1. Duality
2. Identity
3. Activity
4. Mirror
5. ?
You can also make your list 1-16 of best to worst personality relations.
Printable View
1. Duality
2. Identity
3. Activity
4. Mirror
5. ?
You can also make your list 1-16 of best to worst personality relations.
Kindred, not that I agree with the way you arranged the same-quadra relationships.
Contrary.
1. Duality - Truly completes you. And INTjs are cute when you make them smile. ;)
2. Activity - Closest to duality. And very fun! And ENTps and I can talk forever. :P
3. Identity - Very nice having someone just like me, competitive, someone I can understand.
4. Mirror - Very relaxing. ISFps are so laid-back. So chilled.
5. Beneficiary (Other person is Benefactor) - Receive the Ti help I need in a duality kind of way. SLEs rock! And humorous/fun Se like an Activity relationship.
6. Semi-Duality - More helpful than Beneficiary, yes, but more confusion and misunderstanding. But helpful for growth.
7. Benefactor - Man... ENFps can be all over the place. This can be fun, but it gets frustrating. Tires me out though.
8. Look-alike - I learn a lot from ESTjs. I like the fellow Ej temperament, we understand just wanting to get things done. No BS.
9. Quasi-Identical - Similar to Identity, SO MUCH FUN! EXTRAVERTED SFs LIKE OMG! XD
10. Supervisee (Other person is Supervisor) - INFps are so sensitive, caring, it can be very sexy. ;)
11. Illusionary - INFjs are upbeat and nice. :) Kind of private, shy, but friendly.
12. Comparitive - Fe LIKE OMG! A;LDSFKJASXD;LFJASLKFJA:PS;LDJFZX:biggrin:;LKVJSAL D:lol:KJFAW;EFRJASDFLJ
13. Supervisor - ISTps are cool, I like shocking them with my Fe. :P Lots of trust/help here, maybe I should rank them higher than #13, but oh well. :P
14. Super-Ego - ENTjs are... interesting, informative, but... way too abstract for me. And wayyy overly critical.
15. Contrary - I always feel uncomfortable around ISFjs... like they're going to cut my throat or something. They don't trust my Fe or friendliness either, it's like they expect I'm plotting something. We don't trust each other.
16. Conflicting - Nothing to talk about without disagreeing. I think INTps are very cool, how they have great insight into people, and I have a lot of respect for their intelligence. But just interacting with them personally, it's tough, cause they're so cold. Criticizing everything, they can't just be happy.
XD
Tough to decide in this list. Of course the maturity of the person, and countless other non-socionic factors, are more important. For example, I had a pretty good relationship before with my Supvisor, even though I rank it as #10 on my list. All depends on the person.
probably semi-dual.
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
1. Duality
2. Activity
3. Identity
4. Mirror
5. Kindred
Identity is either too boring or too tense to be better than Activity, which is as smooth as butter and just as interesting.
I agree that activity beats identity.
that's pretty awesome, actually. :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by octopuslove
Actually, I think I would go with this order and because they offer the information one needs; I'll use myself as an example.
1. Duality because it offers both Te and Si in the right dose
2. Activity because it offers both Te and Si in less than the right dose
3. Conflict relations because it offers Te demonstrating (is an ST type)
4. Super-Ego Relations because it offers Si demonstrative (is an ST type to my NF)
5. Identical relations make for a very good friendship.
6. Illusionary Relations, though has many conflicts and is a superficial relations, it offers Si and sometimes roles out Te.
You prefer your conflictor to your illusionary? That's nuts.
Idk. People are cool.
Conflictors are people, they are not enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
But they're not good for spending the rest of your life with either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33Conflictors are people, they are not enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
I am offended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Dew
No, but Illusionary relations are far worse than Conflictory relations by the way that conflicts arise and by how superficial Illusionary relations are. Imagine, with conflict relations there is always a topic that can never be resolved but in Illusionary relations you don't want to and almost can't stand to hear what the other person wants to say because their IM is your ignoring function; you, in essence, ignore them. Cold distance develops between Illusionary relations and eventually you find it very very hard to exchange any meaningful conversations with them. With conflict relations, you have a lot in common, a lot of activities and interests, just that you can't get the other person to do more of their demonstrative function, which comes out in spurs. True that conflicts don't get resolved in conflicting relations, but at least you do things together; an introvert needs to do things. Illusionary relations are so far deactivating that you just waste time doing nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Director AbbieBut they're not good for spending the rest of your life with either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
The bold are lies. Don't type second person to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Director AbbieThe bold are lies. Don't type second person to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
You tried to tell me a bunch of things about how I interact with IEIs and LIIs, and it's not true. I work well with my LII brother and I have very little in common with IEIs. My conversations with my LII brother are informative, and my conversations with my IEI coworker irritated her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
Oh, the "you" wasn't referring to you directly; it was kind of a generalized "you"Quote:
Originally Posted by Director AbbieYou tried to tell me a bunch of things about how I interact with IEIs and LIIs, and it's not true. I work well with my LII brother and I have very little in common with IEIs. My conversations with my LII brother are informative, and my conversations with my IEI coworker irritated her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
My ESE cousin irritates me more than my SLE friend.
So now you're generalizing me? Please define "you" for future reference regarding your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
No. There's a misunderstanding here. Let's change "you" to "one person"Quote:
Originally Posted by Director AbbieSo now you're generalizing me? Please define "you" for future reference regarding your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
This has to be a joke. You realize that you're just throwing inter-type relations out the window?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
lol :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Director AbbieSo now you're generalizing me? Please define "you" for future reference regarding your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
DA, do you seriously not understand her use of the word "you" or are you just being difficult for fun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
and Maritsa, although I do think illusionary has problems, I can't see how it would be worse than conflictor. I love my illusionaries -- I have a couple close friends who are ILE. I have zero close friends who are LSE. I think they avoid me.
this works for me as well. although identity can be kind of boring or worse yet, competitive. like the literature says i find it better for a mentor-mentee type of relationship than a let's be friends and hang out type of relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by octopuslove
agree with this. actually the model A explains illusionary quite well. you connect really well on half the levels and disconnect on the other half. so if you decide to pay attention to the connecting half, the relationship is a good one!Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaronDA, do you seriously not understand her use of the word "you" or are you just being difficult for fun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
and Maritsa, although I do think illusionary has problems, I can't see how it would be worse than conflictor. I love my illusionaries -- I have a couple close friends who are ILE. I have zero close friends who are LSE. I think they avoid me.
Super-ego conflict. LOL. XD ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33No. There's a misunderstanding here. Let's change "you" to "one person"Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
P.S. Maritsa, do you still think I'm LSI? :P
I could potentially see this order happening but only on a very superficial basis. The minute you start trying to get closer to conflict or superego, things start going MAJORLY downhill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
In fact, when talking very superficial relationships, I would actually put Duality lower, and Activity & Identity higher, as Activity is more obvious of an attraction initially and is less awkward to start than duality, and Identity just bonds very easily over things they have in common.
Obviously when talking about close interpersonal relationships, of course you probably realize your list goes completely out the window. My list for closer relationships would look like this:
1. Duality
2. Activity
3. Identity
4. +/- Mirror (not sure, but i think intraquadra relationships tend to have more mutual understanding than interquadra)
5. Illusionary or semiduality (depending on subtype)
Change her to three persons, it is less confusing this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33No. There's a misunderstanding here. Let's change "you" to "one person"Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
.Quote:
Originally Posted by poli
Neither and/or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaronDA, do you seriously not understand her use of the word "you" or are you just being difficult for fun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
I take things as they are said, not as they are meant, and it's pretty offensive for someone to tell you what your relationships are like when they don't know you and are wrong.
youve been here reading posts about socionics for years...are you just now getting offended about this?
:thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
:hug:Quote:
Originally Posted by poli
I understand and somewhat agree :) I've got the same issue with "we" and when that word gets slung around carelessly; people get accused of things they never did, or get lumped into things they don't want to be a part of... aarrgg...Quote:
Originally Posted by Director AbbieNeither and/or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
I take things as they are said, not as they are meant, and it's pretty offensive for someone to tell you what your relationships are like when they don't know you and are wrong.
I like activation, duality and mirror most :) .
Btw calm down Abbie ;)
can't you people cut some slack. does everyone have to be perfectly specific and correct in their speech all the time???Quote:
Originally Posted by woofwoofl
And, I don't think Maritsa was slinging the word "you" around carelessly, in this instance. "You" is commonly used to mean "the person in question". WORK HARDER to understand WHAT IS MEANT, not only the specific words a person says. Sure it's their responsibility to communicate to the best of their ability but it's TO YOUR BENEFIT to try to see around little errors, inconsistencies and slip-ups (if they even exist and in this case they do not) for the higher goal of mutual understanding.
I don't know why this really got my goat, but it did. I feel like too many people on this forum PICK ON Maritsa. Sometimes she deserves it but usually, she does not. Stop it.
That said, I like you, woofwoofl, and Abbie, you know I like you too! :)
:lol: :hug: I like you too, and I like Maritsa, and I like Director Abbie, and I don't want any of you to feel thumped on by me :)Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaroncan't you people cut some slack. does everyone have to be perfectly specific and correct in their speech all the time???Quote:
Originally Posted by woofwoofl
And, I don't think Maritsa was slinging the word "you" around carelessly, in this instance. "You" is commonly used to mean "the person in question". WORK HARDER to understand WHAT IS MEANT, not only the specific words a person says. Sure it's their responsibility to communicate to the best of their ability but it's TO YOUR BENEFIT to try to see around little errors, inconsistencies and slip-ups (if they even exist and in this case they do not) for the higher goal of mutual understanding.
I don't know why this really got my goat, but it did. I feel like too many people on this forum PICK ON Maritsa. Sometimes she deserves it but usually, she does not. Stop it.
That said, I like you, woofwoofl, and Abbie, you know I like you too! :)
I agree with the overall message of this; it still feels rotten to get hit by a wild pronoun though, and I hope I haven't been responsible for doing that too much myself...
Maritsa: have you had any good relationships with ESTPs? Do you feel a weird tension when you interact with them, or are you able to open up and feel warmth when you are around them?
Urgh, I can't easily rank my personal intertype relations in this way, but it's interesting to try.
I can see how certain relationships have been really transformational in my life, even if they have their difficult or unpleasant aspects. Also, these are based only on my RL history, and not on online interaction, nor on what I think could have been a meaningful relationship if only there'd been more opportunity. These are strictly the relationships I have had.
Tier 1
Dual with complementary [irrational] subtypes (WCS)
Activity (WCS)
Mirror (WCS)
Identity (WCS)
These are relationships that stand the test of time and feel like "home" in various ways--peace, invigoration, mutual support, and mentorship, respectively.
Tier 2A
People from my quadra, Beta, but with rational subtypes
These relationships seem promising at first but lack real glue--they are a bit more contentious. They don't seem to involve as much learning as the relationships that I have found equally important in Tier 2B.
Tier 2B
INTj-Ne (semidual)
ENTp-Ne (I'm beneficiary)
ESFp-Se (I'm benefactor)
INTp-Ni (I'm supervisor)
ISFp-Si (I'm supervisee)
Tier 3
Non-Beta EJ temperaments with irrational subtype, in this order:
ENTj, ESTj, ESFj
Tier 4
All types with irrational subtype not previously mentioned.
Tier 5
Everything else.
On Tiers 4 and 5, getting along increasingly comes down to individual, not-so-type-driven similarities and differences, as well as the social roles defining interaction.
- - - - -
So that puts all Betas with rational subtypes in fifth place, I suppose.
For closeness and psychological compatibility
1.Dual
2.Activator
3.Identical
4.Mirror
5.Semi-Dual
6.Illusion
7.Beneficiary
8.Benefactor
9.Supervisee
10.Lookalike
11.Kindred
12.Supervisor
13.Contrary
14.Quasi-Identical
15.Super-Ego
16.Conflictor
Really, 5-12 are relatively close.