@silke, which type pairs (aside from two identicals) are most often perceived as similar from outsiders or when being interacted with separately, by other types who aren't their identicals?
@silke, which type pairs (aside from two identicals) are most often perceived as similar from outsiders or when being interacted with separately, by other types who aren't their identicals?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
I'm not silke, but I always feel like my benefactor relations and I are mistaken one another.
Jim, Invisible. "Socionics something something". The16types.info shoutbox; May 15, 2014.
Business relations is a common mix-up - SLI/ILI, SEI/IEI, etc. - they have same creative/activating elements so their immediate observable reactions are similar, while the leading function is harder to notice because it's like an ever present subtle background that often escapes direct observation.
Benefit pairs are next - SLI/ESI, LII/SLI, IEI/LII, etc. - this is more likely to occur if a person is strongly reliant on leading function, which has the effect of boosting their hidden agenda. Some will go on to interpret their bolstered HA as their leading function, due to its prominence (e.g. Ti-LII may be mistaken for a SLI).
Supervisees typings their supervisors, surprisingly. Typically how it goes is that the supervisee feeling admiration/attraction for the supervisor types them into some more favorable type, such such dual, mirror, semi-dual, mirage.
Last edited by silke; 11-10-2014 at 11:39 AM.
^ Makes sense, but I would swap supervision with semi-duals/illusionaries. More introverted EPs can come across as their IP semi-duals and vice-versa. For rational types, I think illusionary > semi duals.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
as much as semi duals are great they are equally grating in a close relationship
Last edited by glam; 08-06-2015 at 06:33 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Last edited by glam; 08-06-2015 at 06:34 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I would change this now to this:
1. Dual followed closely by activity
2. Comparative and Identical
3. Mirror, semi dual, illusionary, beneficiary, supervisee, benefactor (I have great experiences with all of these)
4. Contrary
5. Conflictor
6. Super ego and look a like
7. Quasi and Supervisor
These low look a like and supervisor rankings may be because of a few very specific people though. Also, I just realized that this was supposed to be about romantic relationships, and I just wrote it about how much I like or get along with people of these types in general (comparative and identical would be further down the list for romantic relationships). Also, my conflictor experiences have been mostly online or in long distance friendships. I'm not sure about the IEIs I know in day to day irl. Either there aren't any/many or they avoid me. They probably avoid me. lol
I think I had a friend who was my illusionary, which was great for about a month. I haven't liked Extinguishment that much. My longest friendship was apparently my supervisee.
I really like the list @silke came up with.
I agree, though I might move up the "identical" to a higher position.
Oh these levels are nice
Here's my list as LSI-Se. I don't know if this is type related in any way. I recall e.g. reading about Mirage that it does depend on type. Note I did not have a romantic type of relationship with each one of the types lol so I did some extrapolations but it's all based on actual experience just not all of it from such relationships
I didn't bother with evaluating other people's relationships, too much ambiguity there
Where there is more than one type on a line, it's all equal, put in alphabetical order
A) Chance to be good
Duality
Activity, Semi-duality
B) Can try but what's the point eventually
Beneficiary, Business, Kindred
Benefactor, Mirror, Supervisee, Supervisor
Identity, Mirage, Superego
C) Not a chance, don't even go near
Extinguishment
Quasi-Identical
Conflict
Tier 1: defined as, “These relationships can be smooth even if I have little in common with the other person; situational conflicts usually can be resolved”
* Dual
* Mirror
* Activity
* Identical
Tier 2, defined as, “These relationships can be smooth if I have a fair amount in common with the other person; situational conflicts often can be resolved”
* Beneficiary
* Semi-dual
* Look-a-like
* Kindred
* Supervisee
* Supervisor
* Benefactor
* Illusionary
Tier 3, defined as, “These relationships can be rough if I have little in common with the other person; situational conflicts are harder to resolve”
* Super-ego
* Contrary
* Quasi-identical
* Conflicting
They're only loosely in order within the tiers. There's just too much variation in my experience to call it cut-and-dried. Even the tiers are iffy.
Superego isn't that bad for friendships. I get along pretty well with male ESIs. I think these relations look pretty cold to outsiders though. Would most definitely be problematic for close (SO-level) relationships.
I am of the opinion that one should not determine their friendships with Socionics. I know superego, supervisor, quasi-identical friends, etc. Very close relationships are another story, and can more accurately be modeled with Socionics.
I once read in an article that superego is the easyest to start relationship. like in, if you see them you already like them.
This is the ranking according to Victor Gulenko in one of his older articles. I'm kind of surprised that he placed Business relations on the same level as Superego and hasn't really explained this.
http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/shkala.html
1. Duality, Semi-Duality
2. Activation, Direct Benefit
3. Mirror, Direct Supervision
4. Identical, Kindred
5. Mirage, Extinguishment
6. Quasi-Identical, Reverse Benefit
7. Conflict, Reverse Supervision
8. Superego, Business
Gulenko: "The resulting rankings of intertype relations has a number of aspects that are sure to evoke surprise in many socionists. Therefore, they should be explained.
5.1. The first surprise. That Supervision falls into the category of relations of average comfort, while the majority of socionists rank Audit (Supervision) as an uncomfortable relationship type. The point here is that traditional Socionics does not distinguish between Direct Revision (DR) Reverse Revision (RR). When in Supervision dyad, the Supervisor takes the leading role and the Supervisee accepts this state of things, this relation is that of Direct Revision. It is characterized by mild condescension and humane treatment by the supervisor of the supervisee. If the supervisee seizes the initiative and begins to play the leading role in the dyad, this relation "reverses" and acquires characteristics of petty control and quarrels. This is the case of Reverse Revision, which I rank in the category of discomforting relations.
The same applies to the second asymmetric intertype relationship – Benefit/Request. When the benefactor takes up the leading role in the pair, and the beneficiary does not dispute it, this is the case of Direct Benefit – a proactive type of relations of average comfort level. But if the leading role is taken over by the beneficiary, then this relation loses effectiveness and activity, and turns into Reverse Benefit, the comfort levels of which are below average.
5.2. The second surprise. The most uncomfortable relation turns out to be not Conflicting one, but the relations of Superego. This is explained by the balancing of the intro-static temperament of Relations of Conflict in Socionics. Conflictors can be ignored for some time. Superego partner perceives your actions as deliberate creation of inconveniences and discomfort. Your actions towards him or her are interpreted in the same manner, which starts a vicious circle of mutual complaints. Thus, remember that superego is for you the most uncomfortable partner at close communication distances.
Last edited by silke; 11-20-2016 at 01:15 AM.
Duality10
Mirror 8
Activity 7
Conflictt 6 I still like the T and the S
LSI 5 I like the T only
ESE like their caregiver nature 6
ILI 4
Is there a 0?
Everyone else I just want to hang out with
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Really, is that so? Even me and william?
There is more to a person than a type.
Of course
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I think that if they happen to interact superficially conflictors can be pleasant. People that might rub me the wrong way are often victims of circumstance rather than necessarily my conflictors.
Conflictors can be enigmatic which can have an effect of drawing each other closer. This can happen seemingly randomly because of opposite temperaments. If both parties shift to a closer psychological distance true "conflict" begins to produce extreme tension, if not open hostility (this depends heavily on the types involved - just as not all dual pairs may act the same in a given situation, not all conflictors may act the same in a given situation).
I don't know any SEEs well enough to type them SEE (though I am sure I have interacted with them before), but I have with difficulty attempted to mediate between a confirmed ILI and confirmed ESE, both of whom are close to me(the above comments are based on this). It's stressful, and attempting to come up with a "perfect solution" is frustrating when neither party can accept the sincerity of the other.
Really? The direct supervision description here does not sound like a pleasant interaction to me... condescension??? who wants that? I mean i can see how that might potentially be "attractive" at first, but i dont think it would be a sustainably happy relationship. Also can't the roles reverse? i feel like Direct supervision can easily turn into Reverse supervision. Maybe that's why socionics has not traditionally distinguished between the two.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I can agree with this ranking to some degree (mostly), except for Superego and Business being the worst... like... No, haha.
At least this description finally explains what he has meant with Direct/Reverse Benefit/Supervision all the time...
With his outline in mind, I would rearrange his ranking like that:
1. Duality, Semi-Duality
2. Activation, Direct Benefit
3. Mirror, Mirage
4. Identical, Kindred
5. Business, Extinguishment
6. Quasi-Identical, Reverse Benefit
7. Direct Supervision, Super-Ego
8. Conflict, Reverse Supervision
I like how @silke put it. If one accepts the terms they're under in a relationship then things proceed much more smoothly, perhaps even in a desirable direction. Now I can see why people end up falling for their supervisors and benefactors, and why those relationships didn't eventually explode into nastiness like one would think given the theory. Both sides accepted the arrangement and weren't exactly dissatisfied with it. The supervisor and supervisee accepted their roles in the relationship and neither tried to do anything except that. Same with the Benefactor and Beneficiary.
It's not as good as being with a dual, but if the interests are aligned correctly and the two people value each other enough the typology begins to mean less. Not everyone can have an "ideal" relationship, one must learn to cherish and treasure the people around us who are there for us regardless of their type. One can get along with damn near anyone else if they psychologically healthy, it's just that things might not work out perfectly. They may work out well enough though, even in a romantic relationship.
this is all entirely true in my experience, when i have had to deal with SLIs at a close distance for an extended period of time, whether psychologically, emotionally, and/or physically. Conflict relations are also pretty bad, but in a way there can still be some "balancing out" since one is Introverted and the other is Extraverted, you have differing strengths, and IME you can still get along superficially for short periods of time. maybe there's something about sharing a temperament with your Superego that contributes to the conflict, i.e. the feeling that they are being deliberately annoying and trying to sabotage you.
Semi-duality is equal to duality? That doesn't make sense.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
How I understood it: Duality and Semi-Duality are on the "first level". Duality is still better than Semi-Duality, of course. Hence it is mentioned before Semi-Duality.
Aka, his list would actually have to be like this:
1. Duality
2. Semi Duality
3. Activation
4. Direct Benefit
etc etc.
this is the lamest thread ever.
To me, they are still distinctly different levels.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Fair enough.
That means you disagree with Gulenko at this point.
I'm assuming Controlled means Supervisor, and Controlling means Supervisee.
Could you explain how Supervision can rank so highly IYO?
I have posted two rankings in this thread before, but I think I have finally arrived at my conclusive one.
This time, my ranking involves a star rating. The more stars, the better.
And I recommend at least 3 stars for romantic long term relationships.
This star system is based on how harmonious and complementary each relation is.
So naturally, same Quadra relations all have at least 4 stars.
Without subtypes:
Duality: ★★★★★
Identity: ★★★★½
Activity: ★★★★
Mirror: ★★★★
Semi-Dual: ★★★
Mirage: ★★★
Look-A-Like: ★★½
Kindred: ★★½
Benefit: ★★
Supervision: ★½
Super-Ego: ★
Extinguishment: ★
Quasi-Identity: ½
Conflict: 0
Some people are masochists
How is it different now?
dual
Semidual
activator
look a like
illusionary
contrary
benefactor
identical
supervisee
mirror
beneficiary
super ego
conflictor
comparative
quasi identical
supervisor
So the types from then vs now, in order, based on self-typings at the time:
Then Now ESI ILI SEE IEI LIE LIE ILI IEE EII SLI IEI SEI LII EIE IEE SEE LSI EII LSE ESI ILE LSE ESE ILE EIE LII SLI SLE SEI ESE SLE LSI
And now that I'm all done with that, I'm wondering what the eff the point even was. lol I guess it's interesting to see which types are much higher/lower and which are about the same.
Last edited by Joy; 10-03-2016 at 12:54 AM.
Okay, is this theoretical or applied to my own life as a certain sociotype? I really got excited about doing this... but I guess I can't do it.
I'll prolly try doing both ways lol actually, when i get the chance; honestly I dont know over half of them, and none of them in depth.
your list is probably exactly what theory would predict but i tend to think that reality is different.
for example mirror is likely lower than semi dual.
i once read a summary of a study they did by interview i believe, and conflict came out as pretty comfortable, also supervision wasn't as bad as one would have expected purely on the theory.
Also Identity is probably lower than activity, since it only has the friendship/information functions in common and not the energy/dual functions. Identity can get boring real quickly.
My list doesn't reflect which intertype relations amongst couples are the most common.
It is not a prediction of such, but a prediction of which interactions would be the most "smooth" on a close level.
For example, Benefit is one of the most common relations in relationships (IME), even though it ranks rather poorly in comparison to many other relations.
However, that doesn't mean Benefit is a "good" type of relationship. People in Benefit relations often experience difficulties, primarily a significant dissatisfaction from the side of the Benefactor – they have to get over certain things, before they can commit to their Beneficiary without second thoughts. Supervision is also not as rare as it "should" be, it might even be more common than Duality. But again, the Supervisee tends to experience a considerable degree of painful emotions in the relationship (because of the PoLR hits), which isn't ideal. Identity may be "boring" for some people, but it is still one of the most common intertype relations for couples IME, mostly forlead types and some IEIs though, not really for the other ones. Identity has its good and bad sides, but generally it is "smooth" in the sense people come from the "identical" kind of angle. I haven't found Activity couples to be that common. The most common Activity couples seem to be EII-SLI and SEI-LII, ime.
I have no idea what "study" you supposedly read about. The studies in Socionics, none of them are verifiable, most of them seem biased. I don't see Conflict being more comfortable than Supervision, in my personal experience and through other people's experiences. As far as I know, Conflict is the rarest relation amongst long term couples, thankfully.
All in all, most people end up with someone with whom they have a relation that is at least sort of acceptable, but not exactly "great" (aka 2 stars in my ranking). Most people go for someone who meets many other criteria, like attractiveness and so forth, over "smoothness" in interaction and "personality compatibility". Again, my ranking isn't reflecting that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
