What do you think is the fifth best relationship type?

[Filambee]

1. Duality
2. Identity
3. Activity
4. Mirror
5. ?

You can also make your list 1-16 of best to worst personality relations.

[DirectorAbbie]

Kindred, not that I agree with the way you arranged the same-quadra relationships.

[FDG]

Contrary.

[Creepy-Snaps]

1. Duality - Truly completes you. And INTjs are cute when you make them smile.
2. Activity - Closest to duality. And very fun! And ENTps and I can talk forever.
3. Identity - Very nice having someone just like me, competitive, someone I can understand.
4. Mirror - Very relaxing. ISFps are so laid-back. So chilled.
5. Beneficiary (Other person is Benefactor) - Receive the Ti help I need in a duality kind of way. SLEs rock! And humorous/fun Se like an Activity relationship.
6. Semi-Duality - More helpful than Beneficiary, yes, but more confusion and misunderstanding. But helpful for growth.
7. Benefactor - Man... ENFps can be all over the place. This can be fun, but it gets frustrating. Tires me out though.
8. Look-alike - I learn a lot from ESTjs. I like the fellow Ej temperament, we understand just wanting to get things done. No BS.
9. Quasi-Identical - Similar to Identity, SO MUCH FUN! EXTRAVERTED SFs LIKE OMG!
10. Supervisee (Other person is Supervisor) - INFps are so sensitive, caring, it can be very sexy.
11. Illusionary - INFjs are upbeat and nice. Kind of private, shy, but friendly.
12. Comparitive - Fe LIKE OMG! A;LDSFKJAS;LFJASLKFJAS;LDJFZX;LKVJSALDKJFAW;EFRJASDFLJ
13. Supervisor - ISTps are cool, I like shocking them with my Fe. Lots of trust/help here, maybe I should rank them higher than #13, but oh well.
14. Super-Ego - ENTjs are... interesting, informative, but... way too abstract for me. And wayyy overly critical.
15. Contrary - I always feel uncomfortable around ISFjs... like they're going to cut my throat or something. They don't trust my Fe or friendliness either, it's like they expect I'm plotting something. We don't trust each other.
16. Conflicting - Nothing to talk about without disagreeing. I think INTps are very cool, how they have great insight into people, and I have a lot of respect for their intelligence. But just interacting with them personally, it's tough, cause they're so cold. Criticizing everything, they can't just be happy.



Tough to decide in this list. Of course the maturity of the person, and countless other non-socionic factors, are more important. For example, I had a pretty good relationship before with my Supvisor, even though I rank it as #10 on my list. All depends on the person.

[redbaron]

probably semi-dual.

[Park]

13.

I am offended.

[Cat King Cole]

Kindred, not that I agree with the way you arranged the same-quadra relationships.

Yeah.

1. Duality
2. Activity
3. Identity
4. Mirror
5. Kindred

Identity is either too boring or too tense to be better than Activity, which is as smooth as butter and just as interesting.

[redbaron]

I agree that activity beats identity.

[Aleksei]

Mirage. Superid-complementary relations are typically better than ego-complementary relations, and of the two off-quadra relations that are, I've seen enough semi-dual relations fail in more or less the same way to conclude that Creative/HA interaction is more important (though less instantly attractive) than dominant/suggestive interaction; given primarily that the former is necessary to assuage fears related to the PoLR. For example, consistent clear and convincing displays of open affection counter the xLE's innate interpersonal paranoia, and a quick push into action can counter the XIE's innate squeamishness. Further, providing others with role information is obviously easier than providing PoLR information; and in fact people use the role regularly, provided it doesn't conflict with the goals set up by the dominant (LIE's constant upbeat cheerfulness and LSE's occasional surly demeanor are good examples of this).

[redbaron]

Yeah, ok, I admit I could've been ore stringent but this is pretty accurate and lets me have a 1-2-3-4-3-2-1 diamond pattern.

that's pretty awesome, actually.

[Beautiful sky]

Actually, I think I would go with this order and because they offer the information one needs; I'll use myself as an example.

1. Duality because it offers both Te and Si in the right dose
2. Activity because it offers both Te and Si in less than the right dose
3. Conflict relations because it offers Te demonstrating (is an ST type)
4. Super-Ego Relations because it offers Si demonstrative (is an ST type to my NF)
5. Identical relations make for a very good friendship.
6. Illusionary Relations, though has many conflicts and is a superficial relations, it offers Si and sometimes roles out Te.

[DirectorAbbie]

You prefer your conflictor to your illusionary? That's nuts.

[Raver]

Actually, I think I would go with this order and because they offer the information one needs; I'll use myself as an example.

1. Duality because it offers both Te and Si in the right dose
2. Activity because it offers both Te and Si in less than the right dose
3. Conflict relations because it offers Te demonstrating (is an ST type)
4. Super-Ego Relations because it offers Si demonstrative (is an ST type to my NF)
5. Identical relations make for a very good friendship.
6. Illusionary Relations, though has many conflicts and is a superficial relations, it offers Si and sometimes roles out Te.

This has to be a joke. You realize that you're just throwing inter-type relations out the window?

[Suz]

Actually, I think I would go with this order and because they offer the information one needs; I'll use myself as an example.

1. Duality because it offers both Te and Si in the right dose
2. Activity because it offers both Te and Si in less than the right dose
3. Conflict relations because it offers Te demonstrating (is an ST type)
4. Super-Ego Relations because it offers Si demonstrative (is an ST type to my NF)
5. Identical relations make for a very good friendship.
6. Illusionary Relations, though has many conflicts and is a superficial relations, it offers Si and sometimes roles out Te.

I could potentially see this order happening but only on a very superficial basis. The minute you start trying to get closer to conflict or superego, things start going MAJORLY downhill.

In fact, when talking very superficial relationships, I would actually put Duality lower, and Activity & Identity higher, as Activity is more obvious of an attraction initially and is less awkward to start than duality, and Identity just bonds very easily over things they have in common.

Obviously when talking about close interpersonal relationships, of course you probably realize your list goes completely out the window. My list for closer relationships would look like this:

1. Duality
2. Activity
3. Identity
4. +/- Mirror (not sure, but i think intraquadra relationships tend to have more mutual understanding than interquadra)
5. Illusionary or semiduality (depending on subtype)

[Gilly]

Probably Benefit>Semi>Illusionary

[Blaze]

For me individual differences influence relationships a lot. I can have heaps of fun with an IEE and hate being around an EIE. And I can't put a strict order on it, I love my activators and identicals around equally but for radically different reasons. But my preferences are loosely:

Dual

Activator = Identical

Mirror = Semi-dual = Illusionary

Kindred = Business = Benefactor = Beneficiary

Contrary = Supervisee = Superego

Supervisor = Quasidentical

Conflictor

Yeah, ok, I admit I could've been ore stringent but this is pretty accurate and lets me have a 1-2-3-4-3-2-1 diamond pattern.

this works for me as well. although identity can be kind of boring or worse yet, competitive. like the literature says i find it better for a mentor-mentee type of relationship than a let's be friends and hang out type of relationship.

[Filambee]

Maritsa: have you had any good relationships with ESTPs? Do you feel a weird tension when you interact with them, or are you able to open up and feel warmth when you are around them?

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa: have you had any good relationships with ESTPs? Do you feel a weird tension when you interact with them, or are you able to open up and feel warmth when you are around them?

My long time college BF is my conflict relations; he's a great guy, but he's so lost with my Fi emotions. He loves me and supports me when I need him and we can pray together, laugh together, eat and enjoy life in all kinds of ways together but we just can't live together. I want him to organize my living space, but he doesn't care about that kind of stuff; he wants to go out, enjoy life, eat good food, just a lot of focus on sensory information/experience. My dual BF and I plan to go certain places and he's not at all spontaneous; he want's to be sure of things ahead of time but my conflict friend and I can take a long drive and just pull over at some dinner and eat whatever; not with my BF!!! NO WAY!!! Even if my BF and I do plan to take a drive, he'll talk about his plan about where we're going to eat as we're driving to be sure that all events in the next few hours are covered.

I have no beef with my conflict relations; we make supportive and loving friends; it doesn't work well for living and covering your weak spots. He always asks me to go out and do things with him, but I can't; I have low low energy. I need my activities planned so that I have plenty of energy for when the time comes to do them. If my dual doesn't have enough facts to build an accurate picture, they simply state, "I don't know" instead of making conclusions as SLE are likely to do.

What my conflict relation doesn't do that creates a shallowness of relations is that they don't take information and factor them in to come up with conclusions of what something is in it's reality/real picture; they persuade a belief, which makes it very confusing for me because some of those persuasions, though it may have facts, may lack in factuality.

[pianosinger]

This is all mostly theoretical, but with a lot of application of theory, taking into consideration Club interaction, Romance styles, Collaboartion, Communication, Temperament, and of course Quadra Values (but Values are not necessarily given first priority in every case). I came up with the following lists, different for Rationals and Irrationals.

If you are Rational:
1. Dual
2. Semi-Dual
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Kindred
6. Beneficiary
7. Mirror
8. Look-A-Like
9. Benefactor
10. Supervisee
11. Mirage
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisor
16. Super-Ego

If you are Irrational:
1. Dual
2. Mirage
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Look-A-Like
6. Benefactor
7. Mirror
8. Kindred
9. Beneficiary
10. Supervisee
11. Semi-Dual
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisee
16. Super-Ego

[MisterNi]

If you are Rational:
1. Dual
2. Semi-Dual
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Kindred
6. Beneficiary
7. Mirror
8. Look-A-Like
9. Benefactor
10. Supervisee
11. Mirage
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisor
16. Super-Ego

If you are Irrational:
1. Dual
2. Mirage
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Look-A-Like
6. Benefactor
7. Mirror
8. Kindred
9. Beneficiary
10. Supervisee
11. Semi-Dual
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisee
16. Super-Ego

I don't necessarily agree with the ranking of this list, but I do like the idea behind separating Ps and Js and implying that outside of interquadra relations, there's probably a lot more asymmetry rational/irrational relations than just benefactor/beneficiary relations.

[Clumsy]

This is all mostly theoretical, but with a lot of application of theory, taking into consideration Club interaction, Romance styles, Collaboartion, Communication, Temperament, and of course Quadra Values (but Values are not necessarily given first priority in every case). I came up with the following lists, different for Rationals and Irrationals.

If you are Rational:
1. Dual
2. Semi-Dual
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Kindred
6. Beneficiary
7. Mirror
8. Look-A-Like
9. Benefactor
10. Supervisee
11. Mirage
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisor
16. Super-Ego

If you are Irrational:
1. Dual
2. Mirage
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Look-A-Like
6. Benefactor
7. Mirror
8. Kindred
9. Beneficiary
10. Supervisee
11. Semi-Dual
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisee
16. Super-Ego

I like this idea a lot, but I don't agree with some of them. Personally I would place Activator higher than Identical and in most cases, higher than Mirage (although if the subtypes match up, Mirage could probably be higher than Activator). It would be really interesting to create a thread/poll of some sort for this idea though I think.

[RoadPaveMent]

Um, I guess I'm the only one that would say business/look-a-like, then.

[golden]

Urgh, I can't easily rank my personal intertype relations in this way, but it's interesting to try.

I can see how certain relationships have been really transformational in my life, even if they have their difficult or unpleasant aspects. Also, these are based only on my RL history, and not on online interaction, nor on what I think could have been a meaningful relationship if only there'd been more opportunity. These are strictly the relationships I have had.

Tier 1
Dual with complementary [irrational] subtypes (WCS)
Activity (WCS)
Mirror (WCS)
Identity (WCS)

These are relationships that stand the test of time and feel like "home" in various ways--peace, invigoration, mutual support, and mentorship, respectively.


Tier 2A
People from my quadra, Beta, but with rational subtypes

These relationships seem promising at first but lack real glue--they are a bit more contentious. They don't seem to involve as much learning as the relationships that I have found equally important in Tier 2B.


Tier 2B
INTj-Ne (semidual)
ENTp-Ne (I'm beneficiary)
ESFp-Se (I'm benefactor)
INTp-Ni (I'm supervisor)
ISFp-Si (I'm supervisee)

Tier 3
Non-Beta EJ temperaments with irrational subtype, in this order:
ENTj, ESTj, ESFj

Tier 4
All types with irrational subtype not previously mentioned.

Tier 5
Everything else.

On Tiers 4 and 5, getting along increasingly comes down to individual, not-so-type-driven similarities and differences, as well as the social roles defining interaction.

- - - - -
So that puts all Betas with rational subtypes in fifth place, I suppose.

[Azeroffs]

For closeness and psychological compatibility

1.Dual
2.Activator
3.Identical
4.Mirror
5.Semi-Dual
6.Illusion
7.Beneficiary
8.Benefactor
9.Supervisee
10.Lookalike
11.Kindred
12.Supervisor
13.Contrary
14.Quasi-Identical
15.Super-Ego
16.Conflictor

Really, 5-12 are relatively close.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I had a theory that EP-IP energy exchange was the best (for an INFp I mean), along with EJ-IJ for an EJ or IJ type. So the relationship energy was classified in order of IP-EP energy exchange being the best for INFps, and then IP-IP, then IP-IJ and then IP-EJ.

You don't get along with your Mirror as well as you do your Semi-Dual. You just don't.

Quadra relationships aren't based on your emotional compatibility with somebody, but what works best for the objective world...

I mean in gamma quadra you have entjs and isfjs which I don't get along with that well much at all on a personal level, and then you have intps which I get along with okay. (it's like medium good) and then ESFps which I get along with great. An ESFp gets along with an ENTj better than me but it's still not likely to work out so much.

I guess the main point I'm making is it kinda depends on how much you want to view socionics as 'society based' and how much you want to use it to find your romantic partner... or people you just really mesh well with. I think getting a job is important but it's not the be end of life, if you don't find people you are magically excited about that's just sad, no matter how much money you make. =/

[Galen]

My (constantly morphing and varying) take on it is roughly as follows:

1. Duality, same subtypes
2. Duality, different subtypes
3. Activity, same subtypes
4. Activity, different
5. Identical, same
6. Identical, different
7. Mirror, same
8. Mirror, different
9. Semi-dual, accepting / Illusory, creative
10. Comparative, accepting / Business, creative
11 - 525. I don't have the patience for this

[Jenna]

1 & 2. Dual & activator. Maybe I don't have enough experience with duality but ime there have been enough cons in duality to say that it's not as great as it seems. Of course it could have been a number of factors. I have an LSI sister and boyfriend. I think growing up with her helped me get used to the drawbacks of the type. I know that when they withdraw and act kind of cold it's not personal.
3. Semi-dual.
4. Mirror.
5. Identity.

[Sol]

@Braingel
taking your SEI. that LIE can be ILE or LII
if it's LIE then conflictors can be perceived positively in surface interactions and have mutual interest. revisors are separated and it's felt in them, a border from their side. it's doubtful to think people with this IR among best in the experience
I have revising type for you, as an example. hehe

[Braingel]

@Braingel
taking your SEI. that LIE can be ILE or LII
if it's LIE then conflictors can be perceived positively in surface interactions and have mutual interest. revisors are separated and it's felt in them, a border from their side. it's doubtful to think people with this IR among best in the experience
I have revising type for you, as an example. hehe

Please listen carefully: ITR is not a cookie cutter. If it was, you would not see duals divorce, you would not see supervisors marry, or the liking. As you can see from my interactions back at you, I value Se way too much to be of an SEI, and you still will have seen that LIE-Ni supervising my Te, indicative of it being PolR. You would have seen if read carefully, he is a Te ego, as would you have seen I am that of Ni.

You cannot just type someone solely by ITR by itself, though, it can indeed be helpful as a complementary means. I do not expect you to listen me, given I perceive you as the rigid, narrow-minded person who just thinks always, they are right. So.. I should not have even bothered.. Moe Te PolR, wasting my own time.

[Braingel]

@Braingel
taking your SEI. that LIE can be ILE or LII
if it's LIE then conflictors can be perceived positively in surface interactions and have mutual interest. revisors are separated and it's felt in them, a border from their side. it's doubtful to think people with this IR among best in the experience
I have revising type for you, as an example. hehe

And by the way, you do not even pay attention to what you write. You meant IEI, but put SEI instead. That is how conceited you are; thinking you are right and can make no mistake. I admittedly do not often read through my own things and make typo, however, I do not have the other piecing patterns as do you, showing you as conceited, arrogant, hubristic individual.

Do not talk to me anymore. I don't have any respect for someone who acts like they can tell others who and what they are (without a care to even see them for how really, they are), even though I know that the behavior is bred in early childhood, with pressure from parents, or adults around them conditioning in that way, I do have sympathy for it, but I am not going to fuel that ego.

Get off the high horse and face a fall. It may hurt, but will set you free far sooner and give you liberation of the pain you so desperately avoid of.

Your ego will only allow you to see me as mean and cruel, the construct adults bred into you in childhood. But you need a slap to reality and to focus on it, because you are separated from it with your own mind and living in your mind as if it is reality.

[Jarno]

5th place: Semi-Duality

also, lol at Maritsa putting Conflictors at the 3rd best place for relationship. She probably just provocating to get attention.

[Crispy]

Semi-Duals although from the looks of it I'd describe it as the 11th worst rather than the 5th best. (Talking strictly of long-term serious relationships)

[rat1]

1. Duality
2. Identity
3. Activity
4. Mirror
5. ?

You can also make your list 1-16 of best to worst personality relations.

1 duality
2 identity
3 semi duality
4 activity
5 mirror
7 illusionary
6 benefactor/beneficiary

[redbaron]

when you stop and think about it, this is a dumb question. because by the time you get down to FIFTH best types, too many other factors trump type, imo. like enneagram and instinct stacking and background and values and religion and even age and proximity.

[Wynch]

when you stop and think about it, this is a dumb question. because by the time you get down to FIFTH best types, too many other factors trump type, imo. like enneagram and instinct stacking and background and values and religion and even age and proximity.

A minute ago I read the title of this thread for the first time and realized that it wasn't asking to order relationships, but to identify the 5th best. I think your response aptly summarizes what I was about to say.

In other words: +1

[Beautiful sky]

when you stop and think about it, this is a dumb question. because by the time you get down to FIFTH best types, too many other factors trump type, imo. like enneagram and instinct stacking and background and values and religion and even age and proximity.

lol

I agree with this. And yes, we're talking about theory. But in real life, everything else is NEVER equal. Which we all know. I'm just reminding. As long as we talk about it theoretically, fine. but once people start talking about specific experiences, it doesn't make sense to me because I'm thinking about how one SEE is different from another, etc.

That's funny to me, because for me it's the opposite. I mean, if someone wants to spin a theory about which interrelations are better than others, fine--that's been done and will continue to be done. But I can only speak of my personal experiences thus far. It doesn't mean I think what I say will apply to other people--or that it will even continue to apply for me.

I semi-consciously rank all my interpersonal relationships anyway, more or less as I did here, but without applying types to them. The inner circle, the mid-circle, the outer circle, and the messy rest of it.

This is a pretty good example of Fi demonstration.

[Filambee]

Is it a dumb question? The answer has turned out to be subjective but so far I've found it to be interesting learning what different people think.

[Wynch]

Ok, let me rephrase. It seems pretty arbitrary to ask what the fifth best relationship is. Additionally, it automatically assumes that intraquadra relationships are the best, which I find to be presumptuous.

Essentially I think it would have made more sense to discuss which relationships people seem to value or enjoy most rather than to specifically ask about the fifth one.

As an example, I prefer the company of my Semi-Dual over Activity and find my Supervisee to be more entertaining company than my Mirror. Additionally, I generally find perceivers to be better company than rationals. I think if I were to rank them in order, I would probably end up putting my Mirror in 5th place. However, I don't think that is necessarily reflective of best or worst relationships (how can you make a universal qualitative assessment like that?), that's simply my preference.

If I simply answered the question in the title, my answer would be pretty meaningless because who cares what the fifth best relationship is? It becomes especially ridiculous for someone like me to answer because your answer would not end up being "Which relationship do you think is the best outside of your quadra?" but rather "Which relationship do you rank number 5?"

SUMMARY: I think this thread should have asked which relationship you value most outside of your quadra, to which I would have answered "My Semi-Dual"

[redbaron]

SUMMARY: I think this thread should have asked which relationship you value most outside of your quadra, to which I would have answered "My Semi-Dual"

LOL which was exactly my answer, too!

[Wynch]

LOL which was exactly my answer, too!

Semi-Duals are the shit.