Rankings/Ratings of Intertype Relations

[Jarno]

Let's make an overall ranking of the relations. When seen from a romantically perspective.

1) Duality
2) Identical
3) Mirror
4) Activation
5) Illusionary
6) Semi-Duality
7) Look a like
8) Benefeciairy
9) Comparitive
10) Supervisee
11) Benefactor
12) Contrary
13) Superego
14) Quasi Identical
15) Supervisor
16) Conflict

After reading your opinions, i've edited some. Identical has been described as second best in some socionics journals, but it seems that it's not how it is experienced...

[BLauritson]

IIRC, there was a thread in the General Discussion forum a while back about comparative, semi-dual, illusionary and look-a-like relations, about who preferred which ones. As far as I remember, accepting subtypes generally preferred comparative and illusionary relations, while producing subtypes generally preferred semi-dual and look-a-like relations.

Also, I personally value mirror relations over activity, although that's probably coloured by my experience rather than a general preference.

[Exodus]

It's funny that you mention this topic. I just made a list like this.

1. Dual
2. Activator
3. Mirror / Semi-Dual
5. Look-alike
6. Super-Ego
7. Illusionary
8. Supervisee / Beneficiary
10. Benefactor
11. Quasi-Identical
12. Comparative
13. Contrary
14. Supervisor
15. Conflictor

I'm not sure where to put Identical, my experience has varied from camaraderie to neutrality to disgust. Probably somewhere between Activator and Super-ego. I actually think Super-Ego at least seems good in many circumstances.
At least it's better than Contrary, I think. There is that sense of complementation.

I'm surprised that you put Supervisor (given that you mean the relation with one's own Supervisor) above Supervisee. Gilligan has pointed out, and I agree, that people are more attracted to their Supervisees.

[Jarno]

I'm surprised that you put Supervisor (given that you mean the relation with one's own Supervisor) above Supervisee. Gilligan has pointed out, and I agree, that people are more attracted to their Supervisees.

Yes you're right, I made a mistake. I will correct it.

[FDG]

Thinking about it, my best friends aren't easy to type for me. For example, one of my dearest friends is ENFj but I also don't get along with ENFjs on the workplace so it's hard to rate. anyway...(only RL interaction counts here, i've had wonderful dual interactions online)

1-mirror
2-superego
3-activity
4-lookalike
5-dual
6-supervisor
7-benefit

I haven't experienced much other relations.

But generally, I tend to get along best with EJs of both kinds, EP-Xe, IJ-Xe, IP-Xi

worst with IJ-Xi (the worst totally), IP-Xe and EP-Xi

[April]

1. Duality
2. Identical
3. Mirror
4. Activity
5. Semi-dual
6. Look-a-like
7. Benefactor
8. Supervisor
9. Supervisee
10. Beneficiary
11. Superego
12. Illusionary
13. Quasi-identical
14. Conflict

I don't have enough experience with Contrary or Comparative relationships to really know where they fit.

No, I didn't make a mistake placing Benefactor and Supervisor above Beneficiary and Supervisee. Any interpretations?

[Exodus]

I've always thought of Quasi-Identical as the most neutral relationship.

[mikemex]

1) Dual.
2) Beneficiary.
3) Benefactor.
4) Identical.
5) Illusionary.
6) Semi-dual.
7) Supervisee.
8) Look-alike.

The rest are negative I think.

[Mea]

Why is illusionary so low on most lists?

IME:

1) Dual
2) Identical
3) Activity/Mirror
5) Illusionary
6) Semi-dual
7) Beneficiary
8) Look-a-like
9) Contrary
10) Supervisee
11) Comparative
12) Super-ego
13) Benefactor
14) Quasi-Identical
15) Supervisor
16) Conflict

[XoX]

Let's make an overall ranking of the relations.

I don't know if such a list can be reliably produced but the idea is interesting. Once it is finished I will try to compare the people I know against it

[Ms. Kensington]

Rating of what? How much you like it?

Ok

1. Lookalike
2. I am benefactor
3. Mirror
4. I am supervisee
5. Activity
6. I am beneficiary


----------

7. I am supervisor
8. Dual
9. Super Ego
10. Identity
11. Illusionary
12. Semi Dual
13. Quasi - Identity
14. Contrary
15. Comparative
16. Conflicting

of course this is a really different list as to who my favorite people are.

Comparative and conflicting could be switched. I think conflictors can be interesting on some level, adding value to a relationship.

[ScarlettLux]

Okay, based on real-life interactions I've had SO FAR (meaning I haven't had that many close interactions with some of them, altering what may truly be the "best" or "worst") ... These are the only types I've had close associations with.

VERY GOOD ONES:

1. Activity
2. Contrary (yep, I'm not kidding.)
3. I am Benefactor
4. Illusionary
5. Identity

GOOD ONES

6. Duality
7. Semi Duality
8. Quasi Identical
9. Comparative
10. Look a Like

BAD ONES

11. I am Beneficiary
12. I am Supervisor
13. Superego

N/A

Conflicting and Being Supervised

[Joy]

off the top of my head...

Dual
Activity
Identical
Mirror
Semi-dual
Supervisee
Contrary
Benefactor
Illusionary
Comparative
Quasi-identical
Super Ego
Look-a-like
Supervisor
Conflictor
Beneficiary

[Blaze]

Doesn't the preferred type of relationship at least somewhat depend on the context?

Like, if it's work, I'd say lookalike, supervisee, i'm the beneficiary, maybe mirror

If it's romantic, I'd say dual, illusionary

If it's casual and fun, I'd say identity, activity, i'm the benefactor, semi-dual, super-ego

If it's discussion and serious, I'd say mirror, comparative, contrary, quasi-identical

If it's growth and development, i'd have to say conflictor, supervisor, with a touch of dual for support

[Exodus]

Doesn't the preferred type of relationship at least somewhat depend on the context?

Like, if it's work, I'd say lookalike, supervisee, i'm the beneficiary, maybe mirror

If it's romantic, I'd say dual, illusionary

If it's casual and fun, I'd say identity, activity, i'm the benefactor, semi-dual, super-ego

If it's discussion and serious, I'd say mirror, comparative, contrary, quasi-identical

If it's growth and development, i'd have to say conflictor, supervisor, with a touch of dual for support

Good point.

Comparative, Dual, Semi-dual, and Identical in casual/party situations. Ti/Fe-dominant parties are awesome.

Romantic: dual, activity, maybe semi-dual.
Work: Quasi-identical, benefactor, and mirror
etc.

[misutii]

From my personal vantage point...... in 'friendly relations'

POSITIVE (these are relations that have supported stable friendships in my experience)
------------
Dual(ESTp)
Illusionary(ENTp)
Beneficiary (INTj)
Comparitive(INTp)
Mirror(ENFj)
Quasi-Identical(INFj)

NEUTRAL (these are relations that have made me acquaintences, but rarely have these ever led to more)
----------------
Activity(ISTj)
Contrary(ENFp)
Benefactor(ISFj)
Supervisor(ENTj)
Semi-dual(ESFp)
Identical(INFp)
Super-ego(ISTp)

NEGATIVE (these are relations that I become uncomfortable with from the beginning)
--------------
Look-a-like(ISFp)
Conflicting(ESTj)
Supervision(ESFj)

[Jimbean]

I think it has something to do with your own experiences with people of each representative type, like, for example, I listed comparative at the bottom, although I did have a good friend of mine that was an ENFp back when I was in high school. And for having ESFj’s at the bottom, I think it has to do with my personal experiences with them. Honestly though, listing them was somewhat tough because I have had good and bad relations with all of them.


Beneficiary
Quasi-Identical
Look-a-like
Illusionary
Identical
Super-ego
Supervisor
Contrary
Mirror
Dual
Semi-dual
Conflicting
Activity
Benefactor
Comparative
Supervision

[eunice]

This is how my relations usually are:

Positive
Mirror (ENFp)
Supervisee (ENTp)
Contrary (ENFj)
Beneficiary (ISFp)
Conflicting (ESTp)
Comparative (ISFj)

Neutral
Quasi-Identical (INFp)
Identical (INFj)
Semi-dual (ENTj)
Benefactor (INTp)
Super-Ego (ISTj)
Supervisor (ESFp)

Negative
Dual (ESTj)
Activity (ISTp)
Look-a-like (INTj)
Illusionary (ESFj)

I know the list looks funny, but that's how my interactions are like IRL. I guess I probably mistype some of my friends and acquaintances. :wink:

[ScarlettLux]

Hmm.. don't you think that you may be another type, Eunice? *coughINFpcough*

[Blaze]

Hmm.. don't you think that you may be another type, Eunice? *coughINFpcough*

*clears throat*

[XoX]

I know the list looks funny, but that's how my interactions are like IRL. I guess I probably mistype some of my friends and acquaintances. :wink:

Lol. I'm with the people who say you are INFp. If you are INFj and you haven't mistyped those people then socionics can be immediately thrown away as useless For an INFp your list makes perfect sense.

I have to add here that if I am INFp as claimed then my personal relationships don't make much more sense socionics-wise either so I'm in a similar position as you are.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[snegledmaca]

Very Good on both sides

Contrary(ENFp)

Very Good on their side

Dual(ESTp)
Identical(INFp)
Mirror(ENFj)
Activity(ISTj)

Good on both sides

Look-a-like(ISFp)

Good on my side

Beneficiary (INTj)

Neutral

Comparitive(INTp)
Illusionary(ENTp)
Quasi-Identical(INFj)
Benefactor(ISFj)
Supervisor(ENTj)
Semi-dual(ESFp)
Super-ego(ISTp)

Negative

Conflicting(ESTj)
Supervision(ESFj)

[KSpin]

All I can say is that at the moment I'm in an Activity relationship. It's my only relationship I've ever been in, and I've been with her for over 3 years now.

[Kim]

My current boyfriend is ENTj and therefore my beneficiary (yes, I finally figured it out) and so far it has has worked out really well.

It's hard to compare previous relationships with this one. Duality was less prone to misunderstandings and
generally more comfortable. But not being able to read the other person like you can in a dual relationship
can have its advantages - we are still, after 6 months of spending every free minute together, very intrigued
with each other in this "wow, s/he is so awesome" glittery starry eyes kind of way. I did not really experience that
with duality because that tends to skip this part because it's so comfortable right away. But with my dual, there were fewer misunderstandings. This relationship requires more communication to work, which is fine.

Anyway, if I were to rate my serious long-term (romantic) rl relationships: beneficiary>dual>illusionary (although that one was the most "WOW" crazy in love one - but went down badly) >contrary

As for friends (real life only), look-a-like, mirror, dual, activity are very good

benefactor, beneficiary, super-ego, supervisee, semi-dual, supervisor, and illusionary are good

Conflictor and contrary are difficult. Contrary is always very unstable with great times and bad times and lots of misunderstandings.

[Joy]

edited to add: this wasn't about a dual

Duality was less prone to misunderstandings and
generally more comfortable. But not being able to read the other person like you can in a dual relationship
can have its advantages - we are still, after 6 months of spending every free minute together, very intrigued
with each other in this "wow, s/he is so awesome" glittery starry eyes kind of way. I did not really experience that
with duality because that tends to skip this part because it's so comfortable right away. But with my dual, there were fewer misunderstandings.

My experiences have also been that the puppy love/honey moon phase doesn't last as long in dual relationships. It doesn't need to. It wasn't as intense either... more of a safe, comfortable, "this is going work out extremely well" feeling. It's like when you're with your dual, you're confident that no matter what happens, you (plural) will be able to deal with it. In other relationships, I couldn't trust the "things really are going to be okay" feeling, so I made up for it with hanging on to my infatuation with the person. I understand the concept of a life long relationship now... I understand how it's possible to be so confident about your future with that person that you don't really even think about it, it just becomes a part of your world view and your identity (in a healthy way).

My experiences about misunderstandings differ from yours though. I had fewer misunderstandings with my contrary. We understood each other extremely well. It sucks when what a person needs from you are your super ego functions and they don't appreciate your ego functions... can be really damaging to your sense of competency.

I have had more "misunderstandings" with my dual than I have in other relationships, but it's because frustrations can actually surface, and then they're dealt with and things are even better. This allows you to understand yourself better and grow as a person and whatnot.

Obviously there's a lot more to compatibility than socionic's type, but I really cannot say enough good about duality.

[Kim]

With misunderstandings I mean actual misunderstandings: I make a joke and he is not sure if I am actually joking (ENTjs can be slow that way). And vice versa, actually. With my dual, we teased each other and always knew it was teasing.

I had fights with my dual because of that frustration thing you talk about, but they were not based on misunderstandings.

Contrary is constant push and pull for me. It's stressful. But when it's good, it's great. But there is almost constant insecurity on both sides.

[Joy]

With misunderstandings I mean actual misunderstandings: I make a joke and he is not sure if I am actually joking (ENTjs can be slow that way). And vice versa, actually. With my dual, we teased each other and always knew it was teasing.

I had fights with my dual because of that frustration thing you talk about, but they were not based on misunderstandings.

Yeah, that makes sense. I put "misunderstandings" in quotes in my post because they aren't actual misunderstandings... more like a lack of information? It's hard to describe. They're like, "So what's the problem?" when they recognize that you're not looking at something in a healthy way or not handling a situation as well as you could. Essentially it's because your dual is expecting you to use your ego functions, and if you've suppressed them due to past relationships or upbringing, it's difficult to reconcile with yourself sometimes, to let go of the "supposed to's" you've been taught and allow yourself to believe that it's okay to just be (as opposed to always trying to be something or another). Your dual recognizes when you're not being yourself and calls you out on it, and in doing so forces you to face issues that you've avoided for a long time.

Contrary is constant push and pull for me. It's stressful. But when it's good, it's great. But there is almost constant insecurity on both sides.

We didn't feel insecure about fidelity kinds of things, and we almost never fought, but both of us felt very neglected, and it literally took all of our energy just to keep the relationship together. It was like he was living his life and I was living mine, and we had to meet somewhere in the middle to spend time together, and any closeness we experienced was only in that meeting place.

[Kim]

Your dual recognizes when you're not being yourself and calls you out on it, and in doing so forces you to face issues that you've avoided for a long time.

I agree with this. I think some of my conflict with my dual ex stemmed from that. Problem with ISTps is that they are clumsy and perhaps even insensitive when communicating this to you because of the Fe PoLR. This is where knowing about Socionics is really a blessing.

Contrary is constant push and pull for me. It's stressful. But when it's good, it's great. But there is almost constant insecurity on both sides.

I mean insecurity about motives and reasons behind behavior and statements, not so much fidelity. Overall, INFps tend to get too close too quickly and that makes me uncomfortable. I become more distant and they get irritated until it's resolved and so on.

We didn't feel insecure about fidelity kinds of things, and we almost never fought, but both of us felt very neglected, and it literally took all of our energy just to keep the relationship together. It was like he was living his life and I was living mine, and we had to meet somewhere in the middle to spend time together, and any closeness we experienced was only in that meeting place.

I think your ex was INTp, actually. He seems to have IP temperament and he certainly looks 100% INTp. But that's just me. :wink: But what you describe does not sound like contrary to me. Well, not like I have experienced it, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[KSpin]

I need an ESFp to test this whole "duality" thing out with.

[Mea]

We didn't feel insecure about fidelity kinds of things, and we almost never fought, but both of us felt very neglected, and it literally took all of our energy just to keep the relationship together. It was like he was living his life and I was living mine, and we had to meet somewhere in the middle to spend time together, and any closeness we experienced was only in that meeting place.

This describes the relationship I have with my comparative.

[Kim]

I need an ESFp to test this whole "duality" thing out with.

As I said elsewhere:

at the end of the day it's two people having a relationship. That's it. It's comfortable and a good match, but it's not magic and not perfect because they are still two people with flaws, histories, moods, etc.

:wink:

But go for it, ESFps are awesome!

[Joy]

Kim, I think logical types in contrary relationships suffer differently than ethical types in contrary relationships because one wants more Fe, the other wants more Fi, and as a result they both feel neglected.

We didn't feel insecure about fidelity kinds of things, and we almost never fought, but both of us felt very neglected, and it literally took all of our energy just to keep the relationship together. It was like he was living his life and I was living mine, and we had to meet somewhere in the middle to spend time together, and any closeness we experienced was only in that meeting place.

This describes the relationship I have with my comparative.

I think it probably describes pretty much any relationship where partners are not truly available to each other.

[eunice]

Hmm.. don't you think that you may be another type, Eunice? *coughINFpcough*

*clears throat*

I know the list looks funny, but that's how my interactions are like IRL. I guess I probably mistype some of my friends and acquaintances. :wink:

Lol. I'm with the people who say you are INFp. If you are INFj and you haven't mistyped those people then socionics can be immediately thrown away as useless For an INFp your list makes perfect sense.

I have to add here that if I am INFp as claimed then my personal relationships don't make much more sense socionics-wise either so I'm in a similar position as you are.

Really? I didn't think of that, but I guess I will keep INFp in mind. :wink:

[Joy]

It's not wise to base your type on intertype relations to a limited number of people who you may very well have mistyped... I think that activity and duality are rather telling (assuming you type those individuals correctly), but you can only know so many people of each type, so even if they're typed correctly they may not be a very good representation of that type due to non-socionics related factors.

[Jarno]

As I said elsewhere:

at the end of the day it's two people having a relationship. That's it. It's comfortable and a good match, but it's not magic and not perfect because they are still two people with flaws, histories, moods, etc.

:wink:

i would say it can be magic, especially with corresponding subtypes, whatever that means.

i've met different ESFP's with different levels of magic

[Joy]

I think your ex was INTp, actually. He seems to have IP temperament and he certainly looks 100% INTp. But that's just me. :wink: But what you describe does not sound like contrary to me. Well, not like I have experienced it, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Okay, I've thought about this a little. Of course it's possible for him to be mistyped, but if he is INTp, then I think it's very possible that UDP is as well. UDP reminds me very much of him. It would also mean that this is very wrong.

[Exodus]

Okay, I've thought about this a little. Of course it's possible for him to be mistyped, but if he is INTp, then I think it's very possible that UDP is as well. UDP reminds me very much of him. It would also mean that this is very wrong.

I think that description of Alpha does not describe Ti (and hence INTjs) as well as it could. The other elements are much more heavily emphasized. For instance:

They like to systematize knowledge and create new categories and speculative hypotheses

That is a little abstract. I would say "They like to develop and discuss unique personal philosophies."

[Joy]

Both sound just like this guy.

[mr_maguoo]

Here is, what I believe to be, the theoretical list in decending order of intertype relation compatibility. In the real world, deviations from the list are probably due to other reasons such as different life goals, different cultural/personal values, different interests and values etc. rather than socionic type. With all of the 'noise' of the real world you may find that you prefer interacting with X who is your Look a like over Y who is your Semi-Dual. However in a perfect world where all other factors are held constant, you would prefer your Dual over your Identical, your Identical over your Mirror, your Mirror over your Acitvity, et al. - Well this is my theory anyway.


1) Duality (ENFj)
2) Identical (ISTj)
3) Mirror (ESTp)
4) Activation (INFp)

5) Semi-Duality (ESFj)
6) Comparative (INTj)
7) Illusionary (ENTj)
8) Look a like (ISFj)

9) Beneficiary [Benefactor – ISFp]
10) Supervision [Supervisor – ENTp]
11) Beneficiary [Beneficiary – INTp]
12) Supervision [Supervisee – ESFp]

13) Superego (INFj)
14) Contrary (ESTj)
15) Quasi Identical (ISTp)
16) Conflicting (ENFp)