annoying.

    And if I'm not feeling interested, he takes it upon himself to try to "motivate" me somewhat forcefully. Which is the best way to put a spotlight on someone's weak / role and create an embarrassing situation for that function. I can be pretty energetic and hardworking, I just need to be enticed by an active interest first, which I suppose doesn't always seem practical from his perspective.

    One of the intertype descriptions was right on when it said that, when working together, you feel the super ego is doing everything wrong on purpose. That's how I feel around my brother anyway.
    Interesting stuff -- I agree in particular about super-ego relations seeming good from a distance... ime it's like the other person is really impressive and just seems so cool about things that I see as challenging. And ime relations can be pretty easy to start [though this probably comes down to the individuals involved, as always]. But in closer interaction... it starts to suck eventually.



    Any other input?

  12. #12
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yw soapofsapphire. i quite liked the article since it seems more out of the box yet at the same time realistic about relationships in practical application. i think I/O is on to something.

    that said, the consensus seems to be that superego is easy to start; is not an easy relation to maintain. so, overall, one big criticism of I/O's hypoethesis. really, not bad for a first run. thanks for posting this!

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  13. #13
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,728
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoapOfSapphire View Post
    Beneficiary is second-best in your experience? Interesting... I have never been in a long-term relationship of benefit, partly bc it doesn't seem all that great once you get close ime. What do you like/see as particularly good about benefit, in particular? And is it better in your experience when you're the benefactor or beneficiary, or does that make a difference at all?
    I see the quantity part of it more than the quality part. My pastor, sunday school teacher, and uncle all have beneficiary marraiges to name a few. Beneficiary and dualizm are the most common.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  14. #14
    Your DNA is mine. Mediator Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,481
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Agreed, it took some work to get my ILI best friend to trust me, but after that hurdle, everything is great, on a superficial level of course. The thinking styles are quite far off. She hates fireworks, can you believe that?
    D-SEI 9w1

    This is me and my dual being scientific together

  15. #15
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wrong. Identical relationships are not that far down either, and super-ego isn't that far up. Supervision isn't worse than Conflicting, either.

    People just have a lot of self-hatred and they think they always need something really different to complete them. Me, I'd rather have somebody more alike than different, although- different in just the right areas.

  16. #16
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,728
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    People just have a lot of self-hatred and they think they always need something really different to complete them. Me, I'd rather have somebody more alike than different, although- different in just the right areas.
    Now I'm wondering what makes people differetiate on which aspects they prefer to be shared and which they prefer to differ on. Typically, people want E/I, S/N, and T/F to be different and j/p to be shared. However, people's second choices tend to vary widely. Out of the four jungian dichotomies, I would value E/I as the most necessary to be different, followed by S/N.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  17. #17
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Making direct associations like this between Maslow's hierarchy of need and socionic relationships is something I would not recommend doing.

    A super-ego relationship might be good for displacing unwanted responsibilities on, but the communication mechanics are terrible.

    Information conflicts negatively affect security, super-ego relationships can occur occasionally because of temperament similarities and mutual activities, but it is destructive and stressful otherwise.

    It's more likely to be subtractive in value rather then additive.
    Technically you can redo the math of the chart with subtractive information conflicts and describe it totally different.

    Super-ego is one of the worst relationships I've ever observed, and the worst problem is that it can begin at all in the first place because of similar temperament and activities levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by This is wrong
    the mix of preferences in a relationship can also be assigned values:

    -one partner has a dominant or secondary T preference, the other F
    (covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) 6 (4+2)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary T or F preference
    (inherent understanding of rationalization preferences between partners) 3
    -one partner has a dominant or secondary S preference, the other N
    (covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) 6 (4+2)
    -both partners have a dominant or secondary S or N preference
    (inherent understanding of perception preferences between partners) 3
    The problem here is that it ignores information preference.
    Socionic theory would inform us that conflicting elements would not bring security or esteem but rather attack security and esteem
    So instead of Super ego being a value of 6, it's more likely a value of 2, while conflict relations would have a value of 1.

    The system being devised here is actually contrary to socionic theory, perhaps there is some effect to Maslow's Hierarchy of need on socionic relationships, but it's not in a direct fashion such as this.

    I've found that the two factors I observe with compatibility is Static/Dynamic(A part of temperament) and Process/Result.

    Ideally Static/Dynamic should be different and Process/Result should be the same.

    Having these two characteristic together would place one either in duality within that relationship or in a benefit relationship.

    With the worst relationship being contrary relations which aren't that bad for activites as contrary relationships all share the same club.
    Last edited by mu4; 07-06-2010 at 11:12 PM.

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can't fragment socionics like that. It's like taking a cake and then slicing it and saying 'this piece of cake is more important than that piece of cake for some subjective neurotic reason that I can't really prove.'

    Because the nature of subjectivity is fluid. Haven't you ever really liked something and then you changed your mind about it? Or vice versa? If you're so convinced that you are the way you are and it's not flexible, then I think that just makes anybody get psychological disorders. I used to think I was this type of person or that type but as I live life , I think I'm getting a better handle on what is my real type vs. what I'm just trying to tell myself because I don't know any better.

    The problem is you're trying to break it down when in all reality these types exist in a natural whole, they are too intertwined in reality to be vacuum-ized like that. The only thing that does that are viruses and everything that opposes life. I don't think socionics was meant to be viewed as a pathology.

    Typically, people want E/I, S/N, and T/F to be different and j/p to be shared. However, people's second choices tend to vary widely.
    It's not what people want, it's just what works. The relationship works not because of the two people but despite of them, ie it works well more of outside reality and physical presence and how the other person makes you handle external reality better. And yes, this is mainly because of internal things that are happening 'underneath the surface' but the main point is that there's a real physical guideline that you notice in others. That's why in healthy relationships you don't question yourself and are emo about something you want to do in life, all healthy relationships simply help you live your life better and help you get over yourself.

Posting Permissions

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