Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Mirage relations chart - is it correct or not?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Mirage relations chart - is it correct or not?

    Hello everyone,

    I've spend time to read this socionics chart: http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm
    But I've noticed something strange:

    ENTp - INTp = ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship)
    ESTp - ISFp = ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship)
    ... and so on for a couple of types,

    so I got the rule for this ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship): second and last letter - the same, and the others are opposite.
    Also, MBTI consider this pairing to be the best for romantic relationship (Kersey books), of course, for introvert types, j->p...

    My question is: why Kersey the rule is not the same for all types?
    Look here: ENFj - ISFj = ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship)... why so?
    According the rule (first examples), ESFj should have ILL relationship with INTj!... but there is ISFj!!!

    Please somebody inspect that chart and set things clear!

    Thanks a lot! Any feedback will be much appreciated!

  2. #2
    oldwhiskey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Australia
    TIM
    Ni-ENTj 8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mirage types have the same creative function as the dual, but a different base function.

    ENTj/ISTj = Mirage/Illusionary
    ENTj/ISFj = Dual

    ENTp/INFp = Mirage/Illusionary
    ENTp/ISFp = Dual

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,109
    Mentioned
    386 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collin View Post
    ENTp - INTp = ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship)
    The table there has: ENTP - INTP = Contrary
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  4. #4
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collin View Post
    Hello everyone,

    I've spend time to read this socionics chart: http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm
    But I've noticed something strange:

    ENTp - INTp = ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship)
    ESTp - ISFp = ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship)
    ... and so on for a couple of types,

    so I got the rule for this ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship): second and last letter - the same, and the others are opposite.
    Also, MBTI consider this pairing to be the best for romantic relationship (Kersey books), of course, for introvert types, j->p...

    My question is: why Kersey the rule is not the same for all types?
    Look here: ENFj - ISFj = ILL (Mirage/Illusionary relationship)... why so?
    According the rule (first examples), ESFj should have ILL relationship with INTj!... but there is ISFj!!!

    Please somebody inspect that chart and set things clear!

    Thanks a lot! Any feedback will be much appreciated!
    hi collin, the chart on that page is correct. i think you misread some things with your examples?

    ENTp + INTp = Contrary
    ESTp + ISFp = Illusion
    ENFj + ISFj = Illusion
    ESFj + ISFj = Contrary
    ESFj + INTj = Duality

    if you're looking at this through the 4 dichotomies:

    Duality = types are the same on Rationality-Irrationality (j/p), and opposite on the other 3 dichotomies
    Contrary = types are opposite on Extraversion-Introversion (E/I), and the same on the other 3 dichotomies
    Illusion (p types) = types are the same on Intuition-Sensing (N/S) and j/p, and opposite on the other 2 dichotomies
    Illusion (j types) = types are the same on Logic-Ethics (T/F) and j/p, and opposite on the other 2 dichotomies

    but i think if you want to understand what these relationships really imply, it's better to look at the functions involved, rather than the 4 dichotomies alone. in the case of Illusion relations, for example, the types involved have complementary 2nd functions (which satisfies each other's 6th functions), but non-complementary 1st functions. the fact that the types share complementary 2nd functions is what produces the "illusionary" effect, because each type is getting their 6th function satisfied, but not their 5th function (which is related to the 1st function). a Duality relation would satisfy both. this article on Illusion relations discusses how the functions come into play: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Illusionary

    Complementary IM elements/functions:
    Ne and Si ( and )
    Se and Ni ( and )
    Fe and Ti ( and )
    Te and Fi ( and )

    also be careful about assuming the J/P switch for MBTI introverts into Socionics introverts. a lot of people who know Socionics would not assume that MBTI types can automatically be made equivalent to a Socionics type (though a few might agree). read this for more info: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch

    welcome to the forum btw (:

Posting Permissions

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