Relations with "depth"

[Iwantpeace]

Just curious what ITR give you the most satisfaction in terms of connection and "depth".

[Hope]

It totally depends what are you referring with "depth".

In my case, deep communication would be being able to communicate freely with my 4 first functions.

In that sense, "Depth" for me is when I can have understanding, freedom (no need to restrain myself) and having a good (valuable/interesting) feedback.

That said, better communication, meaning Depth/Understanding/Interest would be:

1. Semi-Duality (ILE)
2. Benefactor (LII)
3. Super-Ego (IEI)

Now, talking about finding fulfillment and communication on different a level (not intellectual), that make me feel energized and realized (something really important to me) would be: Dual (IEE).

These are good relations with certain level of understanding (not necessarily "depth", but that provide or are significant, specifically on tangible ways, like support):

-Supervisor (ESE)
-Supervisee (LIE)
-Activity (EII)
-Mirror (LSE)

With identical and quasi identical, its not what I'd call "superficial", I'd say that we can provide to each other "hacks" but doesn't tend to go into what I'd consider "depth".

This more or less. The rest I really don't know if necessarily would fit into "superficial", but I'd say, not really meaningful or even no communication at all.

[FDG]

mirror and identical have the best "depth" for me, especially mirror since we share "life perspective" but from an inverse pov

[Tigerfadder]

I pick in Superficial
Benefit
Conflict
Super-ego

Depth
Dual
Maybe extinguishment
Semi-dual?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Depth is incredibly overrated. Shallowness gets a bad reputation but I don't want to be so deep that I feel like I am drowning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emGri7i8Y2Y

Be a river. Not a lake.

[Bertrand]

i feel like understanding your concrete asymetric relations in a genuinely positive and constructive light constitute the deepest revelations which in turn constitutes "depth" in an introverted sense. in an extroverted sense probably whoever has the easiest communication (likely identical), because you can go far via language and mutual understanding--thus a teacher who was more advanced and identical would feel very deep. but so would be relations with a conflictor, especially at that moment where you realize and epiphany about the nature of distinct "otherness." on the other hand, those same asymetric relations tend to go easier at greater distance so there's a lot of "shallowness" in an extroverted sense

in true paradoxical form, you can have meaningful "deep" shallowness in asymmetric relations and meaningful "shallow" depth in identical relations

most people put shallow depth (identical) on top of the hierarchy because its most comfy, but there's a case to be made for deep shallowness (e1 things)

duality perhaps represent the ideal synthesis

[Rebelondeck]

Depth has more to do with intellect than type. However, the dynamic of conversation is affected greatly by intertype relations. There seems to be a greater chance for agreement when pairs share similar input perspectives - either N or S. Some of my most memorable exchanges have been with superego types even though, frequently, there was no agreement.

a.k.a. I/O

[Shytan]

For me the best relations for depth are Mirror and Identity relations; Shit is mindfucking

[Pookie]

Quasi is the exact opposite of superficial relations with me. That would be more like extinguishment.

Quasi is rough as hell, but on a deeper level helpful and meaningful.

But to the question, identity by a mile.

[Olimpia]

Quoting myself from another thread, because there's no point in repeating myself...

(...)

Your Dual values the same IEs as you, as well as has the complementary Cognitive style. Understanding and being able to reach emotional or mental intimacy seem to be mostly related to Cognition style and valued IEs (besides non-Socionics aspects). So technically, the relations with the highest potential of deeper intimacy will be:
Duality, Identity, (Activity), (Mirror), (Benefit), (Supervision).

I put the latter two relations in brackets because their asymmetry and in the case of Supervision the PoLR hits will create some amount of distance, but technically those relations can arrive at deeper intimacy and connectivity because of Cognitive styles and half of the valued IEs matching up. Activity and Mirror are also in brackets because while they share the same IE values they have incompatible Cognitive styles. Super-Ego and Extinguishment have some of that kind of connectivity too because of the CS match, but the opposite IE values will create a gap that is too big for both people to ever reach "true intimacy", their understanding or intimacy will usually be surface-based. Or you both understand where the other is coming from, but cannot personally relate to them and their experience at all (because of the opposite IE values).

P.S: I'd like to add that Mirror is a tricky one, being both of the same Quadra but also having the Cognitive style of your Conflictor. The understanding of the Mirror will be on-off. That "trickiness" applies to the other types with that Cognitive style, too (aka Look-alike and Kindred).

The relations with the lowest potential of deeper intimacy would be:
Conflict, Quasi-Identity, (Super-Ego), (Extinguishment), (Kindred), (Look-alike)

The remaining relations, Mirage and Semi-Duality, are somewhere in-between, with a "medium" potential of deeper intimacy.

 

From deepest to shallowest relation, in terms of emotional intimacy and mutual understanding etc.:

1. Duality
2. Identity
3. Activity
4. Mirror
5. Benefit
6. Supervision
7. Mirage, Semi-Duality
8. Look-alike, Kindred
9. Extinguishment
10. Super-Ego
11. Quasi-Identity
12. Conflict

[Chae]

Ip people generally.

[ashlesha]

The relationships in which I experienced the most feelings of being really understood to my core were lopsided and they didn't get the same from me, so idk. What they had in common was Ni base, sx in stacking, and very high intelligence and cognitive empathy. It seems to me that this combination of traits is conducive towards providing a feeling of depth in interaction with most people generally.

[flames]

I feel it the most with my dual, followed by some IEIs. In conflict, sometimes we say things that make us go "aha" or amuse each other, but we're unable to go deep at all. I have talked to ILIs and IEIs for hours before. Activity brings some good things too but it doesn't go as deep, it's based around activities or more external things like - music, clothes people wear, etc. and it feels more energizing. When I talk to my dual I feel more relaxed and comfortable and able to talk about things that I don't talk about with people in my everyday life.

[Bertrand]

Quasi is the exact opposite of superficial relations with me. That would be more like extinguishment.

Quasi is rough as hell, but on a deeper level helpful and meaningful.

But to the question, identity by a mile.

yes I often think about this. one's dimensionality is presumably set--you might call it the "real limitations" (or parameters) of the self (the subject-as-object)... but you can take those contents of the unconscious, the dimensions of the self (and its as yet unknown potential), and raise them to the level of consciousness very effectively through dealing with one's quasi. its rough, but its everything you can use and nothing you can't (strictly speaking). i think quasi is the best relation for self development in an introverted sense, whereas duality is the best in an extroverted (i.e. maximizing the conscious development of the self's real potential vs developing as a dyad in relation to efficacy "in the world"). could think of quasi relations as being great for developing "self-efficacy"