# Thread: Degrees of discomfort within socionics intertype relations

1. ## Degrees of discomfort within socionics intertype relations

A theory of mine, to illustrate the possible variation of psychological comfort/discomfort within a specified intertype relation.

I am calling the following charts "step charts," for lack of a better name (if you can think of one, let me know). The charts illustrate the degrees of psychological discomfort that may be present between a given type and another given type.

With each "step" taken along the chart, psychological discomfort increases. So for instance, 2 steps will be less psychologically uncomfortable than 4 steps.

Each intertype relation has a minimum level of discomfort, as well as a maximum, with possible degrees existing between these two extremes.

This is the template:

To illustrate, I will use the LII as the example (*gasp* she's not using IEE!):

Notice, Identity is the only relation in which there may exist as few as 0 steps of psychological discomfort. On the other end, Identical types may experience up to 4 degrees of discomfort:

Duals can range from 1 degree minimum to 5 degrees maximum discomfort:

Conflictors at their best may experience as few as 4 degrees of discomfort, and at their worst 8 degrees:

And so on and so forth.

So doing this for each of the intertype relations gives the following numbers:

Identity: 0-4 = 4 degrees of variation
Duality: 1-5 = 4 degrees of variation
Activity: 1-5 = 4 degrees of variation
Mirror: 2-6 = 4 degrees " "
Look-alike/Business: 1-3 = 2 degrees " "
Comparative/Kindred: 1-3 = 2 degrees " "
Semi-Dual: 2-4 = 2 degrees " "
Illusionary / Mirage: 2-4 = 2 degrees " "
Benefit: 2-4 = 2 degrees " "
Supervision: 3-5 = 2 degrees " "
Super-Ego: 2-6 = 4 degrees " "
Quasi-Identical: 3-5 = 2 degrees " "
Extinguishment/Contrary: 3-7 = 4 degrees " "
Conflictor: 4-8 = 4 degrees " "

So take Duality, for example: with a range of 1-5, it's no wonder that some Duals will hit it off right away, whereas other Duals will hardly notice each other or be able to stand each other.

Mirage and Semi-Duals, in comparison, may never be as comfortable as true Duality at its best; but they will also never experience the worst of Duality, either. No, for that matter, will they ever see the worst of Activity or Mirror, either.

Look-a-Like, Comparative, Mirage, and Semi-Dual, then, according to this chart, can all be considered relatively safe and stable relations. Look-a-Like and Comparative, especially, will be very safe bets, requiring little gamble.

Benefit and Supervision, according to these charts, should be quite stable, too. But, I'm not so sure on those. Maybe some tweaking would have to be done...the asymmetrical relations are always tricky.

Looking at the Opposing Quadra relations is interesting...Quasi-Identical, while it will never be a terribly comfortable relation being at best a 3, will nonetheless be a pretty stable one. Super-Egos will either get along quite well, or hardly at all. Extinguishment and Conflict are the very worst relations, as their minimum degrees of discomfort are high, with a wide range of variation making for very unstable and unpredictable interactions.

2. So:

Identical: (0, 4)
Activity: (1, 3)
Comparative/Kindred: (1, 3)
Dual: (1, 5)
Semi-Dual: (2, 4)
Illusionary / Mirage: (2, 4)
Benefit: (2, 4)
Mirror: (2, 4)
Super-Ego: (2, 6)
Quasi-Identical: (3, 5)
Supervisor: (3, 5)
Extinguishment/Contrary: (3, 7)
Conflictor: (4, 8)

Super-Ego is only 2?

3. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
So:

Super-Ego: (2)?

Super-Ego is only 2?
2-6

Extinguishment/Contrary: (3, 5)
Actually, Extinguishment would be 3-7

And you forgot Illusionary, which would be the same as Semi-Dual (2-4)

I suppose I really should have put up the numbers myself in the first place. Thanks for doing that

4. I'm no scientist, but I don't think the intertype relationships gel quite with what you've got. Nice shot though.

5. Originally Posted by pianosinger
2-6

Actually, Extinguishment would be 3-7

And you forgot Illusionary, which would be the same as Semi-Dual (2-4)

I suppose I really should have put up the numbers myself in the first place. Thanks for doing that
Oops, yeah I figured I did something wrong.

The model is interesting. Not quite sure if it's practical though.

6. Not bad, really. If the numbers roughly correlate with reality this could be used as a quick reference of comfort/discomfort between types.

7. The numbers don't quite match up with my experience, but it's a nice concept nonetheless.

I've always found that I'm more psychologically comfortable with other irrationals than with rationals, and from memory quite a few sources say that... not entirely sure it'd help all that much but maybe having spaces separating j and p columns would better reflect that difference?

8. Originally Posted by CILi
Not sure if it's right or wrong or what the heck it is, but I'm impressed!

If it's not too much a tangent, ...how'd the idea come to mind for you, PS?
Thanks

Some of what he proposed seemed to make sense, though of course as others pointed out it did kind of fly in the face of what Socionists of the past had already figured out.

Then I started thinking about how, for instance, sometimes Identicals are attracted to each other right away and sometimes they can't seem to stand each other; or the same with Duals; or how sometimes it's possible for even Contraries to think they have a lot in common starting out and seem to get along quite well, only to discover later that they differ greatly.

Then I just made my chart and ran with in.

I realize I've left out a few steps in my thinking process, but Ti PoLR won't allow me to do any better

9. Just added some stuff at the end of my OP...

10. Does anyone else accept the realization that identical is the only intertype relation which gives way to a form of type morphology? Meaning, it is only through identicals that a person's type may have a different manifestation in the form of a compromised dualism. Check out the identical intertype description on www.socionics.com. (a person's type is in fact solid and static by default)

11. I'm just wondering for instance why identicals could have 0 or 4 degrees of discomfort, duals can have 1 or 5 degrees, etc. It seems arbitrary. You could zig zag the line multiple times so that you never reach the desired type.

12. Okay you wrote this in 2011 but I liked it. I think the Supervision/Benefit was spot on.

#### Posting Permissions

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