
Originally Posted by
HeavyMetal
Hmm I like the way socionics interprets the 16 types in relation to each other, however I think that the list could be expanded upon. The definitions of 'Mirror', 'Quasi-Identical', etc. seem kind of generic and lacking in depth. For instance, there is only one relationship that is the most desired --Dual (it appears?) --and as for the rest, there are definitely deficiencies and challenges to be anticipated. I think that since the 16 types aim to describe thinking habits and patterns; shouldn't then socionics take into consideration (when defining type relationships) how each of the types individually responds (differently) to say their own 'Identity' (among the others)? One example of this is the ENTj personality type versus the ENTp personality type in response to their own Identities. ENTj as a field marshal tends to direct, often not feeling the need to associate with another ENTj-leader type (as only one leader is needed). On the other hand, ENTps will most likely respond to their Identity by befriending them due to similar tastes. Here is a classic situation where the term 'Identity', while defined the same for both types, lacks clarity for purposeful use. Discussion about this is highly appreciated and welcomed. Also, if anyone knows the link of a more evaluative application of socionics to the 16 types please let me know.