Extinguishment/Contrary Relations: stories and experiences

[sar]

Yes, I'm positive they are both ENFp. Well, I was best friends with one of them...but we grew apart. And the other I'm still good friends with (not exactly best)...Yeah, reading my original post made it sound like I thought they were incredible. I don't. But, I don't think they are as bad of relations as described. Granted, we don't get along as awesomely when with other people but when alone, its pretty great. I feel like communication in particular isn't that awkward and is actually pretty easy...the only problem, really, is that they'll do things sometimes that leave me just like "dude...what the fuck"...but other than that...i've had a pretty good experience with my contraries...Oh! Also, there is a girl on my hall who is also ENFp and I fking hate her! She doesn't act like they do though...she's the crazier more extroverted subtype...could that have anything to do with it?

[Jarno]

Socionics doesn't do a good job of predicting what relations will unfold between people, so take the inter-type relation descriptions with a grain of salt.

if you read translated russian descriptions, they are very detailed and accurate. Contrary is often called 'parallel' in those descriptions.

[sar]

Parallel? very interesting. Anyone have any access to these descriptions?

[Codie]

Extinguishment isn't the worst relation, I know I get along ok with ENFp's. I like them more in short bursts, it can be fun, and we have some good convos. The fundamental alikeness isn't enough to be best friends though. BTW I've found through experience if a person you've typed doesn't fit the intertype relationship with you, it's worth reconsidering their type or even yours.

[Korpsy Knievel]

BTW I've found through experience if a person you've typed doesn't fit the intertype relationship with you, it's worth reconsidering their type or even yours.

Or socionics.

[Codie]

BTW I've found through experience if a person you've typed doesn't fit the intertype relationship with you, it's worth reconsidering their type or even yours.

Or socionics.

yeah and that

ILIs are so skeptical

[Korpsy Knievel]

Although I agree with your general premise there are many other factors in a mental makeup that socionics doesn't touch upon, each of which can easily affect how a person gets along with others, even when socionics predicts that they should. That said, your suggestion is a useful one.

[717495]

I think that's good to reconsider Socionics, mostly in the sense of refamiliarizing yourself with how specific relations are defined within Socionics and trying to piece together any important links you might be overlooking or obsessing over about types, relations, or outside factors, that could allow for that relation to be correct.

[silke]

It's not necessarily that, as a general thing to do, but specifically because you rejected an integral part of Socionics - the Intertype Relations themselves, it's what Socionics is all about and what is generally taken for granted.

I am not seeing it. Can you describe your chain of reasoning that has led you to conclude that I have rejected "integral part of Socionics"?

... it's what Socionics is all about

Socionics is not a complete system of human relations, but rather it attempts to classify people by their information metabolism, which may then have some influence on one's relations among a myriad of other factors that can also exert an effect and either reinforce or cancel out socionics-related factors.

And you say it's worthless as a theory.

Where do I state this?

.. and has not been widely verified by empirical studies.

Neither has "classical socionics" been "widely verified by empirical studies", yet you have no trouble accepting its premises.

The Holographic cog style includes a Supervisory Ring which the two types in question are in. You said " it might be because IEEs have same cognitive style as SLEs". If you applied that to Relationships of Supervision it wouldn't hold up, because it contradicts with the conflicting nature of that relation.

That does not follow. IEEs have cognitive style same as SLEs which is dual to that of IEIs who are part of completely different supervision rings, thus there is no contradiction here.

[EyeSeeCold]

It's not necessarily that, as a general thing to do, but specifically because you rejected an integral part of Socionics - the Intertype Relations themselves, it's what Socionics is all about and what is generally taken for granted.

I am not seeing it. Can you describe your chain of reasoning that has led you to conclude that I have rejected "integral part of Socionics"?

"Socionics doesn't do a good job of predicting what relations will unfold between people, so take the inter-type relation descriptions with a grain of salt."

You have explicitly stated that: Socionics¹ does not do a good job of predicting the unfolding relations between people, therefore one should not put much faith into the Inter-type relation descriptions. This is a form of rejection, as you are dismissing the capability of Socionics as an interpersonal system of relationship forecasting.

It is my understanding that the Intertype Relation system is indeed an integral part of Socionics. Multiple sources confirm that Socionics is a theory of interpersonal interaction.^[1][2][3][4] With this in mind, I reaffirm that your valid dismissal is a rejection of an integral part of Socionics.

... it's what Socionics is all about

Socionics is not a complete system of human relations, but rather it attempts to classify people by their information metabolism, which may then have some influence on one's relations among a myriad of other factors that can also exert an effect and either reinforce or cancel out socionics-related factors.

I rescind that section of my response, Socionics is indeed more than Inter-type Relations. Instead, I intended to imply the suggestion that it would be absurd to dismiss a major part of the theory.

And you say it's worthless as a theory.

Where do I state this?

If you will refer to my first section of response, you will have this already accounted for. Although, I must admit I may have committed a strawman fallacy.

.. and has not been widely verified by empirical studies.

Neither has "classical socionics" been "widely verified by empirical studies", yet you have no trouble accepting its premises.

Quite right, not widely at least. However, Socionics is a theory, and I, as others, have accepted its premises on the basis of probable cause(considering my own observations and understandings) to subject it to experimental practice. The point of the quote you have made of my argument is to address the act of giving more weight to a sub-field than the main field, which is generally contradictory. If Socionics as a theory is invalid, then it is more than likely that most of the derivative theories will also be rendered invalid. With that in mind, I ask, how does one have more faith in the stability of the high reaches of a skyscraper than the foundation, which is flimsy no less?

The Holographic cog style includes a Supervisory Ring which the two types in question are in. You said " it might be because IEEs have same cognitive style as SLEs". If you applied that to Relationships of Supervision it wouldn't hold up, because it contradicts with the conflicting nature of that relation.

That does not follow. IEEs have cognitive style same as SLEs which is dual to that of IEIs who are part of completely different supervision rings, thus there is no contradiction here.

Ah, I misinterpreted you here. Even so, do you have reason to believe or evidence confirming that Cognitive Styles are complementary(even among non-duals)?

Notes
¹ - Of course, Socionics isn't doing anything, and, moreover, it's both the capacity & capability of Socionics as a field, and its Models as systems, combined with the people who practice theory that determine the overall reliability of Socionics theory.

References
¹ - http://socionics.us/
² - http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Socionics
³ - http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html
⁴ - http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=main.html

[Korpsy Knievel]

You have explicitly stated that: Socionics¹ does not do a good job of predicting the unfolding relations between people, therefore one should not put much faith into the Inter-type relation descriptions. This is a form of rejection, as you are dismissing the capability of Socionics as an interpersonal system of relationship forecasting.

siuntal has not thrown the baby out with the bathwater, nor is guarded confidence tantamount to outright repudiation. And socionics' reliability as an analytical tool should be based on its ability to generate reproducible positive results, not on its appeal as an icon of unexamined fidelity. An idea that is challenged in the course of its investigation retains the breath of life, while one that is internalized unquestioned becomes an ossified dogma.

It is my understanding that the Intertype Relation system is indeed an integral part of Socionics. Multiple sources confirm that Socionics is a theory of interpersonal interaction.^[1][2][3][4] With this in mind, I reaffirm that your valid dismissal is a rejection of an integral part of Socionics.

In so far as two wrongs don't make a right, repeating a fallacious argument doesn't justify its case. One can still pound nails with a hammer even if concern exists that the head might fly off. That is, the instrument's efficacy is preserved even though that quality is dubious. Similarly, cautious acceptance of intertype theory is possible without compromising its utility.

[EyeSeeCold]

.

This does not concern you so stay out. siuntal can represent herself, and as such, your sideline hassling is unwarranted.

[sar]

hmm....well, this took an interesting turn...

[Korpsy Knievel]

This does not concern you so stay out. siuntal can represent herself, and as such, your sideline hassling is unwarranted.

I speak on behalf of proper logic and rhetoric, standards which you demand others abide by, at least when it's convenient to your purposes. If my call for clearer thinking is injurious to you then call the police and have me shot for teaching you reason.

[MisterNi]

This does not concern you so stay out. siuntal can represent herself, and as such, your sideline hassling is unwarranted.

Yeah, you tell 'em! Socionics intertype relations don't really do an accurate job of predicting relationships and it's time everyone knew that.

[sar]

...can someone just tell me if it's weird to have a close relation with a contrary/extinguishment if you're not around other people? anyone had any personal experiences they're willing to share?

[sar]

"In general though, it works as a friendship, especially when the subtypes match up. " what do you mean by subtypes matching up? which subtypes would be best for each other between INFp and ENFp?

[sar]

Not only is it possible...It's, from my experience anyways, pretty likely. All the extinguishment relations I've had have been pretty good...some even great. You share similar temperaments as was stated above and usually have very similar interests which makes you attractive to each other. The only real problem area for me has been when were in the company of other people...but usually your naturally more fake around big groups than smaller so I don't get the big deal...the other thing is that sometimes I'll say something and they'll say something but we are both more focused on hearing ourselves talk, i feel, than listening to the other at times...just from personal experience.

[Shazaam]

Extinguishment relations occur between types confident in the same area of the psyche but who place different emphases on each function. This relations often consist of similar lifestyles but differing thought processes. Partners will have similar interests and areas of expertise, and have little trouble communicating with one another.

Still, misunderstanding and conflict arise when partners come to vastly different conclusions about specific ideas or events.

Yeah, that's how its like with my ENFp cousin. We're both lazy homebodies. We both like ranting about the unfair behavior that society treats homosexuals. We're both compassionate and caring people, and we share with each other a lot. We are always considerate to each other and never sociopathic. But it hits this awkward bump when we arrive at different conclusions. =D It's like this fire that builds up and then water gets poured on it and it suddenly dies out. It really does feel like a fire extinguisher going off in your soul. *grin*

[Radio]

awesome good for you

[Ningyo]

Not sure if this is common but my IEE friend often makes huge demands of my PolR. She's got some pretty strong Te and I usually respond with this casual "I'm an idiot" attitude to get her off my case. I think I just PolR-punched her though on accident. We were having a discussion which she normally expects Te from and wasn't prepared for the Ti I brought to the table.

Anyone else experienced this in extinguishment, particularly if your contrary relation is a close friend?

[Radio]

polr seems to be the mythical god of disagreement, the beast that trawls the nights for people ~on the verge of awkwardness~ to randomly hit out of the blue "damn you polr! you have inconvenienced me so!"

polr chuckles. bcz polr has no heart and his mother never loved him. ):

[Ningyo]

Yes, PolR knows how to execute a good bitch-slap upon the user.

Haha... you're cool, dude.

[Nowisthetime]

Wish people were a bit more specific in how exactly this plays out. polr-slapping doesn't tell us much.

hmm. It's true. Even duals can hit each others polrs. Sometimes ILEs make me uneasy when they bring out Te in a blunt way. And I sometimes make ILEs go quiet when I talk about peoples attitudes, particularly if it's something "awkward". BUT, there is a difference. The dual can talk about these things but there is no "psychological threat" involved. It's like they're doing it with their left hand, just "showing off", look what I can do! Then one notices that everything was fine after all, the polr information doesn't get in the way.

[Beautiful sky]

hmm. It's true. Even duals can hit each others polrs. Sometimes ILEs make me uneasy when they bring out Te in a blunt way. And I sometimes make ILEs go quiet when I talk about peoples attitudes, particularly if it's something "awkward". BUT, there is a difference. The dual can talk about these things but there is no "psychological threat" involved. It's like they're doing it with their left hand, just "showing off", look what I can do! Then one notices that everything was fine after all, the polr information doesn't get in the way.

But those are extremely essential in duality. They get quiet and you get "motored up" and it has to open up those psychological barriers somehow.

[Nowisthetime]

But those are extremely essential in duality. They get quiet and you get "motored up" and it has to open up those psychological barriers somehow.

Would you like to explain some more?

[Aquagraph]

Is it possible for there to be a romance with an extinguishment relation? How would it happen, how long would it last?

Short answer: Not possible.

But that's you-related, not socionics.

[Ningyo]

Possibly but IMO, not really favorable in the long term. If they're ethical types and there are fights about values, those can be pretty brutal. Also, I think with time, there's increased frustration compared to, say, quasis or super-ego or even semi-duals. Extinguishment partners, at least in my experience, have a tendency of questioning things about you which seem to you like none of their fucking business.