Rating Intertype Relations (mathematically)

[User Name]

Hi all, I've been working on a sheet lately.

I tried to rate all the 16 Intertype Relations taking into account the Dimensionality of Functions.

First, I took the inverted Model A of the first partner [which basically represents how much the first partner needs each function, from 4 (Suggestive) to -4 (Point of Least Resistance] and then the natural Model A of the second partner (how much of each function the second partner has to offer to the first partner).

Then I multiplied the two Dimensionality numbers of each Information Element, which gave some kind of "combined Model A" of the two types, where each Information Element could have a score between 16 and -16.

I finally summed up the 8 numbers of the "combined Model A" to obtain a final score of the relation. The greater the score, the better the relation. The final score range is from 60 to -60.

This is what I got, in a nutshell:

Dual	60
Activator	56
Mirror	44
Identical	40
Semi-Dual	8
Benefactor	8
Illusionary	8
Beneficiary	8
Business	-8
Supervisee	-8
Kindred	-8
Supervisor	-8
Quasi-Identical	-40
Contrary	-44
Super-Ego	-56
Conflictor	-60

If you're interested, check out the attached PDF where you can find all the calculations.

What do you think? Can you relate? Don't be afraid to ask if something is unclear.

Hope you like it.

[Olimpia]

Anything that rates Mirror higher than Identical, and Benefit on the same level as Semi-Duality and Illusionary is dubious.

[Bertrand]

this is interesting, because it shows a mathematical relationship, but what does that relationship represent? comfort, complimentariness, productivity, support, mutual understanding, communicativeness, etc?

[golden]

It's interesting, though the dropoff between quadras seems overdramatic. I'm not a theory head, and should probably review the theory after a long time away from it. But it seems to me that if the idea is that one person "needs" the supply of a particular IE, greater dimensionality alone wouldn't mean they received it from another person, so the picture of IR quality could be distorted by emphasizing dimensionality.

[User Name]

It's interesting, though the dropoff between quadras seems overdramatic. I'm not a theory head, and should probably review the theory after a long time away from it. But it seems to me that if the idea is that one person "needs" the supply of a particular IE, greater dimensionality alone wouldn't mean they received it from another person, so the picture of IR quality could be distorted by emphasizing dimensionality.

Yes, that’s the main issue. This chart is based on Dimensionality only, and that’s a huge limit, since there are so many aspect to consider in a relations, as Bertrand pointed out. I just worked out how ‘numerically’ the relations can work, but there’s much more...

[Adam Strange]

It’s a good first approximation. I will say that sub-types matter a lot.

There is a similar calculator over on Sociotypes.com which includes sub-types. When I first discovered it, I compared its predictions to my subjective feelings in relationships that I know, and I thought it was pretty accurate.

What these calculators don’t account for is physical and social attractiveness, or the effects of the respective instinct stacks or whether the people are secure or avoidant.

[golden]

Yes, that’s the main issue. This chart is based on Dimensionality only, and that’s a huge limit, since there are so many aspect to consider in a relations, as Bertrand pointed out. I just worked out how ‘numerically’ the relations can work, but there’s much more...

Cool, thanks for responding. (I cross-posted with Bertrand and yes we said something similar.)

[Number 9 large]

Anything that rates me and Olimpia not the best pair ever is dubious.

you know theres other ways to get ur noodle wet than stalking girls on a socionics forum with over the top coming on cringe comments right?

[Number 9 large]

Hi all, I've been working on a sheet lately.

I tried to rate all the 16 Intertype Relations taking into account the Dimensionality of Functions.

First, I took the inverted Model A of the first partner [which basically represents how much the first partner needs each function, from 4 (Suggestive) to -4 (Point of Least Resistance] and then the natural Model A of the second partner (how much of each function the second partner has to offer to the first partner).

Then I multiplied the two Dimensionality numbers of each Information Element, which gave some kind of "combined Model A" of the two types, where each Information Element could have a score between 16 and -16.

I finally summed up the 8 numbers of the "combined Model A" to obtain a final score of the relation. The greater the score, the better the relation. The final score range is from 60 to -60.

This is what I got, in a nutshell:

Dual	60
Activator	56
Mirror	44
Identical	40
Semi-Dual	8
Benefactor	8
Illusionary	8
Beneficiary	8
Business	-8
Supervisee	-8
Kindred	-8
Supervisor	-8
Quasi-Identical	-40
Contrary	-44
Super-Ego	-56
Conflictor	-60

If you're interested, check out the attached PDF where you can find all the calculations.

What do you think? Can you relate? Don't be afraid to ask if something is unclear.

Hope you like it.

i think ull get a less extreme and less binary score if u instead of multiply u added and substracted the numbers

[Exodus]

Interesting idea. The ranking is pretty close to what I would put, but identical should not be 5 times better than semidual.

[Rebelondeck]

I got a very different result but I was more interested in determining which pairs would statistically be better able to work together as a team to accomplish something. I thought this would also be a desired element for marriages in which achieving common goals depended on equal levels of contribution from both partners; however, any perceived imbalances in contribution do change the dynamics - even between dual pairs.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/thestrength.html

a.k.a. I/O

[The Reality Denialist]

It looks bit more realistic on log scale.