The (un)Importance of Intertype Relations

[Skeptic]

The criticism I receive most for socionics is the validity of its predictions about relationships. This is the most audacious claim of socionics, making vast, unverified generalizations about how relationships will run based on some theoretical extensions.

Not that those theoretical extensions are unprecedented; let us say that it is true that Ni (example IE) exists and is necessarily complimented in some respects through supplementary Se and obstructed in other ways through 'conflicting' Si. That is assuming that 'pure Ni' is at play while receiving 'pure Se' as though they were separate and perfect entities, unaffected by all those *other* things. But they're not. Ni egos differ immensely and span over two quadras, as do Se/Si egos. They also involve separate types of people in practice, who are physically and mentally complex with vastly different experiences in their lives.

 

My earlier type confusion rose out of my alpha friends; our functions conflict, but our personalities are perfectly compatible; I have been able to reach high understanding and comfort with these individuals for years despite the supposed conflict socionics predicted. I have come to understand that the truth of the matter is that individuals do not function purely by their functions; they have so many processes going on at once (making selective use of all functions also) that it is impossible to say which will conflict with the processes of another even with different underlying functional themes. Ni-Si/Se-Ne complementarity? Ni-Se/Si-Ne conflicting? It would not be rare. I have come also to believe that even purely theoretical socionics does not show that functions are responsible for interpersonal success.

From this, while socionics is a useful tool that outlines how independent patterns of thought manifest themselves generally, it is not a tool that can accurately or consistently predict how two types will interact or whether both parties will consider their interactions 'poor' or 'conflicting'.

I am curious how much emphasis members here place on this. The poll above should read; "How valid do you think the predictions socionics makes about intertype relations are and how important do you consider them in the typing?"

[EyeSeeCold]

I think they're valid in the area of codependency(e.g. family) or daily interaction and especially when people are vulnerable. People put up masks to protect themselves and after you've known someone for awhile, you're less willing to wear the mask.

[Aiss]

I find myself surprised at how well socionics predicts communication issues in real life more often than not. And that is all it really does, how far you can go with information metabolism types interacting. I think intertype relations are probably the most important factor in, if not exactly verifying typing, at least realizing a mistyping of either or both persons in question. Not something to type by alone, but it seems equally unreasonable to dismiss them to justify a typing. And all the socionics-unrelated stuff doesn't really change this aspect, and although it's what often makes a relationship "good" or "bad" in real life, it's still there and affecting if and how issues are resolved, if they can be in the first place.

I do have Alpha friends and family, but there's a real difference which socionics accurately predicts. It's the difference between "we agree but still often miscommunicate" and "clicking" with more compatible types.

Relations also happen to be an integral part of the theory, which sort of binds it all together, but that's another story.

[Trevor]

All things being equal: socionics relations work just as they're supposed to.

[Words]

It's a personality theory so it's incorrect to think it will explain everything.

I have friends of different types, but it's my own observation that the better friendships come from compatible types, for myself and for others.

I'm kinda happy to leave it at, 'it sort of works' or, 'it works sometimes'. To expect anything more is a recipe for all sorts of problems.

[Skeptic]

...

Assuming that mask wears down and all barriers are breached like that of a family or close situation, do you think functions lie beneath? Or a complicated individual who is not defined, but guided by his functions?

..

But how do functions materialize and 'touch' one another to form a complimentary bond? The way I see it, socionics proposes that it takes place through action, conversation, an exchange essentially. But are these exchanges which are most common, i.e. a conversation exchanging information, guided solely by functions in the ego?

All things being equal: socionics relations work just as they're supposed to.

But all things are never equal. All the things we experience and are born with would necessarily define our 'personality'. Even if archetypes exist, they vary drastically and interact on completely different levels. Though a stereotypical archetypal character may conflict or get along with another based on archetype, these archetypes in real life are bound to be able to find some middle ground upon which to communicate and relate to one another or, by contrast, ground upon which to conflict on.

...

But what is a better friendship? How is a better friendship achieved through the functions in your real experience and how does this relate to type? It is my experience that there are real reasons why relationships do or don't go in certain directions, but it is my growing suspicion that these are not due to the functions.

[Slacker]

I think Socionics relationships are reasonably well predicted, but you can't assume every relationship will go just as predicted because people are complicated and there are so many factors that are involved in relationships. Still, IMO if there is a solid pattern of not getting along with your dual, or having a ton of friends of your supervisor or something, then someone is probably mistyped. I think Socionics is more about trends and patterns than X -> Y. There is no 100%.

[EyeSeeCold]

Assuming that mask wears down and all barriers are breached like that of a family or close situation, do you think functions lie beneath? Or a complicated individual who is not defined, but guided by his functions?

It's both, I think. A person is at once guided by strengths and weakness, and also a bare combination of strengths and weaknesses. It depends on the perspective.

You can say, "Here is (insert type)", but you can also say "Here is weak/strong (insert function)".

[Galen]

Intertype relationships are meant to be taken with a grain of salt. I find that they tend to give pretty good outlines for how two people will interact, but so much of interpersonal interaction is dependent on the individuals in play. If two people's cultural backgrounds, religious/political beliefs, or any other attribute about people don't sync up, then those two people will likely not have as good of a relationship if they had those things in common. From what I recall this is made very clear in the "original" descriptions of the relations.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't know. I think it's socially off putting to be negative. Something about being critical isn't very socially pleasing. The most successful people in human societies always strive to 'keep it positive.' Maybe they're faking, but it's there.

But it could be the harsh truth even though vocally declaring your disrespect for somebody is socially uncouth. I realized that a lot of times in my life I had a naive perspective that the human race could all 'just get along' and we all could be friends here. We share a planet. You'd think it was a simple plan. I thought if not friends, then at least we could just you know, pleasantly ignore each other.

But other people get hateful, they get jealous. Myself included. (Although let's be honest, I am a bit morally better than most people hehe)

I realized all these other bitches don't give a fuck about me and I don't really give a fuck about them. I only care about me and my own ya know. I honestly wouldn't care if most of you got ran over by a truck. I would probably smirk at that. (I would care if dolphin and a few others got hit tho)

Anyways it's always uncomfortable to deal with your shadow and to deal with your hatred, and humanity's hatred. But then you get to the real truth of things that way. You can sift out who has your back and who doesn't. Who just wants money and who is in there with you, as equal partners in love. It's better than the old way at least, wanting to idealize people that they were these things they weren't. Now I just kick everybody's ass who made fun of me for being a soft shy fag in high school when they should have empowered me and sucked on my toes. And nothing feels better than that. Serves them right.

Physical violence solves everything. Treat me like shit and I will get behind you like Buffy did to Glory and whack you hard with Olaf's Hammer so you go flying into a fence. Don't think I can't fight just because I'm faggy and soft. I will rip your balls out and look really cute doing it.

[Creepy-male]

That is assuming that 'pure Ni' is at play while receiving 'pure Se' as though they were separate and perfect entities, unaffected by all those *other* things

Interesting, I've wondering about this to, it seems overly ideal that function exist in their pure form.

From this, while socionics is a useful tool that outlines how independent patterns of thought manifest themselves generally, it is not a tool that can accurately or consistently predict how two types will interact or whether both parties will consider their interactions 'poor' or 'conflicting'.

I agree I think there will always be complexities in relationships between two personalities. I really think though part of the problem is people making too many assumptions about what an intertype relation really means. Many people think duality is "love" or "the most ideal relationship", duality is not that, duality is more precisely defined than that in the theory. Duality is a resonance of sorts between a person's leading function and another person's suggestive function. Duality is based on the idea that a person's strength in a particular function leaves them an unconscious with functions that remain neglected, and specifically among those neglected function some are valued. Duality is a relationship which claims that those valued and neglected functions are supported. Duality essentially isn't love or ideal, its more like someone is supporting your psychological function... its more like a relationship which provides psychological security/support/robustness more than it is "true love". I think that's a major problem, people haven't even developed the correct interpretation of the intertype relations, and THEN of course there is the whole set of issues you bring up. For example if function exist in their pure forms as superpositions or if it even goes beyond that.

In other words people make jumps in logic like assuming that psychological support immediately implies true love. I imagine duality feeling more like being at a support group than I imagine it as some romantic ideal. Further from an intrapersonal (self-development) viewpoint, I don't like the idea of a conflictor. I think learning to deal with people with separate viewpoints leads to growth. In other words I think interacting with ones conflictor isn't always a nightmare, it can be an opportunity to gain an advancement in weaker functions. However I do think that a relationship with a conflictor is more stressful and requires a greater energy investment because of the disparity between the cognitive preferences. However this is offset a lot of times if the club or temperament is similar. An INTp and an INTj although from opposing quadras still share common strengths in the thinking and intuition function and more introverted temperaments, so their tends to be a lot of compatibility.

[jughead]

People do know that and thats as close as loves gets to that idealized state.
Without that interaction to demonstrate socionics, the theory disintegrates into drivel.
Yes others and myself will overestimate the importance simply because we have knowledge but it still makes a difference with regard to psychological health even when working for a boss, roomate, etc, because you personal comfort goes up and that makes things just damn easier for your brain to deal with. If you believe it, it will affect you, and if its real it will affect you and the relation. It's time and the strength of relationship that allows the chance to showcase it.

[jughead]

Does anyone know of a test that measures psychological/physiological comfort with another person.

[EyeSeeCold]

http://similarminds.com/match/
http://similarminds.com/compatibility-bigfive.html
http://similarminds.com/compatibility-mbj.html
http://similarminds.com/compatibility-enneagram.html

[Creepy-male]

I don't know. I think it's socially off putting to be negative. Something about being critical isn't very socially pleasing. The most successful people in human societies always strive to 'keep it positive.' Maybe they're faking, but it's there.

That's actually true I think, even in certain cases like "whistle-blowers" in companies have bad reputations. Even if you were the guy who uncovered enron as a corrupt organization, you will still get a bad reputation for rocking the boat and being disloyal. It's a social instinct thing. People want others to be loyal, positive, accepting. No one likes someone who is an individualist, critical, and negative.

Here is the thing though, when people look back at history its always the individualist, the critic, and the whistle blower that people respect. You don't hear anyone getting perturbed about someone being disloyal to the nazis, but if you lived it they would. I think although the social instinct has its place I don't think its the ultimate truth or anything, sometimes people and society do need some criticism.

I realized that a lot of times in my life I had a naive perspective that the human race could all 'just get along' and we all could be friends here. We share a planet. You'd think it was a simple plan. I thought if not friends, then at least we could just you know, pleasantly ignore each other.

Lol I wouldn't really call that naive so much as an extremely optimistic outlook, or perhaps overly idealistic. The problem isn't the vision, the problem is reality doesn't match up to it, and how are people going to get it to match up to that vision. Sure everyone essentially wants to "just get along", but people have their needs to.

People that are hungry and desperate enough are going to see someone eating a fucking huge meal that weighs 500 lbs and think "wow they have a lot maybe I should ask for some". Then they ask and the other guy thinks "I earned this food with my money, and if I want to eat till I am 600 lbs I will, and I'm not giving anything away because I earned it fair and square".... and then the other person thinks "Fucking fat asshole won't even give me some of his food"... and then it becomes an issue. One guy feels the other guy is being greedy, the other guy feels the he has the right to his property. As life and human society progresses forward these issues evolve and take on complexity and it becomes difficult and eventually that vision becomes rather murky. Most often its not the vision that the problem, its how its going to be accomplish, and sometimes people get lost on why it wasn't inherently accomplished.

Now I just kick everybody's ass who made fun of me for being a soft shy fag in high school when they should have empowered me and sucked on my toes.

Lol wow you're really bitter about that high school stuff, you should just get over it, put your energy into something you enjoy, get really good at it, and then you'll run across some guy that made fun of you in high school and he'll be 40 years old and all hairy and nasty drinking keystone light and trying to re-live his high school glory days, when everyone else has moved on, it will seem really pathetic, and you'll have grown since then, and he may feel threatened by how further along you are. Then of course it will click to him one day that he was a dick to you back when he was at the top and now that you are at the top he will feel remorse genuinely because he realizes that he doesn't deserve anything but you being a dick back to him, but he won't want that, and naturally he'll realize that he must have been wrong and regret it.

You have to remember in high school people aren't really that developed, and a lot of people rise to high positions in their little "easy-bake social sphere of high school" and they
get really impressed with themselves and are complete dicks, but in some ways they have it harder, but when they roll the dice again they may find themselves in a different position in life and this time it may in the "industrial strength social sphere of the real world" and the guy who is in charge there may be 5000 times more impressed with himself than he ever was in high school and the guy isn't just a complete dick he is the supreme commander of cocks and so the guy now is in a different position at later time in life getting the industrial strength pwnage and had his glory days when it really didn't count. In some ways its harder for that guy, than the guy who is behind at first and rise to the top later. So really I wouldn't worry about people who messed around with you, I'd just stay focused on your goals and try to treat others better below you with the experiences that you now have.

[Creepy-male]

thats as close as loves gets to that idealized state.

I think that's a bit of an authoritative answer for such a deep philosophical question imo.

but it still makes a difference with regard to psychological health even when working for a boss, roomate, etc, because you personal comfort goes up and that makes things just damn easier for your brain to deal with.

I guess but people are different in this regard, some people prefer to use the stair rather than the elevator because it gives them some exercise and its a change from the simple well known road. I think its similar with people, some people prefer to interact with people that aren't the obvious choice because its a challenge and a bit of a mystery. With that said sometimes you just want to say fuck it and use the elevator, but really its all a matter of personal preference, and I think that's the issue. Socionics can tell you what the relationship will feel like from a cognitive perspective, but it can't gaurantee a perfect relationship.

If you believe it, it will affect you, and if its real it will affect you and the relation. It's time and the strength of relationship that allows the chance to showcase it.

I guess but I think then people would toggle their believe in socionics on when they are going out with their dual and then toggle it off when their boss is their conflictor. Of course the funny thing is regardless of these selective beliefs, they are probably still working the same shitty job with the boss they hate, and their perfect duality relationship is probably shattered... oh but don't worry they re-typed themselves so its all good, it makes sense now.

[The Ineffable]

I think they are somehow important, but really, it's not actually possible to type based on them, but the relationships that should emerge from specific types (also determining what IEs are at work). For example, the description of Look-Alike relationship I think it can be thrown as garbage, one thing happens between ILE and IEE, other thing between LSI and LII, let's say.

I'm not sure whether you talk about the 16 defined types of relationships or predictions about interactions between types in general, based on the IEs. Because of the way you put it - circumstances and background involved - it appears to me that what you say affect these as well. So, I don't use the general relationship templates, but I do use - and acknowledge - different interactions between types.

Taking for example the Duality relationship, my experience is that it's not really possible to make a description to fit all the 8. Besides, its descriptions I found don't really reveal the huge difference between interacting with a Dual as a spouse and with it as another kind of peer. From my experience, the Duality with my gf is the best I can get, IMO, I'm really content with everything (disregarding studies, knowledge, money); on the other hand, I don't have good ties with other SEIs. And it makes sense, just I don't look at it as "Duality", but ILE + SEI, from where I can figure out what is likely to happen.

My observations of my interactions with other types are overall consistent, some are more, others are less. For example, with LSIs it's almost the same thing with all. I really couldn't tell what's the "supervision" in it, really, but I can recognize easily when this specific one, ILE + LSI occurs. Also with IEEs.
---

And let me give you an example where I use the predicted relationship relying on someone's type to determine the other's: the new gf of my brother that I'm trying to type, but didn't meet myself so far, was supposed to be ISFP - some friend of hers typed her, it was not revealed to me what system he used, but I assume MBTI. Now, me and my gf began speculations, to figure out whether she's SEI or not, not necessarily fully typing her - my gf is pretty possessive and more-or-less seriously framed her as a potential threat. The information I found so far, in this order:
- my brother is SLI
- she's really introverted and silent; they don't really talk
- she is very similar in principles and tastes with him (so probably SLI?) - this was his opinion that they are very similar; might have been SEI as well, though
- we found out that my ESE mother was not pleased when she first met her, because she - the girl - "had no reaction". So, for now, as long as she's very likely Irrational Introvert, but also had no expected reaction from her, she's likely Fe-PoLR. I must specify that she she met mine they blended together, somehow these Fe types when they meet and mean something for each other - family connections - they become animated, somehow they are very attentive to each other and try to anticipate each other's moves. Anyway, that girl was totally inert
- now, I was trying to think of ILI and SLI girls that my mother could know, so I could find out from her about some similarity. Before I could do that, I was informed (so basically because I live in another city) that my mother thinks that this girl is similar to my SLI ex.

Say no more! I could say that I'm around 90% certain that she's XLI (concluded from the strong potential of a Fe vs Fe-PoLR relationship), and among the two I incline very much towards SLI, very much actually. At least is extremely unlikely that she's an Fe type. I will meet her and I'll have confirmation in time, but based on my experience, it's pretty unlikely to miss with so many clues, unless I misunderstood something or got wrong information.
Btw, maybe these criteria look shallow, but there are many more to use. For example, I have a simple "test" which I use to determine Si vs Ni - not really a test, but observations of the reactions when it is required to imagine and guess, SLI and ILI are totally opposite. These criteria consist in all interactions, reasoning, conclusions, etc, some may point out that a certain type is not possible, others that another type is very likely, and so on - intersecting them together it's almost impossible that you don't get the correct type that will continue to confirm to you from then on.
---

My conclusion: relationships between types actually work. There are, certainly, generic or special situations when it's nearly impossible to figure out what's going on, but that's not the point: a generic interaction is basically the same thing with having no information about them at all, right? So IMO these "external factors" are really not important, as long as you focus on what concerns types, what is actually relevant.

And Skeptic, Ni and Se interact very well - and pretty clearly - IRL. I don't know what's going on with you, but you appear to me as approaching the problem as it was some sort of metaphysical and intangible matter, and like you never read descriptions and discussions, maybe you don't have enough interest? I speculate that you're in some sort of catch 22: on one hand you need some solid confirmations to become more interested and fathom the matter, on the other you can't fathom the matter because you're too skeptical about it and don't have enough interest. If that's so, then it is not a problem of Socionics, but one of yours, IMO; as no one was able to offer you the perfectly consistent recipe of typing people and relationships so far, I doubt that you'll ever find an answer on your liking from someone else.

[Jarno]

I find myself surprised at how well socionics predicts communication issues in real life more often than not. And that is all it really does, how far you can go with information metabolism types interacting. I think intertype relations are probably the most important factor in, if not exactly verifying typing, at least realizing a mistyping of either or both persons in question. Not something to type by alone, but it seems equally unreasonable to dismiss them to justify a typing. And all the socionics-unrelated stuff doesn't really change this aspect, and although it's what often makes a relationship "good" or "bad" in real life, it's still there and affecting if and how issues are resolved, if they can be in the first place.

I do have Alpha friends and family, but there's a real difference which socionics accurately predicts. It's the difference between "we agree but still often miscommunicate" and "clicking" with more compatible types.

Relations also happen to be an integral part of the theory, which sort of binds it all together, but that's another story.

Yep, nothing to add to this.

[Trevor]

But all things are never equal.

Bingo.
Every little thing affects a relationship. It is just a matter of degree.

[Aiss]

But how do functions materialize and 'touch' one another to form a complimentary bond? The way I see it, socionics proposes that it takes place through action, conversation, an exchange essentially. But are these exchanges which are most common, i.e. a conversation exchanging information, guided solely by functions in the ego?

Nothing is guided solely by functions. It's just about the way of looking at it. For example within the club but between opposing quadras, ego functions attitude is described as "correcting" - and so it seems in practice. You can dispute something you agree on for a long time. It's like, one person says X, the other person says "no, it's X" and they have hard time agreeing they're both restating the same in different ways because there's forever something "off" with how the other person puts it, and they literally keep correcting each other. And of course different backgrounds and such contribute to it, but it still seems more type related, within the same culture or society, at least - individual differences in education seem less significant at this point, honestly. When there's a disagreement, similarly, misunderstandings make it harder to discuss the matter effectively but the "correction", as unwelcome as it often is, can be useful in bringing all aspects of it to attention.

This is mostly based on real world observations, so more of a practical point of view. Theoretically, socionics was created with intertype relations in mind - that's the idea behind it, or a large part of it. And in a way, I think it is not only a big advantage as far as it's useful, but also part of the source of its relative accuracy, relations being sort of a constant "reality check", not allowing to wildly theorize about types to the point where they make little to no sense. Why Ni works with Se and Si with Ne... it seems to make sense in interactions. It might have a theoretical background or be based on observation, I don't know where it originated.

[Skeptic]

Bingo.
Every little thing affects a relationship. It is just a matter of degree.

That's probably a more reasonable attitude.

..

Do you think that how I think, what I think and how I articulate it are all related to functions? How I think would certainly be related to some extent, but how I articulate and what I articulate seem to have the greatest impact on actual relationships and would surface most in this situation.

..

I agree with your sentiments for the most part. The idea that your referenced 'supporter' or dual is automatically a compatible or likable or attractive person to you just because they support your psychological functions is an unreasonable one. The same goes for the conflictor, who doesn't necessarily

..

My problem is not that of a lack of motivation, but rather an uneasiness with how the theory does not line up with my reality and how it seems to be 'working' seamlessly on this forum. And yeah I can't find any new descriptions nowadays.

Since you have experience with Ni-Se interaction, could you tell me how they interact in real life generally? I've seen such disparity in the conversations and styles of Ni-Se users interacting that even the current descriptions fail to predict the flow of conversation.

..

I have observed this as well, but have experienced it with many types, including my dual.

Not that that especially matters. My question; do you think that the ego functions cause this rephrasing? It certainly stems from different ways of understanding or expressing the same thing, but can't two similar understandings be held by members of different type and be expressed equally similarly?

If the ego functions cause this rephrasing, wouldn't all types with the same function emphasis necessarily comprehend the same thing in the same way? Would there be no disparity in understanding of the same thing?

[EyeSeeCold]

Do you think that how I think, what I think and how I articulate it are all related to functions? How I think would certainly be related to some extent, but how I articulate and what I articulate seem to have the greatest impact on actual relationships and would surface most in this situation.

You shouldn't give so much credit to functions because they theoretically represent a combination of complex processes of the human psyche. If the functions perfectly accounted for everything that processes through the mind and body, then I would say yes, except for the idea of souls/consciousness; we do not have enough information on that yet.

If you think of a conscious human as being a mind first with functions that serve as processing pipes, then it is possible to have unique outputs(personality/behavior) but a pattern(a type) would still be identifiable if humans have similar processing pipes, or functions.

This is what Socionics does, or at least attempts to do, it tests for the processing pipes not the mind or personality.

[Exodus]

I agree with your sentiments for the most part. The idea that your referenced 'supporter' or dual is automatically a compatible or likable or attractive person to you just because they support your psychological functions is an unreasonable one. The same goes for the conflictor, who doesn't necessarily

What is your basis for saying that this is unreasonable? That's the whole point of socionics, right?

My problem is not that of a lack of motivation, but rather an uneasiness with how the theory does not line up with my reality and how it seems to be 'working' seamlessly on this forum. And yeah I can't find any new descriptions nowadays.

I'd say if it doesn't match your observations, you are probably typing people incorrectly. Of course there are other factors to consider as for the quality of relationships, but in a lot of ways they are really quite minor in comparison with socionics. If you take them into account socionics is super-duper-mega-important.

Typing people via relationships is definitely a valid method, especially if you've known them for a long time or have seen them interact with a lot of other people. I recently retyped someone from EII to LIE because the relationships just didn't make sense.

[717495]

#5 is the correct answer. It's not the only thing I'm satisfied with typology-wise, however its the primary point of learning Socionics. I'm not interested in the personalities of Socionics in so much as what rationale brings certain types together under good relationships, and the dynamics of quadras. If these factors don't exist, none of the other correlations do. That is the sole reason why you can't trust type descriptions completely, and to some extent at all. If you don't consider intertype relations to be important, you're doing it wrong.

[Jarno]

Quite a lot. No they don't work 100% of the time; then again, few predictions work absolutely as prescribed 100% of the time in reality—especially when they deal with the complexities of people.

Yes this is important. Socionics is very accurate compared to other sociology/psychology theories.

[Aleksei]

Quadra values seem to be the most relevant portion of intertype relations theory. I can't seem to get along satisfactorily well with Deltas, but I can with pretty much every other type. Overall though Socionics intertype relations I find have an astounding amount of predictive power.

[Skeptic]

...

If socionics lays claim only to proccessing pipes as you say, what authority does it have over intertype relationships? My response to that would be that the intertype relations only apply to blank slate people, those which have experienced nothing and are of equivalent genetic makeup, but then this implies that while the intertype relations are applicable, they are not the last word nor should they be paid abundant attention. I think this would be number "2" in the poll.

..

It would be unkind and unreasonable of me to demand subjugation to my ideas based on subjective typings, my references to them are just my experience which led me to question the validity of intertype relations.

My basis for saying it is unreasonable is a mix of skepticism of an exact model applied to a diverse reality coupled with the question; 'what authority does socionics have over intertype relationships?', one which I have failed to answer completely myself and have come to ask it here.

The exact nature of my confusion is thus; I do not know why the conflicting information elements imply conflicting relationships. It seems to me that as EyeSeeCold said, functions are in a way a processing mechanism that recieves and outputs information, meaning IEs do not apply subjective value sentiments to that incoming information, meaning this responsibility is in the hands of the cumulative experiences and beliefs of the individual which will determine his reaction to that information.

... That would mean that the relationships of any individual are based on how he reacts to incoming information from others, and while this is closely intertwined with the role of IEs, the IEs do not supersede the individual

..

I agree; I can only be sure of people's types who I have been around for many years. To be honest, I would not stake 10$ on the tentative typings I have for my many superficial relationships.

However, I disagree that intra-quadra have a default of comfortable communication. I would suggest that comfort and ease in the flow of information is more related to the frequently changing dispositions of the individuals towards one another and towards the information being disseminated.

...Not to mention intertype relationships don't have reach over unequal playing fields like relationships with parents, clients, siblings, bosses, pastors, psychologists blablabla which would mean a different set of conditions.

#5 is the correct answer. It's not the only thing I'm satisfied with typology-wise, however its the primary point of learning Socionics. I'm not interested in the personalities of Socionics in so much as what rationale brings certain types together under good relationships, and the dynamics of quadras. If these factors don't exist, none of the other correlations do. That is the sole reason why you can't trust type descriptions completely, and to some extent at all. If you don't consider intertype relations to be important, you're doing it wrong.

Well that's a bit of a dogmatic approach. Just because intertype relations have a reduced role means the implications of the functions and their interaction with other functions has any less truth; it just means they have less impact than they advertise.

..

 

Unverified generalizations based on theoretical extensions… so, kinda like all Socionics, right? What makes this particular claim more audacious than the rest?

Odds are, if anything in Socionics is most approximately correct, it wouldn't be functions or sociotypes—but intertype relations. Since presumably the greater frequency and overlapping redundancy in intertypes would've ebbed out and corrected at least somewhat for possible error. I'm sure there's a more mathematically rigorous way to illustrate this, but lets say I'm Aushra and we fudge some numbers that I have a sample of 10 persons/type (160 people total) @ 80% typing accuracy. Meaning 128/160 people correctly typed, or 8/10 correct on avg. in each type—though ofc no way of knowing at the time who or what the mistypings were. Then say I use this group and study their various interactions with one another as a basis for deriving descriptions of each sociotype and intertype relation. What happens if I fuck up royally on a particular type where in reality only 4/10 of the persons assigned actually were that type? Obviously that'd greatly skew things and I'd likely misestimate much about that type. OTOH, error variations like this would be of little to no consequence to intertype understanding—you'd still have all those other pairings from the rest of the correctly typed people to draw conclusions from.

This claim is greater because it extends the authority of socionics from 16 (possible function combinations) to 256 (possible relationship combination).

I suppose I should replace 'unverified' with 'unverifiable' so long as there is no sure fire way of discerning type, and there is no method in sight that does this, so for the predictable future we will have to deal with their lack of verifiability and talk within the theory's claims and not about their physical support.

With a large enough group of reliably-typed people consisting of persons matched with persons… if you can demonstrate that a significant trend exists in raising each other's psychological well-being (however the researcher wishes to define+measure that) with known confounds appropriately mitigated… then honestly, what else is there?

Now sure, you can try and torpedo what I just said with far-flung 'what if this, what if that' possibilities, metaphysical considerations, and alternative explanations—great, I can do that too. But I'm speaking in the realm of what's likely and generally been true. I don't pretend to know the exact details and conditions of how a research design for something like this would literally be implemented—that would obviously take many weeks/months of expertise, thought, and preparation to do right. The point here is that the confirmation standards you're asserting here are unreasonable; I suspect the epistemic demands aren't nearly that intensive. Especially considering that experiments of this nature which test for phenomena like this are fairly routine and commonplace.

Well you have said yourself that the gathering of surely typed individuals is inconceivable, so the gathering of this data is nigh impossible anyway. My point is not that socionics lacks objectively gathered data, but rather that it makes claims about a complex matter by extending simple theoretical constructs with inductive leaps at conclusions, like the idea that Ni is complimented with Se in all real life situations (and it would have to be all situations, provided the individuals involved communicate their true sentiments, else the intertype relationships would not apply to all) with all potential individuals involved. My observation is that if that is the case, in order for Ni to be complimented in the way the intertype relations claim, it would have to have some universal purity in it that is common to all individuals' personality, communicative styles, beliefs, communicated ideas etc., which I have observed is not the case for there is a great disparity in the beliefs, communicative styles, etc. in members of the same type and dominant function, meaning a disparity in the way interactions occur between two individuals, undermining the claim that intertype relations apply universally.

Why would you think IEs somehow covered the entire breadth of human psychology?

If they don't, why do they claim to universally apply to relationships between members of certain types? I though they did because socionics does not selectively apply its hypothesis, but universally (intertype relations apply across the board).

Not sure what you're expecting from Socionics, and/or if you're applying it in lieu of relevant non-Socionics factors that ought to be considered.

I no longer expect socionics to accurately predict relationships; the point is I used to and have been met with these non socionics factors which I now feel greatly outweight the implications of intertype relationships.

Quite a lot. No they don't work 100% of the time; then again, few predictions work absolutely as prescribed 100% of the time in reality—especially when they deal with the complexities of people. Maybe you set your expectations too high, or you typed yourself wrong, or you're simply not considering them from their relevant perspective.

I could have done all those things you suggest, but even if my reality was structured in such a way that my type and the types in question were changed to a compatible intertype makeup I would still wonder how much error occurs when complexities are simplified so far as socionics goes.

[EyeSeeCold]

If socionics lays claim only to proccessing pipes as you say, what authority does it have over intertype relationships? My response to that would be that the intertype relations only apply to blank slate people, those which have experienced nothing and are of equivalent genetic makeup, but then this implies that while the intertype relations are applicable, they are not the last word nor should they be paid abundant attention. I think this would be number "2" in the poll.

It's pretty simple, actually. The many different people in this world "interact" through 16 types. As the information filters out, it deviates from the pure theoretical types and becomes unique due to environment, yet still contains the typical patterns. It is similar to being able to identify a foreign language; the actual content does not matter, it is the language that is potent. Therefore the "authority" these intertype relations have can range from (1%, 99%), though, in all truth, I don't think it is quantifiable, only being open to quality.

[The Ineffable]

Since you have experience with Ni-Se interaction, could you tell me how they interact in real life generally? I've seen such disparity in the conversations and styles of Ni-Se users interacting that even the current descriptions fail to predict the flow of conversation.

I can't do that, I'm sorry. I could not predict the actual flow of a conversation even if they were two actual persons that I know well, so I can't see how was that supposed to connect with Socionics in the first place. Also, I'm not aware of claims that Socionics can predict such things - I saw a lot of gibberish, eg. on Wikisocion that "the vocabulary of a type", or "facts" a la Maritsa, but I never took them seriously, so this is all about them: bullshit.

So I don't know what "promise" of Socionics you perceive, but it's IMO certainly not something that I noticed. If you noticed something in my posts that allegedly "works flawlessly IRL" but you find absurd, please let me know.

[The Ineffable]

However, I disagree that intra-quadra have a default of comfortable communication. I would suggest that comfort and ease in the flow of information is more related to the frequently changing dispositions of the individuals towards one another and towards the information being disseminated.

...Not to mention intertype relationships don't have reach over unequal playing fields like relationships with parents, clients, siblings, bosses, pastors, psychologists blablabla which would mean a different set of conditions.Well that's a bit of a dogmatic approach. Just because intertype relations have a reduced role means the implications of the functions and their interaction with other functions has any less truth; it just means they have less impact than they advertise.

Skeptic, listen to this, please!

Types are types, this is why they're called "types", they're neither programs, not actual persons with certain background. The same are values, they're simply values, preferences, inclinations, to pick one of two antagonist views on virtually anything.

I don't know how to explain you "scientifically" - if there's actually possible a scientific explanation to make the difference - but following that reasoning you'd be forced to dismiss the existence of other human types: male, female, child, adult (as types of personality), idealist, pragmatist, assertive, laid-back (this list could continue for pages) and the kinds of relationships between each with another.! These types actually emerge from the patterns of their activities and interactions, be them relationships or something else. You can't exactly predict how two people of these types would interact, but the general lines, the potential, the likely view on each other, and so on. All of us can tell what a scientific mind is, what a business one is, what a rocker is, what a "responsible citizen" is, what a non-conformist is... because we use models created by observing the social phenomena, not because we know or can predict what these people do on a daily basis. Typing people and relationships are simply a subset of sociology.

There's no magical difference between understanding how a type generally thinks or behaves and how it interacts with another type. Indeed I don't think that the exact 16 types of relationships are so easily observable (if they are actually true), neither do I acknowledge that they are useful for typing - and I disagree with these idiots who claim to type based on them (so exclusively the descriptions of the 16 types of relationships, "comfort level" and other bullshit). But on the other hand you IMO pushed this too far, to claim that the determination of the type of relationships between actual types (256 of them) is impossible to make and explain - this is what I disagree with. These are two different matters.

[Aiss]

I have observed this as well, but have experienced it with many types, including my dual.

Not that that especially matters. My question; do you think that the ego functions cause this rephrasing? It certainly stems from different ways of understanding or expressing the same thing, but can't two similar understandings be held by members of different type and be expressed equally similarly?

If the ego functions cause this rephrasing, wouldn't all types with the same function emphasis necessarily comprehend the same thing in the same way? Would there be no disparity in understanding of the same thing?

Not all of this is socionics related - as I mentioned before, having a different background often means using a different language, for example between people of different professions - but in my experience this rephrasing game is very often more related to perspective as described by IEs. That is, misunderstandings are quickly resolved within quadra and can go on to no end between opposing quadras unless people involved realize that they can't make the other one just accept another's perspective over their own, and more importantly, that it isn't something that needs to be "fixed" in the first place; otherwise they just argue who's more right and not about the issue.

"Necessarily comprehend the same thing in the same way" is rather broad. Keep in mind what I describe works when they already agree, i.e. comprehend the same thing in the same way, as far as "what" is concerned. It's mostly miscommunication that is socionics related, and in my experience very much so.

[redbaron]

I don't see why this page on vocabulary wouldn't be basically accurate:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...d_intuition.29

[The Ineffable]

I don't see why this page on vocabulary wouldn't be basically accurate:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...d_intuition.29

But, for the record, do you see why it would? Did something make you conclude that or is it some sort of belief?

[redbaron]

But, for the record, do you see why it would? Did something make you conclude that or is it some sort of belief?

personal experience. I hear phrases like those examples coming out of those types all the time. lol!

[The Ineffable]

personal experience. I hear phrases like those examples coming out of those types all the time. lol!

If you use that to type, it could explain your mistypings, indeed .
/jk

I'm not saying that they're totally off, but they're often *very* inaccurate. It looks like a false promise for something that has no solution, for people to feel better - you're anyway someone who wants to hear what she likes, so no inconsistency here .
While I admit that many things of Ne apply to me, probably many of them apply to ILE but not IEE. Then looking at the Si function, that's total bullshit! Not only that I don't hear SEIs talking like that, apart for exceptionally but not necessarily more than other people, but when you will hear those things in the vocabulary of an SLI, I'm your slave. Of course, an SLI typed by the usual means, not based on that bogus, that would be circular reasoning.

The list can continue, but I have no interest in correcting that because I think that this is a return to the main problem, whether types manifest IRL in a certain specific manner or not. That would be similar to trying to find the vocabulary of kids, or the vocabulary of idealists or businessmen, which is pointless to me, because it's obviously no such thing, depends very much on the background, education and environment, among others. Now if you find that as obvious as I do, that's a different story.
---

BTW, do you use the vocabulary to type? I mean, as long as they are accurate, that makes typing a breeze... all that's required is to talk to the people and match the expressions.

[KeroZen]

Ash: I wondered if I would have to link this page myself, while reading the thread, but you were faster!

But seriously, are you all arguing with a guy whose nickname is Skeptic? He's obviously a blatant swamp troll and you are losing your time!

[The Ineffable]

That vocab page seems pretty lame and generic/NTR. Don't see why people don't just use this instead: http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

Ash: I wondered if I would have to link this page myself, while reading the thread, but you were faster!

It bears the same problems as the Wikisocion one.

But seriously, are you all arguing with a guy whose nickname is Skeptic? He's obviously a blatant swamp troll and you are losing your time!

What do you mean? Why is he a troll?

I think that, unlike you, Skeptic uses critical thinking.

[redbaron]

BTW, do you use the vocabulary to type? I mean, as long as they are accurate, that makes typing a breeze... all that's required is to talk to the people and match the expressions.

no I don't use it to type but I often hear expressions such as the ones listed mostly for the Ne, Ni and Se listings (I didn't really pay much attention to some of the other ones).

and what did you mean by, I'm "someone who wants to hear what she likes"?

[KeroZen]

It bears the same problems as the Wikisocion one.

Not saying it's not the case, just that the second link is better formatted.

What do you mean? Why is he a troll?

Well because if I changed my nickname to "AnnoyingMofo" it would be a clear indication that the "role" I intend to play in this social playground would be the one of an annoying person... so for me when someone chose "Skeptic" as nickname, it's an indication the person intends to stay skeptical...and potentially just for the sake of it...

And he's a troll mostly because of what you said in your earlier post:

I speculate that you're in some sort of catch 22: on one hand you need some solid confirmations to become more interested and fathom the matter, on the other you can't fathom the matter because you're too skeptical about it and don't have enough interest. If that's so, then it is not a problem of Socionics, but one of yours.

So reading this thread gave me the impression he didn't want to be convinced...I don't know why...maybe being skeptical sounds cool or something? It's just strange that he seems to have quite a lot of socionics knowledge already, but at the same time asks such an embarrassing question... it's easy to perceive that as trolling!

I mean, intertype relations is the only thing we got! Remove that and socionics is as useless as its US counterpart. Most people are here just for the fact that with intertype relations we have something "almost tangible", which is very hard to achieve/find in any other psychological field (until we make significant progresses in neurobiology or related domains)

I think that, unlike you, Skeptic uses critical thinking.

I don't care what you think until I receive my long awaited love letter of yours! I'm scanning my inbox daily and it's still empty!

[The Ineffable]

and what did you mean by, I'm "someone who wants to hear what she likes"?

I mean you get fixed on how you would like things to be then defend the idea with no actual reasoning or arguments. My opinion was built in time, I don't have examples, apart for - for instance - showing your support for popular opinions or establishments just because you like them. Not that it's necessary an abnormal thing, there are a lot of other XEIs like that on the forum (can give names and cases but I won't). These are people I end-up avoiding, they're what I call "posers" and "joiners", when it comes to logical matters, "discussing" with such people is useless and annoying - otherwise they're nice guys. It's like revising Kabbalah with Madonna, or establishing the universal canons of Buddhism with Steven Seagal, if you know what I mean.

Just remember that this is an opinion built in time, based on your posts, for example when you came around insisting that whatever couple you know is Dual, no matter what others would tell you, you adamantly sick to that without apparent justification, I just let it go because it was no use in trying to convince you otherwise. The paradox comes when you actually come and support popular opinions just because it's what you want, even if that defies proper typing methods - in fact you don't even seem to care about that too much. It looks like an irresistible promise that you can't miss, the unique opportunity to have your desires come true.

My initial remark was intended only to take a burden off my heart, not as a relevant argument in the discussion.

no I don't use it to type but I often hear expressions such as the ones listed mostly for the Ne, Ni and Se listings (I didn't really pay much attention to some of the other ones).

Is this what you and the other groupies used in order to upgrade Ezra and discojoe - who you like, I have no doubt - from Gamma SF to Beta ST? Then maybe it's the time to take a look at the section of the vocabulary, to get the final confirmation