Printable View
Let's make an overall ranking of the relations. When seen from a romantically perspective.
1) Duality
2) Identical
3) Mirror
4) Activation
5) Illusionary
6) Semi-Duality
7) Look a like
8) Benefeciairy
9) Comparitive
10) Supervisee
11) Benefactor
12) Contrary
13) Superego
14) Quasi Identical
15) Supervisor
16) Conflict
After reading your opinions, i've edited some. Identical has been described as second best in some socionics journals, but it seems that it's not how it is experienced...
IIRC, there was a thread in the General Discussion forum a while back about comparative, semi-dual, illusionary and look-a-like relations, about who preferred which ones. As far as I remember, accepting subtypes generally preferred comparative and illusionary relations, while producing subtypes generally preferred semi-dual and look-a-like relations.
Also, I personally value mirror relations over activity, although that's probably coloured by my experience rather than a general preference.
It's funny that you mention this topic. I just made a list like this.
1. Dual
2. Activator
3. Mirror / Semi-Dual
5. Look-alike
6. Super-Ego
7. Illusionary
8. Supervisee / Beneficiary
10. Benefactor
11. Quasi-Identical
12. Comparative
13. Contrary
14. Supervisor
15. Conflictor
I'm not sure where to put Identical, my experience has varied from camaraderie to neutrality to disgust. Probably somewhere between Activator and Super-ego. I actually think Super-Ego at least seems good in many circumstances.
At least it's better than Contrary, I think. There is that sense of complementation.
I'm surprised that you put Supervisor (given that you mean the relation with one's own Supervisor) above Supervisee. Gilligan has pointed out, and I agree, that people are more attracted to their Supervisees.
Yes you're right, I made a mistake. I will correct it.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Thinking about it, my best friends aren't easy to type for me. For example, one of my dearest friends is ENFj but I also don't get along with ENFjs on the workplace so it's hard to rate. anyway...(only RL interaction counts here, i've had wonderful dual interactions online)
1-mirror
2-superego
3-activity
4-lookalike
5-dual
6-supervisor
7-benefit
I haven't experienced much other relations.
But generally, I tend to get along best with EJs of both kinds, EP-Xe, IJ-Xe, IP-Xi
worst with IJ-Xi (the worst totally), IP-Xe and EP-Xi
1. Duality
2. Identical
3. Mirror
4. Activity
5. Semi-dual
6. Look-a-like
7. Benefactor
8. Supervisor
9. Supervisee
10. Beneficiary
11. Superego
12. Illusionary
13. Quasi-identical
14. Conflict
I don't have enough experience with Contrary or Comparative relationships to really know where they fit.
No, I didn't make a mistake placing Benefactor and Supervisor above Beneficiary and Supervisee. Any interpretations?
I've always thought of Quasi-Identical as the most neutral relationship.
1) Dual.
2) Beneficiary.
3) Benefactor.
4) Identical.
5) Illusionary.
6) Semi-dual.
7) Supervisee.
8) Look-alike.
The rest are negative I think.
Why is illusionary so low on most lists? :lol:
IME:
1) Dual
2) Identical
3) Activity/Mirror
5) Illusionary
6) Semi-dual
7) Beneficiary
8) Look-a-like
9) Contrary
10) Supervisee
11) Comparative
12) Super-ego
13) Benefactor
14) Quasi-Identical
15) Supervisor
16) Conflict
I don't know if such a list can be reliably produced but the idea is interesting. Once it is finished I will try to compare the people I know against it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Rating of what? How much you like it?
Ok
1. Lookalike
2. I am benefactor
3. Mirror
4. I am supervisee
5. Activity
6. I am beneficiary
----------
7. I am supervisor
8. Dual
9. Super Ego
10. Identity
11. Illusionary
12. Semi Dual
13. Quasi - Identity
14. Contrary
15. Comparative
16. Conflicting
of course this is a really different list as to who my favorite people are.
Comparative and conflicting could be switched. I think conflictors can be interesting on some level, adding value to a relationship.
Okay, based on real-life interactions I've had SO FAR (meaning I haven't had that many close interactions with some of them, altering what may truly be the "best" or "worst") ... These are the only types I've had close associations with.
VERY GOOD ONES:
1. Activity
2. Contrary (yep, I'm not kidding.)
3. I am Benefactor
4. Illusionary
5. Identity
GOOD ONES
6. Duality
7. Semi Duality
8. Quasi Identical
9. Comparative
10. Look a Like
BAD ONES
11. I am Beneficiary
12. I am Supervisor
13. Superego
N/A
Conflicting and Being Supervised
off the top of my head...
Dual
Activity
Identical
Mirror
Semi-dual
Supervisee
Contrary
Benefactor
Illusionary
Comparative
Quasi-identical
Super Ego
Look-a-like
Supervisor
Conflictor
Beneficiary
Doesn't the preferred type of relationship at least somewhat depend on the context?
Like, if it's work, I'd say lookalike, supervisee, i'm the beneficiary, maybe mirror
If it's romantic, I'd say dual, illusionary
If it's casual and fun, I'd say identity, activity, i'm the benefactor, semi-dual, super-ego
If it's discussion and serious, I'd say mirror, comparative, contrary, quasi-identical
If it's growth and development, i'd have to say conflictor, supervisor, with a touch of dual for support
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond8
Comparative, Dual, Semi-dual, and Identical in casual/party situations. Ti/Fe-dominant parties are awesome.
Romantic: dual, activity, maybe semi-dual.
Work: Quasi-identical, benefactor, and mirror
etc.
From my personal vantage point...... in 'friendly relations'
POSITIVE (these are relations that have supported stable friendships in my experience)
------------
Dual(ESTp)
Illusionary(ENTp)
Beneficiary (INTj)
Comparitive(INTp)
Mirror(ENFj)
Quasi-Identical(INFj)
NEUTRAL (these are relations that have made me acquaintences, but rarely have these ever led to more)
----------------
Activity(ISTj)
Contrary(ENFp)
Benefactor(ISFj)
Supervisor(ENTj)
Semi-dual(ESFp)
Identical(INFp)
Super-ego(ISTp)
NEGATIVE (these are relations that I become uncomfortable with from the beginning)
--------------
Look-a-like(ISFp)
Conflicting(ESTj)
Supervision(ESFj)
I think it has something to do with your own experiences with people of each representative type, like, for example, I listed comparative at the bottom, although I did have a good friend of mine that was an ENFp back when I was in high school. And for having ESFj’s at the bottom, I think it has to do with my personal experiences with them. Honestly though, listing them was somewhat tough because I have had good and bad relations with all of them.
Beneficiary
Quasi-Identical
Look-a-like
Illusionary
Identical
Super-ego
Supervisor
Contrary
Mirror
Dual
Semi-dual
Conflicting
Activity
Benefactor
Comparative
Supervision
This is how my relations usually are:
Positive
Mirror (ENFp)
Supervisee (ENTp)
Contrary (ENFj)
Beneficiary (ISFp)
Conflicting (ESTp)
Comparative (ISFj)
Neutral
Quasi-Identical (INFp)
Identical (INFj)
Semi-dual (ENTj)
Benefactor (INTp)
Super-Ego (ISTj)
Supervisor (ESFp)
Negative
Dual (ESTj)
Activity (ISTp)
Look-a-like (INTj)
Illusionary (ESFj)
I know the list looks funny, but that's how my interactions are like IRL. :lol: I guess I probably mistype some of my friends and acquaintances. :wink:
Hmm.. don't you think that you may be another type, Eunice? *coughINFpcough*
*clears throat*Quote:
Originally Posted by ScarlettLux
Lol. I'm with the people who say you are INFp. If you are INFj and you haven't mistyped those people then socionics can be immediately thrown away as useless :lol: For an INFp your list makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by eunice
I have to add here that if I am INFp as claimed then my personal relationships don't make much more sense socionics-wise either so I'm in a similar position as you are.
.
Very Good on both sides
Contrary(ENFp)
Very Good on their side
Dual(ESTp)
Identical(INFp)
Mirror(ENFj)
Activity(ISTj)
Good on both sides
Look-a-like(ISFp)
Good on my side
Beneficiary (INTj)
Neutral
Comparitive(INTp)
Illusionary(ENTp)
Quasi-Identical(INFj)
Benefactor(ISFj)
Supervisor(ENTj)
Semi-dual(ESFp)
Super-ego(ISTp)
Negative
Conflicting(ESTj)
Supervision(ESFj)
All I can say is that at the moment I'm in an Activity relationship. It's my only relationship I've ever been in, and I've been with her for over 3 years now.
My current boyfriend is ENTj and therefore my beneficiary (yes, I finally figured it out) and so far it has has worked out really well.
It's hard to compare previous relationships with this one. Duality was less prone to misunderstandings and
generally more comfortable. But not being able to read the other person like you can in a dual relationship
can have its advantages - we are still, after 6 months of spending every free minute together, very intrigued
with each other in this "wow, s/he is so awesome" glittery starry eyes kind of way. I did not really experience that
with duality because that tends to skip this part because it's so comfortable right away. But with my dual, there were fewer misunderstandings. This relationship requires more communication to work, which is fine.
Anyway, if I were to rate my serious long-term (romantic) rl relationships: beneficiary>dual>illusionary (although that one was the most "WOW" crazy in love one - but went down badly) >contrary
As for friends (real life only), look-a-like, mirror, dual, activity are very good
benefactor, beneficiary, super-ego, supervisee, semi-dual, supervisor, and illusionary are good
Conflictor and contrary are difficult. Contrary is always very unstable with great times and bad times and lots of misunderstandings.
edited to add: this wasn't about a dual
My experiences have also been that the puppy love/honey moon phase doesn't last as long in dual relationships. It doesn't need to. It wasn't as intense either... more of a safe, comfortable, "this is going work out extremely well" feeling. It's like when you're with your dual, you're confident that no matter what happens, you (plural) will be able to deal with it. In other relationships, I couldn't trust the "things really are going to be okay" feeling, so I made up for it with hanging on to my infatuation with the person. I understand the concept of a life long relationship now... I understand how it's possible to be so confident about your future with that person that you don't really even think about it, it just becomes a part of your world view and your identity (in a healthy way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim
My experiences about misunderstandings differ from yours though. I had fewer misunderstandings with my contrary. We understood each other extremely well. It sucks when what a person needs from you are your super ego functions and they don't appreciate your ego functions... can be really damaging to your sense of competency.
I have had more "misunderstandings" with my dual than I have in other relationships, but it's because frustrations can actually surface, and then they're dealt with and things are even better. This allows you to understand yourself better and grow as a person and whatnot.
Obviously there's a lot more to compatibility than socionic's type, but I really cannot say enough good about duality.
With misunderstandings I mean actual misunderstandings: I make a joke and he is not sure if I am actually joking (ENTjs can be slow that way). And vice versa, actually. With my dual, we teased each other and always knew it was teasing.
I had fights with my dual because of that frustration thing you talk about, but they were not based on misunderstandings.
Contrary is constant push and pull for me. It's stressful. But when it's good, it's great. But there is almost constant insecurity on both sides.
Yeah, that makes sense. I put "misunderstandings" in quotes in my post because they aren't actual misunderstandings... more like a lack of information? It's hard to describe. They're like, "So what's the problem?" when they recognize that you're not looking at something in a healthy way or not handling a situation as well as you could. Essentially it's because your dual is expecting you to use your ego functions, and if you've suppressed them due to past relationships or upbringing, it's difficult to reconcile with yourself sometimes, to let go of the "supposed to's" you've been taught and allow yourself to believe that it's okay to just be (as opposed to always trying to be something or another). Your dual recognizes when you're not being yourself and calls you out on it, and in doing so forces you to face issues that you've avoided for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim
We didn't feel insecure about fidelity kinds of things, and we almost never fought, but both of us felt very neglected, and it literally took all of our energy just to keep the relationship together. It was like he was living his life and I was living mine, and we had to meet somewhere in the middle to spend time together, and any closeness we experienced was only in that meeting place.Quote:
Contrary is constant push and pull for me. It's stressful. But when it's good, it's great. But there is almost constant insecurity on both sides.
I agree with this. I think some of my conflict with my dual ex stemmed from that. Problem with ISTps is that they are clumsy and perhaps even insensitive when communicating this to you because of the Fe PoLR. This is where knowing about Socionics is really a blessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
I mean insecurity about motives and reasons behind behavior and statements, not so much fidelity. Overall, INFps tend to get too close too quickly and that makes me uncomfortable. I become more distant and they get irritated until it's resolved and so on.Quote:
Contrary is constant push and pull for me. It's stressful. But when it's good, it's great. But there is almost constant insecurity on both sides.
I think your ex was INTp, actually. He seems to have IP temperament and he certainly looks 100% INTp. But that's just me. :wink: But what you describe does not sound like contrary to me. Well, not like I have experienced it, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything.Quote:
We didn't feel insecure about fidelity kinds of things, and we almost never fought, but both of us felt very neglected, and it literally took all of our energy just to keep the relationship together. It was like he was living his life and I was living mine, and we had to meet somewhere in the middle to spend time together, and any closeness we experienced was only in that meeting place.
:P I need an ESFp to test this whole "duality" thing out with.
This describes the relationship I have with my comparative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
As I said elsewhere:Quote:
Originally Posted by KSpin
:wink:Quote:
at the end of the day it's two people having a relationship. That's it. It's comfortable and a good match, but it's not magic and not perfect because they are still two people with flaws, histories, moods, etc.
But go for it, ESFps are awesome! :D
Kim, I think logical types in contrary relationships suffer differently than ethical types in contrary relationships because one wants more Fe, the other wants more Fi, and as a result they both feel neglected.
I think it probably describes pretty much any relationship where partners are not truly available to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mea
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond8
Really? :lol: I didn't think of that, but I guess I will keep INFp in mind. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
It's not wise to base your type on intertype relations to a limited number of people who you may very well have mistyped... I think that activity and duality are rather telling (assuming you type those individuals correctly), but you can only know so many people of each type, so even if they're typed correctly they may not be a very good representation of that type due to non-socionics related factors.
i would say it can be magic, especially with corresponding subtypes, whatever that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim
i've met different ESFP's with different levels of magic :)
Okay, I've thought about this a little. Of course it's possible for him to be mistyped, but if he is INTp, then I think it's very possible that UDP is as well. UDP reminds me very much of him. It would also mean that this is very wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim
I think that description of Alpha does not describe Ti (and hence INTjs) as well as it could. The other elements are much more heavily emphasized. For instance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
That is a little abstract. I would say "They like to develop and discuss unique personal philosophies."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Both sound just like this guy.
Here is, what I believe to be, the theoretical list in decending order of intertype relation compatibility. In the real world, deviations from the list are probably due to other reasons such as different life goals, different cultural/personal values, different interests and values etc. rather than socionic type. With all of the 'noise' of the real world you may find that you prefer interacting with X who is your Look a like over Y who is your Semi-Dual. However in a perfect world where all other factors are held constant, you would prefer your Dual over your Identical, your Identical over your Mirror, your Mirror over your Acitvity, et al. - Well this is my theory anyway.
1) Duality (ENFj)
2) Identical (ISTj)
3) Mirror (ESTp)
4) Activation (INFp)
5) Semi-Duality (ESFj)
6) Comparative (INTj)
7) Illusionary (ENTj)
8) Look a like (ISFj)
9) Beneficiary [Benefactor – ISFp]
10) Supervision [Supervisor – ENTp]
11) Beneficiary [Beneficiary – INTp]
12) Supervision [Supervisee – ESFp]
13) Superego (INFj)
14) Contrary (ESTj)
15) Quasi Identical (ISTp)
16) Conflicting (ENFp)
yes i think you certainly aren't far off.
maybe switching the comparative and look a like... The rest is similar to what i would think.
For my two cents:
Good, great, grand!
1) Dual (ESTp)
2) Semi-Dual (ESFp)
3) Mirror (ENFj)
4) Activity (ISTj)
Pretty good
5) Beneficiary (INTj)
6) Look-a-like (ISFp)
7) Supervisee (ESFj)
8) Illusionary (ENTp)
Meh...
9) Identity (INFp)
10) Benefactor (ISFj)
12) Contrary (ENFp)
13) Quasi-Identical (INFj)
Not so good
14) Supervisor (ENTj)
15) Comparative (INTp)
16) Conflict (ESTj)
17) Super-ego (ISTp)
Te types and I do not mesh well.
Comparative isn't even theoretically that good. They don't provide any Superid support, while hitting your PoLR at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_maguoo
I used to think a general rule is same dyad => similar relations with the same type. This is true, but not in terms of quality.
The main factors that lead to good relations are:
-same quadra values
-strength in one's Superid functions
-opposite on I/E
-same on J/P
-same subtype (irrational or rational)
But if we use all the Reinin dichotomies, each type is equal to every other type (and hence one's dual) in terms of similarity. Therefore not all of them can matter as much, right? IMO this is a question that still needs to be answered, especially since the Negative/Process/Narrator ones definitely do matter.
In order of the value of intertype relations based on quadras:
1)Dual
2)Identity
3)Activity
4)Mirror
5)Semi-Dual
6)Comparative
7)Benefactor
8)Supervisor
9)Illusionary
10)Look-a-like
11)Beneficiary
12)Supervisee
13)Contrary
14)Super-ego
15)Quasi
16)Conflict
what do you guys think? obviously there should be some kind of logical hierarchy...
why? explain it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by liveandletlive
That should be obvious.
but it isn't. and i want to hear her reasoning behind this. my guess is that there isn't any.Quote:
Originally Posted by LokiVanguard
I've made a similar topic a while ago, maybe it's helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by liveandletlive
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...+relationships
I believe that there is a tendency to put too much weight behind the word conflict as well as the severity of Socionics conflict relationship.
wow that's cool of you...Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
there obviously needs to be a hierarchical ranking of relationships because of what some value and others dont, others strengths and others weaknesses- it's basically what the entire theory is based on.
btw, please don't try to extrapolate from this and just answer the question.
I can understand why you say this. I can get along very well with my two conflictor colleague's. The relationship is ofcourse casual, not close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But I've also lived with a conflictor girlfriend for 4 years. In that close relationship the description of the conflict relationship is an understatement.
thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
double post.
i was really grateful :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Quote:
Originally Posted by liveandletlive
fine; there is no such hierarchy because that's not the way socionics works. socionics is about information metabolism and interrelations between different patterns of said information metabolism. types are a secondary construct to this, and any systematization of intertype relations can't be "quantified." this is extremely obvious if you look at it on a case by case basis; a particular person may lean towards one pattern of information metabolism over another (hence the construct of subtypes), and an individual may get along better with their semi-dual or illusion based on this (and not merely in that it favors one quadra over another; differences in people and in information metabolism can affect intertype relations in a myriad of unpredictable ways). this is not even mentioning the great deal of random variation and fluctuation in this entire process.
idk if i agree with this or not... let me think about it and ill come back...Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
duality is better than conflict, for obvious reasons. but that's a qualitative, and ultimately subjective assessment rather than a systematic and predefined one. some conflict pairs may even be able to get along better than dual pairs, for various reasons.
Socionics relationships are one part of the puzzle as to how well people will get along, but I don't know if they can be arranged a a #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., so much as a "generally better" on one end and "generally worse" on the other with a great deal of overlap between. And then outside of the Socionics part of the puzzle, you have whether you and the other person share goals and beliefs, upbringing, education, interests, etc. All of those things count toward creating a good relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifmd95
to eloquently integrate socionics and economics (socioneconomics?), my problem lies not with the idea that (total utility)/(quantity) does not necessarily equal average utility, but rather with the idea that utils exist at all.
the idea of ordinal utilities and marginal substitution and blah does some to offset the fundamentally simplistic assumptions that economics makes about consumer behavior, but it isn't perfect. the very idea that utility can be measured in any kind of finite way is a fundamental fallacy, though an extremely important assumption, as it is the basis of some very good models.
similarly the idea that people have definite, static information metabolism preferences is an extremely useful assumption, but one has to realize what the fallacies in that kind of a model and recognize that other people are not defined solely by information metabolism, and that information metabolism can be variable and/or relative in certain situations.
yes, you can have a rough model. because this is based in information metabolism, that can present an unspecific, but workable model.
the following is probably about as specific as you can safely get:
Quote:
duality
generally good relations : activity, mirror, identity
generally okay relations: business (lookalike), semi-dual, illusion, benefit, comparative, contrary
generally bad relations: quasi-identity, super-ego, conflict, supervision.
but this is not even very good at all, because some of these are very debatable. this model would have to be pretty fluid. should contrary (or benefit or comparative or business) go in the "bad" category? should super-ego or supervision or quasi-identity go in the "okay" category? what about identity? and does duality, which is it's own special phenomenon which legitimately merits exceptional attention in socionics deserve its own special category or should it be in the "good" category?
basically there's no answer to these questions. it's pretty meaningless to have to validate whether a comparative relationship is better or worse than a business one, for example. ordinal benefit from the relationship, as you might describe, is totally unmeasurable; they're each good and bad in their own way; they're merely different, and the dynamics play out differently for different reasons, which are partially explained by information metabolism.
if you tried to create a model with 16 different rankings, you would get a complete mess into which nothing fits, save perhaps duality and conflict.
these models were mostly made from theory, and partly from experience. they're not very detailed, but that's where i would put them. the very fact that you find reason to quibble them is possibly a reason that they may be too specific as they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifmd95
you are grasping at straws.Quote:
it's pretty easy to imagine someone saying this about personality and relationships in general in the begining stages of modeling information metabolism itself. how do you know there's no answer to these questions? they might become evident as we study the reinin dichotomies more. or functional differentiation in model A itself. they might already be answered and the research just hasn't hit the forum or its limited contacts in the East yet. and of course there will always be new empirical research done that may revise the models themselves. what the hell do we have to lose by leaving the possibility open?Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed
:8*
whatever. clearly we disagree on the amount of innovation left in this particular model.
if you want more background knowledge, examine the IM elements more thoroughly. if you can significantly improve your understanding of all of the IM elements and the interrelations between them, you might have a chance of improving the system of intertype relations. if that happens, it'll get dealt with in due course.
as of now, however, the latter half of this discussion is really an excercise in nothing.
i LiK eStJ's.
SuM eStP's DoN't LiK mE.
PeEpS aRe GeNrAlLy CoOl ThO, wHeN dEy AiN't HaTiN' oN eAcH uDdEr. :P
please don't type like that... ever again... or I'll stick a scalpel in my eye-ball, rip it out, find you, and make you eat it. Thank-you!Quote:
Originally Posted by munenori2
As regards to ranking relations I agree with the general sentiment in this thread... that it's difficult and complicated. Here's some points that I think are important.
-Sub-types can play a large role in defining how "good" a relationship is, N with S subtypes and T with F subtypes are best.
-If we could rank relations, the ranking would not be uniform for all types. For example, I've observed that Rational (J) types, being that they desire stability in relations, are better tuned than irrational types to relations with types of a similar temperament (i.e. ESTj+ENTj works, in general, much better than INTp+INFp or ESTp+ESFp)
look at the 3rd page of this thread at NiiTe's post
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...16858&start=30
I think this is the most accurate order of what intertype relationships are the best. Starting with Dual-Identical being equally the best, and ending with Conflictor as being the worst.
Notice how being a Supervisee isn't truly as bad as people think. I think this is true. My relationship with Ashton is going a lot better than I thought it would. And also notice how all this fits the ip/ip & ip/ep = good, ip/ij = eh, kinda, and ip/ej = blah.
In fantasy/ideals I think Super Ego or Contrary would appear more healthy than it really is, but in practice I think it really isn't that good for you... only good for short-term advice. Remember Betas, Deltas are actually our conflicting quadra not Gammas. Though Gammas like to put up a good fight like we do lol.
(infp-estp) Dual: A+
(infp-infp) Identical: A+
(infp-istj) Activity: A
(infp-enfj) Mirror: A-
(infp-entp) Illusionary: B+
(infp-isfp) Look-a-like: B+
(infp-intj) Benefactor: B
(infp-esfj) Supervisor: B-
(infp-esfp) Semi-Dual: C+
(infp-intp) Comparative: C+
(infp-isfj) Beneficiary: C
(infp-entj) Supervisee: C-
(infp-enfp) Contrary: D+
(infp-istp) Super Ego: D+
(infp-infj) Quasi-Identical: D
(infp-estj) Conflictor: D-
No type gets a failing grade as even conflictors can share some positive personal moments together, however they'll of course be very rare and aren't worth being counted on. Nothing is hopeless though… so no Fs.
This is based on long-term relationships over time remember. So it really drives my point home that Supervisee isn't as bad as people make it out to be. (Well it's still pretty bad, I mean C- but it's not like worse than Conflicting like people make it out to be.) At first yeah I think it looks like this. But the more you interact the more they come to life. Just like how Duals seem boring to one another at first. Well they don't to me anymore since I'm beginning to be more well-versed in socionics lol. But yeah you know what I mean.
I agree with all your ratings except...
(infp-esfp) Semi-Dual: B-/+ - depends whats going down, the two-faced thing drives me crazy & these relations are really slow to get going. But kinda love them anyways!
(infp-intp) Comparative: ?
(infp-isfj) Beneficiary: B-, strange communication style, I wish they'd brighten up, but they are sweet and lovely!
(infp-entj) Supervisee: B, I really like them, except when they are unhealthy.
cool thread :D
Thanks. I tried to base my arguements on raw logic and shared function values.
Duality being the most comfortable inter-type romantic relation--I think most would agree--what, in your personal opinions, are the other most and least comfortable relations?
E.g. Is activity more comfortable than mirror, or vice versa? Why?
E.g. Is supervision worse than conflict?
please tell about your experiences so we can all learn
I googled it and got this. There are some good interrelationship links at the bottom.
For an intimate relationship, dual or semi-dual.
For relaxing and chitchatting about common interests... a mirror or identical.
For seeing a slightly different look at common interests/ideas, a contrary.
For hiring to help me clarify my ideas, I'd say...uh, not sure how the term works, lol, but I'd hire my beneficiary (not benefactor!!) or maybe his mirror (my illusionary??).
And for asking someone to translate something for me, a comparative or supervisor (as long as it's understood that this person is there to HELP me, not tell me what to do, nor how I should think).
Conflicting relationships can be pretty wild. There's nothing better than getting laid by your conflictor and screwing the crap out of each other. Opposing erotic attitudes are very challenging and the climaxes are godly, the trick is to keep the conflict in bed and preserve a fair psychological distance. Whenever you disagree on something just get your clothes off and solve it on the spot. It's a truly marvelous experience, totally worth seeking out. :thumbsup:
in my experience, duality would be the most "comfortable" romantic relationship, BUT:
Semi-duality seems more passionate to me.
I'm currently dating a girl that is my (SEE) semi-dual (IEI)
and our relationship is really fulfilling And exciting.
we do have our few stumbles, but it makes it more interesting, in my opinion, because the emotions experienced are wide-ranging.
I do notice, though, that I have dualized myself to her, and she has to me;
in other words, I usually tend to act more aggressive and assholey like her dual (SLE)
and she speaks slightly harsher with her words to me like my dual (ILI)
Identicals, in my opinion are 2nd best for romantic relations:
I dated an SEE and she was SO fucking fun to be around, she always kept me on my toes, and made me feel like it was constantly a competition, which kept me stimulated.
in the end, I would just OUT-Aggressor her, and pin her down, and BANG.
but she would look at me like she was ready to take it and give it.
as for the worst relationship that ruined me emotionally for years / best sex I've ever had -
it was with my Benefactor EIE (enfj)
that bitch. I loved her
she doesn't understand me and treated me like crap, so I aggressively banged her to oblivion
Ooo, this sounds hot :lol::wink:. Apart from the last bit, sorry that sucks :thumbsdown:.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehenrybob
Best relationship I have had is with an IEI. I just started talking to this IEI guy and OMGZ he is amazing, we just love each other so much (:rolleyes::lol:) and feel so relaxed around each other. It's so awesome because we can just get crazy and have mad fun or have these deep, sharing the soul conversations - that I have always wanted but never felt I could have with anyone else, because they wouldn't care or understand, but he does :):love:.
And we have only been friends for a couple of weeks now, but he's always like -man I love you, you are the only one that makes me feel better about myself, you make me happy, I can trust you with anything-. That just makes me feel so happy :redface:, I love this kid so much. & then when I talk to other friends, it feels like such an effort compared to this. Whoa ramble, I just love him haha.
Oh and obviously, duals imo are the cream for romantic relationships, SLEs are so sexy :biggrin:.
And I love mirrors and activators, I prefer the latter, better understanding, more fun, growth, in the long run but I am having an ish starting these relations up :?. & I love mirror relations, EIEs are just so easy to be friends with and a lot of fun :) (mostly...).
Best romantic relationship was with an ISTj. But i've never been with an SLE...
Eh, worst would be supervision for romantic (obviously excluding Deltas), I have a best friend who is one of each. I have a lot of fun with them both but it's a bit of a strain - I wouldn't like that tension in a relationship. I don't think I would have a relationship with anyone outside of my quadra, unless I didn't have an option and it was a choice between them or cats.
I'm in love with my identical. I always know what to expect from him so I am 100% secure with him even when he is far away. Also identical relationships are very good for those who want to became 'a better person' because when you are with your identical you can see all your flaws and easily learn from them. As for romance I think Ethic types in identical relationship can be pretty romantical.
For relationships hmm i dont really know. I would say dual/semi dual aswell. Mirror would also be fairly comfortable. I would date my supervisor over my Conflictor any day of the week. I could handle an INTj girl judging me ok but an ISTj girl ordering me around would end badly. INTj's actually do get attracted to me ive found which is nice.
For friendship the best ive found are duality, activity and mirror. Identical ENFp girls i get on well with fine, but neither of us really gets much out of it. I do know an ENFp guy though and hes actually quite awesome but we are just accquantances. I have some dual friends but i must admit our lifestyles seem to differ. I have fun with my duals but i always feel slightly on edge or something. My mirror is great but theres something underlying that gets to me. Mirror has great potential though, same with duality.
The winner for friendship hands down for me is activity. I grew up with an ESTj and even if we do not see each other for a few months we are friends again instantly. I find him interesting and fun to be around, we share much of the same interests / morals and its very relaxing. No friendship has really ever come close to be honest.
I don't think supervision is worse than conflict. Supervision relationships are asymmetrical anyway. Well what does that mean exactly?
The supervisor is nowhere near as annoyed with the supervisee as the supervisee is annoyed with the supervisor. In confliction, there's a mutual hatred and everything around them kind of gets destroyed in the process.
I would say that honestly, most introverts really intrigue me (yeah all of them!). And also extroverts who appear like introverts (ENTps, ENFps...and then I'm SO sad when I find out their type :(.... Of course, this all crashes and burns later on...*wearing shirt that reads " still haven't met my dual" lol) Anyway...
For romance:
1) I still think duality is best for romance. Dual friendships I think could be good, but I haven't known one that I've been best friends with yet.
2) Activity is also good!!! warm fuzzy-ness
3) Semi-dual is also very good. also warm fuzzy-ness
4) supervision is very interesting, especially at first, and though there is some conflict, it's not all that bad
5) Look-a-like -- not bad! but they must be really interesting as a person for it to work long-term! They lack the "Mystery" factor so must be super cool for it to last.
Note: I don't like identical for romance because there ends up being a lot of either 1) insecurity because you assume they have the same tricks up their sleeve you do 2) annoyance or boredom if you realize they are exactly like you
For friends:
1) Identical all the way! Just make sure you get a non-boring and smart version like yourself...few things are worse than a boring identical :( I have an identical friend and we say we are clones...we react exactly the same way (obvious, but still surprising every time). Tonight we were both at a movie and both were overly concerned that we find a drinking fountain and bathroom before the show started - I mean, no one else in the group cared...but we have those Si concerns lol, and then we bitched about small Fi things people had done wrong that had upset us, that no one else thought was important, etc.
2) Activity!
3) Semi Dual
4) Mirrors I get "in theory" but I've had one good INFj friends, and honestly she annoyed me (but I think it was just her). She would act like everyone needed to think the same way she did, as far as supporting the exact same humanitarian causes (and sometimes I didn't want to buy a magnet for whatever, etc.) There were some things I really liked too, but in the end I was too annoyed by certain things. I'm sure most INFjs aren't like that though.
For friends you go out w/ and don't talk deeply with, or see a lot:
1) ALL types!! Even conflictors. I've had several ISTj girl friends who I really do admire and like, and because we're not roommates or anything we never have conflicts (mostly because I avoid saying things I know would set them off. I'm always aware that if I say certain things, especially Ne things, it will cause a conflict.
The worst imho: comparative! conflicting, quasi-identical, and illusionary is not all that great either.
Long-term relationship
- Dual: the closer you get to them, the harder it is to let them go. Can't beat them in terms of growth, reciprocated appreciation and sidekick to help you achieve everything you want in life. The only problem is life gets to feel a little different when they're not around.
- Activity: i love activity relations SO much. You never feel quite in-sync with them (with duality I feel like part of a whole). HOWEVER, it doesn't matter as you feel like your own person yet satisfied enough with what the other provides for you.
- Look-a-like: they are a bit boring but I could see myself with them long-term. We seem to have similar enough values to feel like we're a team working toward similar goals (unlike activity) but unlike activity, there's less depth there. Could really put illusionary in here as well.
Romance:
- Semi-dual: love relating to semi-duals with all the sensory-ness that comes with it. Sooo awesome in every way except there's a real clash with issues relating to the bigger picture, I think, so I couldn't see them as ideally long-term.
- Activity
- Mirror: the beta ST aggressor thing, I've been there, and it's probably the most intense thing ever. coupled with the sort of instant-knowingness of the other person, it's even more intensely awesome. the fact we're never quite sure of the relationship itself makes it a little hard to see things long-term. however, they are good for personal growth, i reckon.
Friendship:
- Identical: very easy relation until there's other people involved, then there's some competition/frustration/embarrassment. it's good to see where you need to grow but they don't really give you the tools to so
- Activity: they are always refreshing, and i put them above dual because you kinda relate to them on this introverted level
- Semi-dual and dual: dunno, introverts seem more stable in friendships or something?? I like all other types too for friendship, I also don't mind my conflictors :)
:love:Quote:
Originally Posted by shakealittle
Aside from duality, yada, yada, yada, I'd say the "best romantic intertype" relation has been activity, in my experience. I've noticed that in work environments, mutual attraction and interest manifests more immediately between myself and INFjs than even with ENFps, even when we don't have much to say to each other.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakealittle
Some kind of relations are just inherently better.
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3594/picture1imn.png
I think that the erotic attitudes thingy makes the ranking more complicated when it's about romantic relationships.
For instance, Benefit. One of my best friends is an EII guy married to a SEI. I can see signs of the strain around Te issues, but their favorable infantile-caregiver axis probably compensates for a lot. On the other hand, I have witnessed LSI-SEI Benefit relationships that ended in tears - and the aggressor-caregiver thing wouldn't have helped.
For rationals, Illusion is better from that PoV than Semi-Duality; for irrationals, it's the other way around.
Generally speaking, I tend to think that Victim-Victim is particularly unfavorable, so Gamma NT and Beta NF mirror and identical relationships will be less promising than Alpha SF and Delta ST mirror and identical - and, indeed, than Beta ST and Gamma SF mirror and identical (I have known a few Alpha SF mirror couples that overall did well).
A couple I know very well is LSI m - ESI f - kindred, and aggressor-aggressor. He seems sometimes a bit depressed due to the lack of Fe but overall they're ok.
I happen to know even a quasi-identity couple - SEI f, ESI m. That's not really favorable but in their case it seems to work due to their being both in their second marriages, and already rather old - so they just accept each other as they are and avoid open sources of disagreements. I talk a lot to the ESI guy, and he essentially accepts her SEI-ness as "just the way she is" - even as he clearly doesn't understand it - but in a good-humored way.
My basic point is that while it doesnt' affect the broad duality-> conflict worsening progression, I think that those factors make the precise ranking more complicated.
yes. this is really good. I've seen EII/SEI couples also and I think the infantile/caregiver thing does really help. Makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
could be, but conflict relationship is the most dangerous. People get killed in those.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaliaFee
Does comfort always mean best? That just seems like the middle class fantasy that nothing should ever be hard. But childbirth is hard- and it brings forth new life. Sooo...
I'd imagine some conflicting relationships are comfortable, but are a 'slow suicide' ya know?
this is a really good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/wackit.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
I don't want to experience semi-duality in a relationship. ESTP is way too controlling and overwhelming for me. My dad is ESTP, so is my friend's relative. I know them very close and cannot tolerate them for a long time.
why would anyone get into a relationship with a conflictor ? Do you people not feel (even if you never heard of socionics) that that person is not right for you ? I somehow subconsciencely filter out the unsuitable types and never get close to them. I can somehow feel who's who within 5-10 minutes of meeting a person.
Super-ego and conflict is a disrecommend.
Duality isn't the most comfortable relation, but it's comfortable enough for its weakness-strength impacts to build on each other. That's why it's the best relationship for growth. Didn't anyone actually read this or know what duality means? Shit...Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Exactly. +4.5Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Comfort is only one piece of the puzzle. It's a distraction to think it's the whole concept, and the ignoring of all the other factors might as well delay your growth like any conflictor relationship.
I think supervision can be a good relation. It has a lot in common with duality.
Assuming I'm an ISFp (I know some of you will disagree :wink:), I'd say mirror, semi duality, and of course duality not in that order. Mirror is really really easy to start but seems almost too fun and shallow. Semi Duality isn't too hard to get started but goes deeper than I want and feel comfortable with. Duality is about the right mix, but also a little harder since there's generally less immediately in common I think.
Not in my experience. I feel like I'm constantly being evaluated and watched and not in a good way in the presence of SLE's. Supervision is an assymetrical relationship. One is the supervisor, the other is the supervisee. Dual is a symmetrical relationship- you're both duals to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
actually, if you read a couple of conflict descriptions, not the standard ones, you'll notice that conflictors have strong mutual attraction in the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritik
ofcourse you are right if you are totally in tune with what is happening, you might see through that. But anyways, conflictors are much more attracted to eachother then you would expect.