Energy-based vs information-based

[Jonathan]

Does anyone know much about the distinction between eneryg-based and information-based relationships, as discussed here?:
http://www.socionics.us/theory/relationships.shtml

If you're not familiar with it, the idea is that certain relationships (information based) involve "More interchange of conscious, verbalizable information than subconscious impact" whereas others (energy based) involve "More subconscious impact than exchange of verbalizable information."

There seems to be an interesting paradox here: Super-ego and conflicting relationships are considered information-based, whereas activity and dual relationships are considered energy-based.

Does that mean that the more conflicting kinds of relationships (super-ego, conflicting) are easier to form, because people are communicating consciously, in straightforward fashion, where as the more long-term positive relationships (dual, activity) are harder to form and require more initial effort and making more of a "leap" so to speak to even meet the other person, because they involve more subconscious communication?

That would be odd....but I'm just wondering if it's true.

[Jonathan]

It'd be nice to able to just be with somebody and have the understanding without having to explain everything. Maybe that's what they mean?

Yeah, I think it's something like that. That may be why when people get into the mode where they're seeking relationships, they start interacting as if relying on ESP (extra-sensory perception in this case...) rather than through the normal ways of communicating.

But it really makes me wonder...do other people find that conflicting and super-ego relationships are actually easier to form...that these people are easier to meet, easier to find, easier to form a friendship with...than the more dual kinds of people, for the very reason that the communication in information-based relationships is straightforward?

[Dmitri Lytov]

I'd say that such terminology is incorrect in principle. It was invented by Victor Gulenko who tends to "philosophization" of his ideas.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Jonathan]

In Static/Dynamic, they are in different "communication zones" so it doesn't feel like you are being "watched", a Static will interpret the things of Dynamics, and the Dynamic will 'draw out' the things of the statics.

I think I can see that. Based on the descriptions, I'm probably a Dynamic, and I like it when someone interprets what I'm sayng so as to form an image, and I'm good at "drawing out" the structure of what someone says.

But why would Dynamic+Dynamic or Static+Static make you feel you're being "watched"?

Also, this whole static/dynamic thing is very interesting. INTp is listed as dynamic and therefore thinks in terms of structures. INTj is listed as static and therefore thinks in terms of images and events. Isn't that kind of the opposite of how INTp and INTj are defined? Anyone have a good answer for that?

[Mariano Rajoy]

where does the dynamic=structures and the static=images and events, come from? http://www.socioniko.net/en/authors/index-library.html

[Dmitri Lytov]

INTp is listed as dynamic and therefore thinks in terms of structures

Is a structure something dynamic, not static??? And what about the function - the "structural logic"?

[Rick]

The term "relations of repulsion" or "attraction" came from Aushra, but information-based and energy-based seem to be more commonly used (they're not as harsh). I can tell the difference between the two quite easily in real life. Information-based relations tend to quickly become dry and inert; partners tend to spend lots of time formulating and reformulating things instead of DOING. In energy-based relations there's always something a little unexpected in the way the person says things, and it takes a while to digest, but in the meantime you are doing something together.

The best place to observe these differences are in the quadra. Identity and mirror relations are tiringly discussionary in nature; as the person speaks you already know what they are trying to say and are busy formulating your own reply. The only way to break this pattern is to introduce another type into the situation (a dual of one or the other), which results in the two original partners immediately switching their attention to the new person and from thence forth communicating primarily through him and having discussions with each other only when there is a need to discuss a specific topic.

In activation and dual relations there is a much greater chance of having your laughter buttons pressed and experiencing psychic relaxation. It's something about the way the person does things, or an unexpected way of saying things. You respond with laughter or relaxation, or with somewhat unrelated thoughts of your own inspired by something in the interaction.

[Jonathan]

In energy-based relations there's always something a little unexpected in the way the person says things, and it takes a while to digest

Yeah, this corresponds with what I thought the thing was saying. But I'm still curious about the possible corollary: Since in energy-based relations the other person is less predictable (i.e., unexpected, etc.), does that mean that dual and activity relations are easier to get started at first than super-ego and conflict relations?

For example, I relate to ISFjs and ESFps very well; I know where they're coming from, why they do what they do. This could mean that they're my activity and dual relations, or it could mean that they aren't because since I know where they're coming from, it's informational, so that they're really my super-ego and conflicting relations.

On the other hand, I find ISFps and ESFjs somewhat mysterious and fascinating. But somehow, I never get past the small talk with them. This could mean that they're my super-ego and conflicting relations, or it could mean that since I don't know where they're coming from, it's energy-based, so that they're really my activity and dual relations.

[Rick]

In energy-based relations there's always something a little unexpected in the way the person says things, and it takes a while to digest

Yeah, this corresponds with what I thought the thing was saying. But I'm still curious about the possible corollary: Since in energy-based relations the other person is less predictable (i.e., unexpected, etc.), does that mean that dual and activity relations are easier to get started at first than super-ego and conflict relations?

For example, I relate to ISFjs and ESFps very well; I know where they're coming from, why they do what they do. This could mean that they're my activity and dual relations, or it could mean that they aren't because since I know where they're coming from, it's informational, so that they're really my super-ego and conflicting relations.

On the other hand, I find ISFps and ESFjs somewhat mysterious and fascinating. But somehow, I never get past the small talk with them. This could mean that they're my super-ego and conflicting relations, or it could mean that since I don't know where they're coming from, it's energy-based, so that they're really my activity and dual relations.

Seems like you're asking a question more about your own type than about information vs. energy-based relations. I dunno.

[EDIT: Whoops, I didn't realize we had already discussed your type. Now I remember ]

The "speed" with which you can get into different relations depends on how you have been "primed." If you're tuned into duals, you will look for them more around you and ease into interaction quicker. I think quickness of establishing relationships is too flexible to be related to the kind of relationship. It depends more on whether people share something specific in common with you that gives you something to talk about from the very start. It also depends on physical attraction...

Well, I didn't answer your question at all. Let's take an abstract approach.

We can safely suppose that different types on average emit signals related to their first function with the same degree of intensity. That would mean that if you enter a new group of people, all the types in that group will be sending these signals at the same "volume" (on average). So, the issue is probably, which signals will you recognize faster? Which will seem "noisier" to you at first?

I can't say, really. I haven't noted any clear patterns. I think one's receptivity to certain types changes a lot. Some people are good at finding "their type," while others are bad at it.

Oh well. In science no correlation is often a more valuable result than finding a correlation...

[Rick]

For example, I relate to ISFjs and ESFps very well; I know where they're coming from, why they do what they do. This could mean that they're my activity and dual relations, or it could mean that they aren't because since I know where they're coming from, it's informational, so that they're really my super-ego and conflicting relations.

On the other hand, I find ISFps and ESFjs somewhat mysterious and fascinating. But somehow, I never get past the small talk with them. This could mean that they're my super-ego and conflicting relations, or it could mean that since I don't know where they're coming from, it's energy-based, so that they're really my activity and dual relations.

Okay, now I see what you're saying. With super-ego and conflict, you would definitely not "know where they're coming from." You would respond to their words and statements directly (i.e. information-based relations), but would not understand/trust/relate to their motives. Reacting to words and relating to motives are two different things.

[Phaedrus]

For example, I relate to ISFjs and ESFps very well; I know where they're coming from, why they do what they do. This could mean that they're my activity and dual relations, or it could mean that they aren't because since I know where they're coming from, it's informational, so that they're really my super-ego and conflicting relations.

On the other hand, I find ISFps and ESFjs somewhat mysterious and fascinating. But somehow, I never get past the small talk with them. This could mean that they're my super-ego and conflicting relations, or it could mean that since I don't know where they're coming from, it's energy-based, so that they're really my activity and dual relations.

Okay, now I see what you're saying. With super-ego and conflict, you would definitely not "know where they're coming from." You would respond to their words and statements directly (i.e. information-based relations), but would not understand/trust/relate to their motives. Reacting to words and relating to motives are two different things.

Phew! (Sigh of relief) Now, I think that I can relax again ... (another sigh of relief) ... For a while I was afraid that you Rick (or someone else) would give the "wrong" explanation of Jonathan's ponderings, with the unwanted consequence that I would have to start all over again and question my own type for the umpteenth time ... That can become a little tiring after a couple of years, I can tell you.

My tells me that you will give up your last barrier of resistance within a week or two, Jonathan, and finally accept that you are an INTp.

[Jonathan]

My tells me that you will give up your last barrier of resistance within a week or two, Jonathan, and finally accept that you are an INTp.

What, me....decide something absolutely? Even if I did decide to "knock it off," Rocky is still probably going to maintain that I'm INTj....sorry about that.

Anyhow, I don't have bad relations with ISFp and ESFj...it's just that somehow closer relations haven't materialized much with them, and have materialized more with ISFj and ESFp....so, you can be happy about that at least.

[Phaedrus]

Anyhow, I don't have bad relations with ISFp and ESFj...it's just that somehow closer relations haven't materialized much with them, and have materialized more with ISFj and ESFp....so, you can be happy about that at least.

I can't find the post where I said it, but have you thought about the description of the conflicting relation at http://www.socionics.us/relations.shtml ? Especially the second sentence I think explains a lot of why I haven't felt my relations with ESFjs to be conflicting ones. Anyway, I am now in a position where I think that my hypothesis about my own type can be falsified, because I will meet an ESFp on a regular basis in the future if nothing unexpected happens. So, I will be able to compare my relation to her with my relations to ESFjs, and if I am right about my own type, I will at the same time be able to get a good feel for what it is like to be in a complete Gamma quadra.

What, me....decide something absolutely? Even if I did decide to "knock it off," Rocky is still probably going to maintain that I'm INTj....sorry about that.

These are indubitable facts:

1. Either you and I are the same type, or we are not the same type.

2. If you and I are not the same type, then I will start to consider Internet typing to be an almost completely useless, random and totally unreliable typing method, because then two persons could be different types even if you haven't been able to find one single clear difference between them after months of discussions and comparisons.

3. If you and I are the same type, and you are an LII, then I am also an LII.

4. If what you say in the quote is true, and 3 is also true, and it is true that I am an ILI, then Rocky is wrong about your type.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Phaedrus]

ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT!

Exactly what is bullshit, Transigent? And exactly what is the point you are trying to make with your last, long quote?

Even if you might be my Quasi-Identical or something (I don't know), I'm actually rather irritated by now of all this SG-influenced-or-of-SG-independent-but-similar-in-style kind of arguing, which from my perspective is not arguing at all, but on the contrary an extremely annoying and coward-like way of refusing to explain in a clear and elaborate way what you mean. Those of you who like that communication style, are you all so desperate trying to hide that fact that you don't know what you are talking about, or what is the real reason? Are you afraid to look stupid? If that is your motive (just speculating here), I can assure you that achieve quite the opposite of your real intent by "arguing" in that way.

And why the hell are you deleting all your posts, Transigent? Were they really that bad?

[Expat]

You Bring
You feel comfortable discussing with people, relating to people, and having people define you by…
ENxp INxj Interests and Talents
INxp ENxj Beliefs and Vision
ESxp ISxj Ambition and Directness
ISxp ESxj Health and Comfort
ExFj IxFp Emotions and Expressiveness
IxFj ExFp Feelings and Attitudes
ExTj IxTp Knowledge and Productivity
IxTj ExTp Understanding and Opinions


You Avoid
Don't like too much focus on your own
ENxp INxj Ambition and Directness
INxp ENxj Health and Comfort
ESxp ISxj Interests and Talents
ISxp ESxj Beliefs and Vision
ExFj IxFp Knowledge and Productivity
IxFj ExFp Understanding and Opinions
ExTj IxTp Emotions and Expressiveness
IxTj ExTp Feelings and Attitudes


They Bring
Enjoy when people involve you in, respond with, and relate to you by
ENxp INxj Health and Comfort
INxp ENxj Ambition and Directness
ESxp ISxj Beliefs and Vision
ISxp ESxj Interests and Talents
ExFj IxFp Understanding and Opinions
IxFj ExFp Knowledge and Productivity
ExTj IxTp Feelings and Attitudes
IxTj ExTp Emotions and Expressiveness


You Ignore
Can ignore people's lack of
ENxp INxj Beliefs and Vision
INxp ENxj Interests and Talents
ESxp ISxj Health and Comfort
ISxp ESxj Ambition and Directness
ExFj IxFp Feelings and Attitudes
IxFj ExFp Emotions and Expressiveness
ExTj IxTp Understanding and Opinions
IxTj ExTp Knowledge and Productivity

That's very good.

[Mariano Rajoy]

******: i would love to know what the obvious truth of socionics is

[implied]

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rick]

I'll laugh at that post before the gayness police take it away.
Trans, it will be intriguing to find out your 'true' type. You've got some interesting acting qualities and elements of self-debasement in your humor (um, maybe that was understated).

[maze]

=)

[Rick]

I didn't say it wasn't from the heart... But the form is humorous, and the acting is definitely there (lots of exaggerations, expressiveness, etc.). If I had to guess I would say IEI.

[Jonathan]

I didn't say it wasn't from the heart... But the form is humorous, and the acting is definitely there (lots of exaggerations, expressiveness, etc.). If I had to guess I would say IEI.

Yeah, I know someone who talks like that (though with less cursing) and is INFJ in MBTI...very emotionally expressive, so possibly IEI in Socionics....but then I wonder if her emphasis on organization and decisiveness forces one to have to consider that she's EIE.

I posted a profile in the what's my type section of someone who seemed clearly to have Te and was very into organization and decisiveness, and I think that made everyone decide he must be LIE or LSE.

Do you think that producing subtypes of ILI and IEI might display primarily "J" behaviors (e.g., referring to the Socionics version of the J/P dichotomy, as referenced on your site)?

[Rick]

Do you think that producing subtypes of ILI and IEI might display primarily "J" behaviors (e.g., referring to the Socionics version of the J/P dichotomy, as referenced on your site)?

I'm personally not big on subtypes, since they are descriptive only with no real fundamental explanations behind them, but I recognize there are different behavioral types at different distances among people of the same type. One person might seem rational at a medium or long distance, but irrational at a short distance, or vice versa. Always go by the short distance, as this is where the person's true psychological life plays out. Eric Bern says something very similar about peoples' scripts; they often play out one version of their script in the "front room" and a different one in the "back room." He said that what a person does in the "back room" is what his true script is about. There could be any number of reasons for why a person's behavior at a large distance is the way it is, but the closer you get psychologically, the more is determined by type and other unchanging factors.