Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Jack Oliver Aaron's Introduction To Socionics 3: The Quadras and Inter-type Relations

  1. #1
    President of WSS Jack Oliver Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    31 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jack Oliver Aaron's Introduction To Socionics 3: The Quadras and Inter-type Relations

    Inter-type Relations

    This refers to the pattern of functional interaction between two socionic types, that is to say the description of the psychological compatibility between two types.

    There are 14 of these relationships and among them 12 are called symmetrical and 2 asymmetrical.

    Some of the inter-type relations are more psychologically compatible (or favourable) than others. The different relationships are listed below in order of most to least compatible.

    • Dual: Symmetric relation. They are perfectly fitted for each other as the suggestive and mobilising functions of one match the leading and creative functions of the other and vice versa, allowing just the right synergy of valued information. This leads to a “Yin/Yang” effect. For example, an ILE and an SEI.

    Socionics_scheme_duality_ILE-SEI.gif Dual relationship between an ILE and an SEI

    • Identical: Symmetric relation. The two partners of such a relationship have the same IM type and thus all functions are exactly matched. These pairings can get to know each other extremely quickly and have no trouble with communication. However, they rarely find solutions to each other’s problems and they will want to take responsibility in the same field, which might lead one partner to idle. For example, an ILE and another ILE.

    • Activation: Symmetric relation. Their ego and super-id blocks are matched so they find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other however the leading matches the other’s mobilising and the creative the suggestive, meaning too much and too little of certain kinds of required information are given. As a result, although common for friendships, these relationships can be a little over-stimulating, requiring the partners to require breaks from each other from time to time. For example, an ILE and an ESE.

    • Mirror: Symmetric relation. It is a relationship of intellectual connection and stimulation and mutual correction. The pair share the same ego block but with the leading and creative functions switched, causing a different emphasis on how they approach similar fields with opposite temperaments. They will often respect and appreciate eachother’s work but may feel that something is being focused on too much and another more important thing is being compromised. For example, an ILE and an LII.

    • Kindred: Symmetric relation. Also called comparative relations, the partners in this relation share the same leading function and have a different creative function, which makes interaction very easy as they are both after the same things in life. However, the difference in creative function can lead to arguments over ideological differences, with each thinking the same goal should be achieved in ways off-putting to each other. For example, an ILE and an IEE.

    • Look-a-like:Symmetric relation. Also called business relations, the partners have different leading functions but the same creative function, meaning that although they are fundamentally after different things, they use similar methods and open to similar follies. As a result, they can appear quite similar, albeit often working in rather different fields. For example, an ILE and an SLE.

    • Semi-dual: Symmetric relation. Relations of semi-duality are ones of incomplete or inefficient duality when the leading and suggestive functions of the two partners are matched but the creative and mobilising are not. As a result, the two supply each other’s main need but are unable to adequately put each other at ease, leading to a “moth to the flame” effect where the partners are drawn to each other but can suddenly break apart due to a clash in values. For example, an ILE and an SLI.

    • Illusionary: Symmetric relation. Also called ‘Mirage’ relations. Each partner is the Look-a-like of the other’s Dual, causing the partners to enjoy each other’s company. However, although the creative and mobilising functions of each partner are matched, the leading and suggestive are not, meaning that these partners are never truly satisfied with each other, often leading to laziness and stagnancy. For example, an ILE and an IEI.

    • Super-ego: Symmetric relation. Super-Ego partners often find each other quite mysterious and curious people and appreciate each other’s energies due to matching temperaments. However, their leading and role as well as their creative and vulnerable functions are matched, leading to a dissonance in values and abilities, meaning that conversations are usually short-lived and unfulfilling. For example, an ILE and an SEE.

    • Benefit: Asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the Benefactor and the type with the lower status is called the Beneficiary. Here, the suggestive function of the Beneficiary is matched by the Benefactor’s creative while the Benefactor’s suggestive function is matched by the Beneficiary’s vulnerable function. As a result, the Beneficiary requires a little too much from the Benefactor while giving absolutely nothing of what the Benefactor needs in return. This provides a feeling of being used in the Benefactor and a feeling of impotence in the Beneficiary. For example, ILE would be a Benefactor to EIE and a Beneficiary to LSE.

    • Supervision: Asymmetric relation in which one partner, the Supervisor, is in a higher psychological position than the other partner, the Supervisee. This is due to the leading function of the Supervisor matching the vulnerable function of the Supervisee, causing painful pressure from the former to the latter but the leading of the Supervisee only matches the creative of the Supervisor, meaning the feeling of pain is not returned. Instead, the Supervisor continues to provide feelings of pain and inferiority to the defenceless Supervisee. For example, ILE would be a Supervisor to LSI and a Supervisee to EII.

    • Quasi-identical: Symmetric relation. This is a relationship of mutual mockery and value dissonance where the two partners have their leading functions matching each other’s demonstrative functions and creative with ignoring, meaning that although the partners may work in similar fields and do similar things, they have very different priorities in how to approach matters, meaning that they may never agree on what is the right way to do something and may see each other as ‘wrong-headed’. As a result quasi-identicals often resemble ‘twisted’ versions of each other. For example, an ILE and an LIE.

    • Contrary: Symmetric relation. This is a relationship of confusion and confounding where the two partners have their leading functions matching each other’s ignoring functions and creative with demonstrative. Despite this values dissonance, the temperaments complement each other, leading to a lack of open argument. Instead both parties might think they are on the same page only for one to go and do something quite contrary in the according to the other’s values, leading to this confusion. For example, an ILE and an ILI.

    • Conflicting: Symmetric relation. Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically as the two partners are complete opposites. The leading and vulnerable functions as well as the creative and role functions are matched leading to mutual pain and inadequacy as both criticise and inflame each other’s weak points. Unfortunately, the conflictor is the quasi-identical of a person’s dual and so such relationships can come about due to such confusion, the people superficially seeming to satisfy each other’s needs at a distance. This quickly goes sour for both parties. For example, an ILE and an ESI.


    A group of 4 sociotypes that have the same valued elements, that is to say their 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th functions. The same inter-type relations exist between all members of a quadra: identical, dual, activation and mirror. The Socion contains four quadras:

    • Alpha: Merry (value ) and Judicious (value ). Includes LII, ILE, ESE and SEI. Thought to have a “childlike” mentality. Combines intellectual play with joyful hedonism. This means that Alphas tend to prefer relaxed, aesthetic environments where emotions are expressed in the group with jokes and laughter. At the same time, they enjoy stimulating, fun conversation about theories and philosophy, where innovative, logical thought is prioritised. These groups are often open with people being invited to join in with the fun, have a scone and offer an interesting or tangential opinion on the subject. To envision an Alpha setting, think of a party over at a person’s house or a drink down at the pub.

    • Beta: Merry (value and Decisive (value ). Includes LSI, SLE, EIE and IEI. Thought to have a “youthful” mentality. Combines assertive hierarchy with lofty dramatics. This means that Betas prefer environments where the group is united by expressed common values, working towards a long term goal. Raucous, loud stories are often told by those in charge with group participation expected while people adhere to a set pecking order. There is often an aura of merry competitiveness in these groups, with friendly pushing and shoving. Sometimes the emotionality in the group can become rather intense and heated. To envision a Beta setting, think of a political party or clubbing night.

    • Gamma: Serious (value ) and Decisive (value ). Includes ESI, SEE, LIE and ILI. Thought to have a “mature” mentality. Combines social influence with long-term strategy. This means that Gammas prefer to meet in focused groups, discussing issues that can be resolved for the long term good. Often these issues are of a serious nature, with laughter being replaced by dry, factual information that leads to productive results. At the same time, strong leadership is valued, with social pressure between individuals being required for people to make agreements. Gammas will tend to consider their own opinions towards issues carefully and will prefer people to speak their mind and disagree rather than go along with what others are doing. Words are rarely minced in these confrontations. To envision a Gamma setting, think of a business meeting or networking event.

    • Delta: Serious (value ) and Judicious (value ). Includes EII, IEE, LSE and SLI. Thought to have a “senior” mentality. Combines humanitarian growth with earthy pragmatism. This means that Deltas like quaint, attractive surroundings in which they can discuss new ideas that coincide with their values. At the same time, they enjoy sound, practical advice where actions are assessed by their realistic outcomes. Deltas prefer to speak in understatement and with sincerity, with respectful disagreements being common but rarely with aggression. People are welcome to join in with Delta discussions however there is usually not a united group to join. Instead, Deltas prefer to fragment into smaller discussion points of issues that are important to them alone. To envision a Delta setting, think of tea at a country estate.
    Last edited by Jack Oliver Aaron; 12-18-2013 at 05:59 AM.

Posting Permissions

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