What do you think is the fifth best relationship type?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filambee

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?

---

My long time college BF is my conflict relations; he's a great guy, but he's so lost with my Fi emotions. He loves me and supports me when I need him and we can pray together, laugh together, eat and enjoy life in all kinds of ways together but we just can't live together. I want him to organize my living space, but he doesn't care about that kind of stuff; he wants to go out, enjoy life, eat good food, just a lot of focus on sensory information/experience. My dual BF and I plan to go certain places and he's not at all spontaneous; he want's to be sure of things ahead of time but my conflict friend and I can take a long drive and just pull over at some dinner and eat whatever; not with my BF!!! NO WAY!!! Even if my BF and I do plan to take a drive, he'll talk about his plan about where we're going to eat as we're driving to be sure that all events in the next few hours are covered.

I have no beef with my conflict relations; we make supportive and loving friends; it doesn't work well for living and covering your weak spots. He always asks me to go out and do things with him, but I can't; I have low low energy. I need my activities planned so that I have plenty of energy for when the time comes to do them. If my dual doesn't have enough facts to build an accurate picture, they simply state, "I don't know" instead of making conclusions as SLE are likely to do.

What my conflict relation doesn't do that creates a shallowness of relations is that they don't take information and factor them in to come up with conclusions of what something is in it's reality/real picture; they persuade a belief, which makes it very confusing for me because some of those persuasions, though it may have facts, may lack in factuality.

This is all mostly theoretical, but with a lot of application of theory, taking into consideration Club interaction, Romance styles, Collaboartion, Communication, Temperament, and of course Quadra Values (but Values are not necessarily given first priority in every case). I came up with the following lists, different for Rationals and Irrationals.

If you are Rational:
1. Dual
2. Semi-Dual
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Kindred
6. Beneficiary
7. Mirror
8. Look-A-Like
9. Benefactor
10. Supervisee
11. Mirage
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisor
16. Super-Ego

If you are Irrational:
1. Dual
2. Mirage
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Look-A-Like
6. Benefactor
7. Mirror
8. Kindred
9. Beneficiary
10. Supervisee
11. Semi-Dual
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisee
16. Super-Ego

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filambee

1. Duality
2. Identity
3. Activity
4. Mirror
5. ?

You can also make your list 1-16 of best to worst personality relations.

---

1 duality
2 identity
3 semi duality
4 activity
5 mirror
7 illusionary
6 benefactor/beneficiary

when you stop and think about it, this is a dumb question. because by the time you get down to FIFTH best types, too many other factors trump type, imo. like enneagram and instinct stacking and background and values and religion and even age and proximity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redbaron

when you stop and think about it, this is a dumb question. because by the time you get down to FIFTH best types, too many other factors trump type, imo. like enneagram and instinct stacking and background and values and religion and even age and proximity.

---

A minute ago I read the title of this thread for the first time and realized that it wasn't asking to order relationships, but to identify the 5th best. I think your response aptly summarizes what I was about to say.

In other words: +1

Is it a dumb question? The answer has turned out to be subjective but so far I've found it to be interesting learning what different people think.

Ok, let me rephrase. It seems pretty arbitrary to ask what the fifth best relationship is. Additionally, it automatically assumes that intraquadra relationships are the best, which I find to be presumptuous.

Essentially I think it would have made more sense to discuss which relationships people seem to value or enjoy most rather than to specifically ask about the fifth one.

As an example, I prefer the company of my Semi-Dual over Activity and find my Supervisee to be more entertaining company than my Mirror. Additionally, I generally find perceivers to be better company than rationals. I think if I were to rank them in order, I would probably end up putting my Mirror in 5th place. However, I don't think that is necessarily reflective of best or worst relationships (how can you make a universal qualitative assessment like that?), that's simply my preference.

If I simply answered the question in the title, my answer would be pretty meaningless because who cares what the fifth best relationship is? It becomes especially ridiculous for someone like me to answer because your answer would not end up being "Which relationship do you think is the best outside of your quadra?" but rather "Which relationship do you rank number 5?"

SUMMARY: I think this thread should have asked which relationship you value most outside of your quadra, to which I would have answered "My Semi-Dual" :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vero

SUMMARY: I think this thread should have asked which relationship you value most outside of your quadra, to which I would have answered "My Semi-Dual" :love:

---

LOL which was exactly my answer, too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redbaron

LOL which was exactly my answer, too!

---

Semi-Duals are the shit.

Maritsa: I truly do not intend to cause any offense when I say this, but when you listed your conflict as third and super-ego as fourth, then said that you "make supportive and loving friends" with your conflict relations, it made me think that you need to reexamine your type.

As everyone knows, there are pretty much two ways to type people. You can examine them individually as you find behaviors, mind sets, body types, "vibes", etc. about them and then categorize them into one of the 16 personality types. Then, there's the other way of typing people which is learning how they interact with other personality types and then typing them according to that. Often, I'll use one way to type someone, then I'll use the other way to "check my work." Say if I ask someone a whole bunch of questions and I figure that they are an ISFP, but when I see them interact with an ESTP, they are able to relax and open up much more than they were when they were interacting with me. I would then go back to square one in my evaluation because my first typing was not congruent with their interaction with other types in their environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filambee

Maritsa: I truly do not intend to cause any offense when I say this, but when you listed your conflict as third and super-ego as fourth, then said that you "make supportive and loving friends" with your conflict relations, it made I think that you need to reexamine your type.

---

my thoughts exactly

who cares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redbaron

when you stop and think about it, this is a dumb question. because by the time you get down to FIFTH best types, too many other factors trump type, imo. like enneagram and instinct stacking and background and values and religion and even age and proximity.

---

:thumbsup:

i sort of agree but then its like why is it silly once it gets to the fifth? why not the third? is there some kind of line drawn where humans start mattering more than types? does it come just after duality?

not saying you guys dont value humans lol...just my frustration in general

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laghlagh

i sort of agree but then its like why is it silly once it gets to the fifth? why not the third? is there some kind of line drawn where humans start mattering more than types? does it come just after duality?

not saying you guys dont value humans lol...just my frustration in general

---

Well now I don't value you ;)

pffft fi polr what do you know about values

har har

Semi-duals are quite awesome. Me and ESFps get along like peas an' carrots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

Semi-duals are quite awesome. Me and ESFps get along like peas an' carrots.

---

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3591/...f7c6c17a93.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laghlagh

i sort of agree but then its like why is it silly once it gets to the fifth? why not the third? is there some kind of line drawn where humans start mattering more than types? does it come just after duality?

---

I think socionics plays a higher role in intraquadral relationship and opposing quadra relationships for that matter. Not that you'll automatically dislike your opposing quadra or even that you'll tend to dislike them. Just that there will tend to be a barrier in communication with opposing quadra types.

Quote:

---

not saying you guys dont value humans lol...just my frustration in general

---

It's okay, I don't value humans. I value cheesecake.

that seems reasonable i guess.

i worry that i come across histrionic or preachy sometimes when i talk about this stuff. cheesecake is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vero

As an example, I prefer the company of my Semi-Dual over Activity

---

:cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laghlagh

who cares

---

true. :P

Probably Benefit>Semi>Illusionary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Dew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vero

As an example, I prefer the company of my Semi-Dual over Activity

---

:cry:

---

Moar Si pls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vero

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Dew

:cry:

---

Moar Si pls.

---

:Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::S i::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si: :Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::S i::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si: :Si:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Dew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vero

Moar Si pls.

---

:Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::S i::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si: :Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::S i::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si: :Si:

---

This is the opposite of what is good.

I th ink that it's a cop out to call t hings 'dumb questions'. You know it's about the simplest, most obvious response to say "other factors trump type". Well who gives a fuck - we're talking about type right now. So construct an imaginary playset in your head with the various types, and then answer the question..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vero

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Dew

:Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::S i::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si: :Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::S i::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si::Si:

---

This is the opposite of what is good.

---

:Se: :thinking: ... :Ne: :thinking: ..... :confused2:

You exude too much of this :hyper: and not enough this :cool:

Yes, turn into someone else to satisfy Vero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vero

You exude too much of this :hyper: and not enough this :cool:

---

My :Si: is creative cause I can change it, yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow

Yes, turn into someone else to satisfy Vero.

---

:thumbsup: I give up. :P Was fun though haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pianosinger

If you are Rational:
1. Dual
2. Semi-Dual
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Kindred
6. Beneficiary
7. Mirror
8. Look-A-Like
9. Benefactor
10. Supervisee
11. Mirage
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisor
16. Super-Ego

If you are Irrational:
1. Dual
2. Mirage
3. Identical
4. Activator
5. Look-A-Like
6. Benefactor
7. Mirror
8. Kindred
9. Beneficiary
10. Supervisee
11. Semi-Dual
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Extinguishment
14. Conflictor
15. Supervisee
16. Super-Ego

---

I don't necessarily agree with the ranking of this list, but I do like the idea behind separating Ps and Js and implying that outside of interquadra relations, there's probably a lot more asymmetry rational/irrational relations than just benefactor/beneficiary relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow

Yes, turn into someone else to satisfy Vero.

---

If everyone did, the world would be a better place. For me at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow

I th ink that it's a cop out to call t hings 'dumb questions'. You know it's about the simplest, most obvious response to say "other factors trump type". Well who gives a fuck - we're talking about type right now. So construct an imaginary playset in your head with the various types, and then answer the question..

---

I agree with this aswell.

While other factors may trump type, it doesn't change the fact that certain types relations will be preferable to others, all else equal.

i'm sure there could a ranking of all on paper, using ideal types. if theres a point to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laghlagh

i'm sure there could a ranking of all on paper, using ideal types. if theres a point to that.

---

There's no point in eatting cheesecake, but people still like to do it.

i guess just as eating cheesecake can be done safely in moderation, prioritizing relationships based on a theoretical model can be done safely with sanity and an eye on reality. sigh

i know this is a socionics forum. im just here for the free refreshments. later brah

5th place: Semi-Duality

also, lol at Maritsa putting Conflictors at the 3rd best place for relationship. She probably just provocating to get attention.

Semi-Duals although from the looks of it I'd describe it as the 11th worst rather than the 5th best. (Talking strictly of long-term serious relationships)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

While other factors may trump type, it doesn't change the fact that certain types relations will be preferable to others, all else equal.

---

I agree with this. And yes, we're talking about theory. But in real life, everything else is NEVER equal. Which we all know. I'm just reminding. As long as we talk about it theoretically, fine. but once people start talking about specific experiences, it doesn't make sense to me because I'm thinking about how one SEE is different from another, etc.