Rationals, Irrationals, and Adjacent-Quadra Relationships

[Krig the Viking]

So, an interesting idea arose in the Romantic Mirage thread, which I have been mulling over for a while.

The idea is that, because types in adjacent quadras share only half of their valued information elements (either the Rational elements or the Irrational elements), Rational and Irrational types will have significant differences in the way they experience adjacent-quadra relationships. That would include Semi-Duality, Kindred, Mirage, Look-a-Like, Supervision, and Benefit.

Essentially, the trend seems to be that partners who share valued Irrational elements will tend to find the relationship comfortable, relaxing, and easy to work together, but ultimately unfulfilling, while parters who share valued Rational elements will find the relationship meaningful, fulfilling, with a deeper personal connection, but ultimately uncomfortable and difficult to work together productively.

Shared Irrational: comfortable, "safe", sympathetic, harmless, casual, easy to work together to achieve a goal, productive, useful, superficial, shallow, unsupportive, unable to support each other during times of stress, unfulfilling, unexciting, void, lacking intimacy and depth
Shared Rational: close and satisfying, fulfilling, meaningful, deep, intimate, easy to discuss points of view but difficult to agree on practical implementation, difficult to execute joint activities, not living up to full potential, can't get anything open-ended done, uncomfortable, under-stimulated, growing laziness

I will call the "shared Irrational" relationship style "Productive-Shallow", and the "shared Rational" style "Unproductive-Deep".

Productive-Shallow Relationships
Rational Types: Mirage, Look-a-Like, Supervisee, Beneficiary
Irrational Types: Semi-Dual, Kindred, Supervisor, Benefactor

Unproductive-Deep Relationships
Rational Types: Semi-Dual, Kindred, Supervisor, Benefactor
Irrational Types: Mirage, Look-a-Like, Supervisee, Beneficiary

In general, it seems that Productive-Shallow relationships connect in terms of lifestyle, but can't make any deeper, personal connections. Unproductive-Deep relations seem to make those deeper personal connections, but clash in terms of how to go about daily life.

Anyway, that's the theory I've been working on. Any input, theoretical insights, personal observations, is welcome!

[ashlesha]

In general, it seems that Productive-Shallow relationships connect in terms of lifestyle, but can't make any deeper, personal connections. Unproductive-Deep relations seem to make those deeper personal connections, but clash in terms of how to go about daily life.

this is how i've tended to generalize how i feel around alphas and gammas, respectively, so it's interesting to see it spelled out like you've done here. thanks i'm curious to see other responses.

[Aiss]

Eh, works a bit different for me. Irrationals of adjacent quadra > Rationals of adjacent quadra.

Though I tend to agree it feels different depending on shared pair of values, and more or less with how it works. I disagree this originated in linked thread, but I'm too lazy to look for earlier references.

[Krig the Viking]

this is how i've tended to generalize how i feel around alphas and gammas, respectively, so it's interesting to see it spelled out like you've done here. thanks i'm curious to see other responses.

Neat. I am also interested in how other people respond. I'm curious whether Se/Ni-valuers, in particular, will relate to this.

Eh, works a bit different for me. Irrationals of adjacent quadra > Rationals of adjacent quadra.

Though I tend to agree it feels different depending on shared pair of values, and more or less with how it works. I disagree this originated in linked thread, but I'm too lazy to look for earlier references.

Yeah, my intent here wasn't so much to show "how well these relations work", but more "in what way do these relations work". Personally, I get along better with LSE (my Mirage) than with SLE (my Supervisor), even though I can tell I would have a deeper personal connection with the SLEs. So the depth of the connection matters as well as the type of connection.

Also, the linked thread was where I got the idea -- I wouldn't be surprised if someone else had thought of it before me.

[squark]

Interesting idea Krig. hmm. will have to think about it.

[The Exception]

Thanks for your insight Krig. I've noticed the productive-shallow relationship with LSEs I've encountered. I haven't studied the other types enough to have a strong impression one way or the other.

[silverchris9]

Hm... well, at first I was having difficulty understanding your terms. I was thinking of productive in a different sense, one more allied with deep. Like, to me, a productive relationship (that is, one that fulfills the positive potentials of human relationships) is by definition a "deep" one.

But then I saw this sentence:

In general, it seems that Productive-Shallow relationships connect in terms of lifestyle, but can't make any deeper, personal connections. Unproductive-Deep relations seem to make those deeper personal connections, but clash in terms of how to go about daily life.

And I think I got a better idea of what you mean.

So, with that in mind, I find that the relationships where I feel very close to the person but we clash in terms of how we do everyday life are gammas (especially kindred and semi-dual, and ESPECIALLY semi-dual, more on that in a minute). Whereas the relationships where we can just coast along and do everything externally quite similarly are alphas, especially ESEs, for some reason. I get along super-well with ESEs, almost always. Whatever topics I bring up, they'll find funny, and vice versa. I respond well to their copious amounts of Fe (although often I get tired, I just don't show it so much). But I would never feel like I had a deep connection with them, never feel like I could share my deep or innermost self with them, whereas I do feel a strong connection or depth of understanding with many ILIs and SEEs.

Re: semi-duals, my little brother is SEE. I think this is a particularly apt example, because all of our basic acculturation factors are quite similar, given that we grew up in the same environment. So it's likely that type has a stronger influence on the differences between us than others (since so many factors are "control" factors, kept the same between the two of us). Anyway, I feel closer to my little brother than probably anybody in the world, although I don't know that he'd necessarily say the same about me (I'm sure I'd rank top 5 though, probably top 3). Nevertheless, we have any number of little differences in how we prefer to live our lives that would certainly make us less-than-ideal working partners, despite the fact that we have quite complementary personalities and we get along great in conversation or whatever.

He finds me careless, I find him a little over meticulous. I think he's a little bit more mean than he should be about people he doesn't know, he doesn't think I'm considerate enough with family (sometimes). Whenever we hang out for an extended period of time (like, when I'm home from college), we get along amazingly for about a week and a half, and then we fall into our normal pattern of getting along and then being mad at each other, a cycle which can repeat once a week or three times a day, just depending on what's going on. Despite that, I still feel, like I said, that I'm closer to him than anybody else.

A good contrast would perhaps be a college friend who is ESE. We get along really, really well, I don't think I've ever had conflict with her ever. We hit it off almost instantly, and at any social gathering, I have a joke to make her laugh and she has a story to make me laugh, etc. I would consider her one of my best friends, but not really one of my closest friends, if that makes sense. I mean, we're close in the sense that we spend a lot of time together and we're probably going to be friends forever, even if we don't see each other all the time after college. Nevertheless, I guess there are just important things about me that I don't necessarily share with her, not important in the sense of like "this is my deep dark secret" but important in the sense of, "this is my outlook on things, this is what is really most important to me, my goals in life, etc." But I think in terms of how we go about our daily lives (not in terms of how we think, but basic lifestyle factors), we get along pretty well, and would therefore work well together.

Anyway, now that I've said that, I do have more questions about the categories as a whole. Maybe it's because of the Se/Ni thing, but I find that people who I have the "deep" relationship with are in some senses easier to work with. That is, I feel like I could work more productively with an ILI than with an ESE, for instance. That said, I could probably work more productively with an LII than an ILI, despite feeling "closer" to the ILI. Nevertheless, I was a bit thrown off by the categories that described the "deep" relationship as harder to work with/find a practical application. I mean, I can see how that could be true, but for school projects, for instance, I would usually rather work with gammas ("deep") than alphas ("shallow"). Working with alphas would make for a more fun work environment maybe, but working with gammas would make for an overall more effective job and a more successful project.

I do relate to the "who do you turn to in times of stress" one. I would generally prefer, if I had a serious problem, to discuss it with a gamma rather than an alpha quadra member, just because I feel like the alpha person would generally try to smooth it over or make it better or something, and that's not what I want to do with my problems, I want to explore them and think them over and not apply a simple conceptual label to them (although encouragement to take a concrete action sometimes helps).

[Microknight]

Good job Krig. That matches my personal relationships, experiences and observations perfectly.

[Suz]

Krig can u clarify what you mean by "supervisor" in that list? is it when you're the supervisor? or when you're WITH your supervisor (i.e. you're the supervisee).

I apologize in advance if this question is like completely devoid of Ti.

[Aiss]

Krig can u clarify what you mean by "supervisor" in that list? is it when you're the supervisor? or when you're WITH your supervisor (i.e. you're the supervisee).

I apologize in advance if this question is like completely devoid of Ti.

"Supervisor" means your supervisor (you're being supervised).
"Supervisee" means your supervisee (you're supervising them).

[redbaron]

100% correct to my own personal experience of being married to ESE. I echo what silverchris said too. external stuff=good/sufficient; internal stuff=empty.

[Blaze]

So, an interesting idea arose in the Romantic Mirage thread, which I have been mulling over for a while.

The idea is that, because types in adjacent quadras share only half of their valued information elements (either the Rational elements or the Irrational elements), Rational and Irrational types will have significant differences in the way they experience adjacent-quadra relationships. That would include Semi-Duality, Kindred, Mirage, Look-a-Like, Supervision, and Benefit.

Essentially, the trend seems to be that partners who share valued Irrational elements will tend to find the relationship comfortable, relaxing, and easy to work together, but ultimately unfulfilling, while parters who share valued Rational elements will find the relationship meaningful, fulfilling, with a deeper personal connection, but ultimately uncomfortable and difficult to work together productively.

Shared Irrational: comfortable, "safe", sympathetic, harmless, casual, easy to work together to achieve a goal, productive, useful, superficial, shallow, unsupportive, unable to support each other during times of stress, unfulfilling, unexciting, void, lacking intimacy and depth
Shared Rational: close and satisfying, fulfilling, meaningful, deep, intimate, easy to discuss points of view but difficult to agree on practical implementation, difficult to execute joint activities, not living up to full potential, can't get anything open-ended done, uncomfortable, under-stimulated, growing laziness

I will call the "shared Irrational" relationship style "Productive-Shallow", and the "shared Rational" style "Unproductive-Deep".

Productive-Shallow Relationships
Rational Types: Mirage, Look-a-Like, Supervisee, Beneficiary
Irrational Types: Semi-Dual, Kindred, Supervisor, Benefactor

Unproductive-Deep Relationships
Rational Types: Semi-Dual, Kindred, Supervisor, Benefactor
Irrational Types: Mirage, Look-a-Like, Supervisee, Beneficiary

In general, it seems that Productive-Shallow relationships connect in terms of lifestyle, but can't make any deeper, personal connections. Unproductive-Deep relations seem to make those deeper personal connections, but clash in terms of how to go about daily life.

Anyway, that's the theory I've been working on. Any input, theoretical insights, personal observations, is welcome!

well said and in an organized easy to understand way. agree completely.

i've been sayiing this for awhile, or variations of it. but you've put it into words quite nicely and your credibility on this forum is high.

my theory has been that you are more comfortable with the quadra in which you provide some supervision rather than the quadra from which you receive supervision. that you have something to bequeath to the quadra in which you benefit someone; that you provide an endowment to the adjacent quadra that you benefit. this makes this quadra more interesting than the quadra which gives you an endowment and supervises you. since you want to see what they will do with what you gave them. i am always very interested in what EIE will do with my crazy ideas and encourage them in how they will develop a cause and get things moving in what i see as the best direction. but perhaps this says more about the relations between rationals and irrationals of adjacent quadras.

if i compare lookalike and illusionary to semi dual and comparative, i'd much rather spend time with lookalike and illusionary; i do feel closer to them than to semi dual and comparative. comparative in particular creates a feeling of uneasiness and over the long term, strife.

in practical application, it seems that the connection along the rational elements have more staying power and lasting value than the connection along the irrational ones, at least for irrationals. i have often noticed that LII and ESE spend more time with delta than beta, while ILE and SEI spend more time with beta than with delta. i'm much more drawn to beta and have had long term relationships with 3. betas. rarely do i find an LII who likes hanging out on a personal level with betas. although i have seen them work together, mostly as musicians. ESE's at least the ones that i know are more connected to delta than to beta as well.

although i notice that i always have a close EII "guardian angel" in my life.

i also have produced some of my best professional work of my career so far with an SLI, my semi dual, but we could not connect at a deeper level.

i come home every day to an IEI and we are quite close but our lifestyles are quite different. for recreation, we tend to go in different directions, i enjoy dancing, hiking, skiing, kayaking, yoga and he likes to play guitar, go to the speedway for car racing...to me this is a classic alpha-beta difference in values.

we have actually accomplished a lot in the last 4 years....mostly on the strength of my will and on his flexibility. our lives are a little more separate than i think it would be with a dual, but overall he is quite easy to live with, i'm somewhat temperamental which he does not find that hard to deal with. the relationship remains exciting going on 5 years, a good sign.

i am glad that someone else is finally noticing what i've been noticing. thanks, krig! :-)

[717495]

I will call the "shared Irrational" relationship style "Productive-Shallow", and the "shared Rational" style "Unproductive-Deep".

That seems rather opposite, in that same judging functions should usually yield a better productivity. I don't know about personal "depth," since that could mean anything. I know about perceptive depth, ie. Ni/Ses are typically very attuned to the polar duality mechanism imagination/action-adventure, while Si/Nes are more attuned to the polarity mechanism of groundwork/idea flow. How productive those will be however, depends immensely on the rational functions. I don't see how I could be overall that productive in Ni with a Beta NF, since Fe would ultimately color it with a more humanistic or personable flavor, or an ESTp would want to in a large way depersonalize their Se so its in terms of technicalities. Though I do find semi-dual relations to be quite positive and energizing psychologically because of their polarity, but I definitely have a feeling of the opposite for these terms you supply. That we're not typically productive stably using each others strengths, because it seems to me like ESTps see Ti as more a game and it's interesting but not useful to me, easy to grasp but hard to stay conscious of, nor does it peak my sense of goal-orientation (not that I'm a J, but I'm talking about J functions). Were very good in terms of easy connectivity, instant gratification and relational development with one another though. Your whole thing might be more intertype relation based, or it could just be I'm not understanding parts of it, but I do think there are some good points, which could just be a coincidence.

I would find an ESTj on the other hand to typically fit with the former, shallow but easier to be productive with. You know: "Let's not talk, lets just do our job and get along "comfortably," ie. without any Fe-influence or strong focus on Ti." And if I do so utter a trace of Ni, it will confuse the ESTj, and I will find him to lack depth and imaginative spirit, but it won't effect the way we interpret our decision making, our logic will continue to be sound and what shallow operations we have will flow smoothly. I think they would call INTp of ISTp, or INTp of ESTj the "suitemate" relations, idealistically speaking.

I think our perception of this relation, on the other hand, is truly opposite from one another, because you as a rational type would find those of your polarity to be deep. You ask yourself: Why would someone with Ti/Fe be shallow? I ask myself a similar question about Ni/Se. Betas are more distorted to me than shallow, and unpleasant, ie. semi-duality: "the moth and the flame," but there's a big difference between semi-duality and Fe-PoLR.

When dealing with the rational elements, betas can then be rather hard to "get in on." I will often be left out of Fe/Ti conversations because it requires a style of performance, like something colorful and emotive, that I am not used to. Yet I will listen in and understand everything being said. Sometimes I'm surprised by how I'm expected to respond to others comments when I speak, and how much I'm left out, until the Fe/Ti style atmosphere cools down. Fe/Ti has a very combined playful/informatic feel in discussing information and exchanging topics. It often seems as though there is a lack of care and attention to what I feel should be externally established. I don't have a lot of knowledge on this yet, but I definitely think that Ti and Fi can be sort of tactless and ignorant, in their own realm, while Te and Fe try to establish what's being said with people. To me it feels like Fe/Ti types "spam" more technical information to trigger a more efficient logical tracing process on the inside, to where not a lot logically needs to be established or discussed each time, where as ethics are what need to be firmly established on the outside. I won't go too much in to that.

[Nevero]

Shared Irrational: comfortable, "safe", sympathetic, harmless, casual, easy to work together to achieve a goal, productive, useful, superficial, shallow, unsupportive, unable to support each other during times of stress, unfulfilling, unexciting, void, lacking intimacy and depth
Shared Rational: close and satisfying, fulfilling, meaningful, deep, intimate, easy to discuss points of view but difficult to agree on practical implementation, difficult to execute joint activities, not living up to full potential, can't get anything open-ended done, uncomfortable, under-stimulated, growing laziness

Very insightful, this has also been my experience. What do you think makes shared rational elements feel more satisfying and fulfilling?