Is this right?

[MySaviour]

Delta is most compatible with Gamma, then Alpha, then Beta (with beta, there isn't any compatibility).

Gamma is most compatible with Delta, then Beta, then Alpha (with alpha, there isn't any compatibility).

Beta is most compatible with Alpha, then Gamma, then Delta (with delta, there isn't any compatibility).

Alpha is most compatible with Beta, then Delta, then Gamma (with gamma, there isn't any compatibility).

So for an INTp:

1. ESFp
2. INTp
3. ISFj
4. ENTj

5. ENFp, ISTp, INFj
8. ESTj

9. INFp, ESTp, ISTj
12. ENFj

13. INTj, ENTp, ISFp
16. ESFj

(some types are on the same level, because I couldn't figure out how to order them.)

Is it just me, or does this not make perfect sense?

[tempus]

According to Sergei Ganin, types have the greatest compatibility with types of their own quadra, the next greatest compatibility with types of adjacent quadras, and the least compatibility with types of opposing quadras.

I have understood this to mean that a particular quadra doesn't really have a preference for either of the adjacent quadras. (Feel free to explain to me why I am incorrect in assuming this.)

With this knowledge, I have thus ordered socionic relationships in terms of compatibility:

1. Identity/Duality
2. Activity/Mirror
3. Comparative/Look-a-like/Semi-Duality/Illusionary
4. Beneficiary/Benefactor/Supervisee/Supervisor
5. Super-Ego/Contrary
6. Quasi-Identity/Conflicting

[MySaviour]

According to Sergei Ganin, types have the greatest compatibility with types of their own quadra, the next greatest compatibility with types of adjacent quadras, and the least compatibility with types of opposing quadras.

I have understood this to mean that a particular quadra doesn't really have a preference for either of the adjacent quadras. (Feel free to explain to me why I am incorrect in assuming this.)

With this knowledge, I have thus ordered socionic relationships in terms of compatibility:

1. Identity/Duality
2. Activity/Mirror
3. Comparative/Look-a-like/Semi-Duality/Illusionary
4. Beneficiary/Benefactor/Supervisee/Supervisor
5. Super-Ego/Contrary
6. Quasi-Identity/Conflicting

hrm.. which quadra stands adjacent to the other?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[tempus]

The cycle of quadras is rather like the cycle of seasons. Since it's a cycle, it really has no beginning, although it is said to begin in Alpha, due to the characteristics of the Alpha Quadra. The cycle is as follows:

Alpha...Beta...Gamma...Delta...Alpha...Beta...Gamm a...Delta...etc.

As you can see, Alpha is adjacent to Delta and Beta.
Beta is adjacent to Alpha and Gamma.
Gamma is adjacent to Beta and Delta.
Delta is adjacent to Gamma and Alpha.

[diamond]

MySaviour, it makes sense.

But intj's and esfj's get along better with delta than they do with beta; entp's and isfp's get along better with beta than they do with delta.

The same would be true depending on the relations between types for each quadra.

You are right though, contrasting quadras do not get along at all.

Frinstance, my estp husband doesn't get along with anyone in my family who is delta (mom, dad, youngest brother) but gets along ok with my other brother who is his supervisee.

[MySaviour]

According to all the tests and things I belong in either Alpha or Delta.

I like the Deltas but have no idea what they think of me, the Alphas seem to like me in spite of myself, and I like them, the Betas and I get along fine, but don't seem to have a clear understanding of each other, and the Gammas are the most foreign to me.

Does that help at all? Or just make things worse? Or is just entirely irrelevant?

Are you an INTj, or an INFj?

[MySaviour]

MySaviour, it makes sense.

But intj's and esfj's get along better with delta than they do with beta; entp's and isfp's get along better with beta than they do with delta.

The same would be true depending on the relations between types for each quadra.

You are right though, contrasting quadras do not get along at all.

Frinstance, my estp husband doesn't get along with anyone in my family who is delta (mom, dad, youngest brother) but gets along ok with my other brother who is his supervisee.

Ah, I see.. contrasting quadra's have the least compatibility, but the adjacent quadras average out to equal compatibility, but the judging half of the quadra has a different "foreign quadra" preference that the perceiving half? Implying that what I said above is true for the perceivers of a given quadra, but the flipping of the adjacent quadras would be required for it to be compatible with the judgers?

Sometimes when I see these flip and shifts, I wonder if the function order for each type is as correct as is reasonable.

[tempus]

"but the judging half of the quadra has a different "foreign quadra" preference that the perceiving half?"

I disagree with this part because it doesn't make sense in terms of relationships. For example, members of adjacent quadras contain supervisors, supervisees, benefactors, and beneficiaries. It is not possible for a type to have better compatibility with say, their supervisee than their supervisor, because a relationship between a type and their either their supervisor or supervisee is the *exact same socionic relationship.* Different types might be involved but the relationship dynamic is the same. I mean, there might be 16 types, but there are only *14* relationships.

[MySaviour]

"but the judging half of the quadra has a different "foreign quadra" preference that the perceiving half?"

I disagree with this part because it doesn't make sense in terms of relationships. For example, members of adjacent quadras contain supervisors, supervisees, benefactors, and beneficiaries. It is not possible for a type to have better compatibility with say, their supervisee than their supervisor, because a relationship between a type and their either their supervisor or supervisee is the *exact same socionic relationship.* Different types might be involved but the relationship dynamic is the same. I mean, there might be 16 types, but there are only *14* relationships.

Well, I did a quick mock up with an INTj and an ENTp, to look at their interaction with the adjacent quadras.

INTj's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Comparative.
ESFj's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Comparative.

ENTp's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like.
ISFp's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like.

----

INTj's delta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like
ESFJ's delta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like

ENTp's delta relations were: Benefit, Supervisory, Semi-Dual, Comparative
ISFp's delta relations were: Benefit, Supervisory, Semi-Dual, Comparative

Similar for each type in Alpha, but not the same.

But anyway, I'm wondering if one prefers to interact with their beneficiary, or their benefactor? Or if one prefers their supervisor over their supervisee?

It seems that beneficiaries get comfortable around the benefactors, even with the conflict.. but that's all i've seen. I don't have any working conclusions about the other three ways relations of benefit could take shape.

Is Look-A-Like better than comparative? Is Semi-Duality better than Illusionary?

[tempus]

"But anyway, I'm wondering if one prefers to interact with their beneficiary, or their benefactor? Or if one prefers their supervisor over their supervisee?"

Personally, I prefer interacting with my beneficiary. They seem both more interesting and less threatening. I don't know if other people will feel the same though; it might only be a matter of individual preference.

As for the supervisor/supervisee preference, I honestly can't decide which interaction I dislike more.

Oh, and if I may make a quick point of correction: The beta relations for INTjs and ESFjs should include semi-duality instead of illusionary.

[tempus]

"Is Look-A-Like better than comparative? Is Semi-Duality better than Illusionary?"

When speaking of compatibility, it is necessary to address both the strengths and weaknesses of a type. Look-a-like partners will enjoy an average degree of compatibility because of their shared weakness; comparative partners will share the same degree of compatibility because of their shared strengths. The compatibility in semi-duality and illusionary relationships is due to functional support rather than functional understanding. Again, the reason I would place them on the same level of compatibility is because of the necessity to examine both strengths and weaknesses of a type. Semi-duals support your strengths but might disdain your weaknesses; illusionary partners better support your weaknesses, although they might not appreciate your strengths as much as semi-duals.

[MySaviour]

"Is Look-A-Like better than comparative? Is Semi-Duality better than Illusionary?"

When speaking of compatibility, it is necessary to address both the strengths and weaknesses of a type. Look-a-like partners will enjoy an average degree of compatibility because of their shared weakness; comparative partners will share the same degree of compatibility because of their shared strengths. The compatibility in semi-duality and illusionary relationships is due to functional support rather than functional understanding. Again, the reason I would place them on the same level of compatibility is because of the necessity to examine both strengths and weaknesses of a type. Semi-duals support your strengths but might disdain your weaknesses; illusionary partners better support your weaknesses, although they might not appreciate your strengths as much as semi-duals.

Ok. This makes sense. I also think I have them on the same level, as I was still looking for a way to decide which should get higher priority. My ordering in the first post made sense to me, and your ordering makes even more sense.. So I guess i'll go with that.

Revised:

INTj's beta relations were: Benefit, Semi-Dual, Supervisory, Comparative.
ESFj's beta relations were: Benefit, Semi-Dual, Supervisory, Comparative.

ENTp's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like.
ISFp's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like.

----

INTj's delta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like
ESFJ's delta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like

ENTp's delta relations were: Benefit, Supervisory, Semi-Dual, Comparative
ISFp's delta relations were: Benefit, Supervisory, Semi-Dual, Comparative

Your personal preference: Look-A-Like, Beneficiary, or Illusionary? What order would you place those in?

What about Comparative, Semi-Dual, or Benefactor: Which do you prefer the most? Which the least?

Or Quasi-Identical, Contrary, Super-ego? Which is the most painful to experience, of these two?

like for me, it goes:
Look-A-Like, Beneficiary, Illusionary

Benefactor is annoying, semi-dual is the best.

Quasi-Identical is the least painful. Super-ego is the most.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[diamond]

"but the judging half of the quadra has a different "foreign quadra" preference that the perceiving half?"

I disagree with this part because it doesn't make sense in terms of relationships. For example, members of adjacent quadras contain supervisors, supervisees, benefactors, and beneficiaries. It is not possible for a type to have better compatibility with say, their supervisee than their supervisor, because a relationship between a type and their either their supervisor or supervisee is the *exact same socionic relationship.* Different types might be involved but the relationship dynamic is the same. I mean, there might be 16 types, but there are only *14* relationships.

Well, I did a quick mock up with an INTj and an ENTp, to look at their interaction with the adjacent quadras.

INTj's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Comparative.
ESFj's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Comparative.

ENTp's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like.
ISFp's beta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like.

----

INTj's delta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like
ESFJ's delta relations were: Benefit, Illusionary, Supervisory, Look-A-Like

ENTp's delta relations were: Benefit, Supervisory, Semi-Dual, Comparative
ISFp's delta relations were: Benefit, Supervisory, Semi-Dual, Comparative

Similar for each type in Alpha, but not the same.

But anyway, I'm wondering if one prefers to interact with their beneficiary, or their benefactor? Or if one prefers their supervisor over their supervisee?

It seems that beneficiaries get comfortable around the benefactors, even with the conflict.. but that's all i've seen. I don't have any working conclusions about the other three ways relations of benefit could take shape.

Is Look-A-Like better than comparative? Is Semi-Duality better than Illusionary?

I'd rather be a supervisor than a supervisee and I'd rather be a benefactor than a beneficiary. Lookalike is loads better than comparative. Illusionary is fine, too, there's no conflict there.

As far as semi-duals, I actually do not know any, so I can't say whether I prefer them or not!

[mimisor]

But intj's and esfj's get along better with delta than they do with beta; entp's and isfp's get along better with beta than they do with delta.

Oh yeah, I get along better with Delta than Beta, for sure. Now I come to think about it...Interesting point, Blaze =)

[mimisor]

[...] but the judging half of the quadra has a different "foreign quadra" preference that the perceiving half? Implying that what I said above is true for the perceivers of a given quadra, but the flipping of the adjacent quadras would be required for it to be compatible with the judgers?

That's it, yes

So

The relationship compatibility would be:

INTj; ESFj prefer Delta, then Beta, then Gamma
ISFp; ENTp prefer Beta, then Delta, then Gamma

ESTp; INFp prefer Alpha, then Gamma, then Delta
ENFj; ISTj prefer Gamma, then Alpha, then Delta

ISFj; ENTJ prefer Beta, then Delta, then Alpha
INTp; ESFp prefer Delta, then Beta, then Alpha

ENFp; ISTp prefer Gamma, then Alpha, then Beta
ESTj; INFj prefer Alpha, then Gamma, then Beta


Conclusions that can be derived from here:

for the case of an INTp
ENFp (Delta)- Illusionary
ESTp (Beta)- Semi dual

The chart shows INTps prefer Delta to Beta, so the conclusion is Illusionary relations are more attractive than Semi-dual relations

for the case of an ENTj
ISTj (Beta)- Illusionary
INFj (Delta)- Semi dual

According to the chart above ENTjs prefer Beta to Delta, so in this case also Illusionary relations are more attractive than the Semi duality

For all types is the same:
Illussionary relations are more attractive than Semi duality

Look-a-like relations are more attractive than the Comparative ones

the Beneficiary is more attractive than than one's Benefactor

the Supervisee is more attractive than one's Supervisor

[diamond]

The only flaw in this line of thinking is that say for entp's, who prefer Beta. That's all fine for the entp, but the beta's prefer gamma, not alpha.

Wait a minute, nevermind. Illusionary and lookalike beats supervision and benefit for the neighboring quadra.

[tempus]

"Illussionary relations are more attractive than Semi duality

Look-a-like relations are more attractive than the Comparative ones

the Beneficiary is more attractive than than one's Benefactor

the Supervisee is more attractive than one's Supervisor"

I disagree with this and I intend to dispute this in favor of my own ordering of compatibility through a series of equations.

The generic formula for type is this: Type = (Comparative + Look-a-like) - Super-ego. For those who are unfamiliar with this idea, allow me to illustrate using INFp as an example type.

Ni(1) + Fe(2) = [Ni(1) + Te(2) + Si(1) + Fe(2)) - Si(1) + Te(2)] = Ni(1) + Fe(2)

Primary functions are indicated with (1) and secondary functions are indicated with (2). I am doing this showing only two functions for the sake of simplicity. The equation can also be written using the four conscious functions or all eight functions.

(Further example.) ENTp: Ne(1) + Ti(2) = [Ne(1) + Fi(2) + Se(1) + Ti(2)] - Se(1) + Fe(2)

From this generic equation we can derive a formula for any socionic relationship:

Identity = (Comparative + Look-a-like) - Super-Ego
Comparative = (Identity + Super-Ego) - Look-a-like
Look-a-like = (Super-Ego + Identity) - Comparative
Super-Ego = (Look-a-like + Comparative) - Identity
Activity = (Beneficiary + Benefactor) - Quasi-Identity
Beneficiary = (Activity + Quasi-Identity) - Benefactor
Benefactor = (Quasi-Identity + Activity) - Beneficiary
Quasi-Identity = (Benefactor + Beneficiary) - Activity
Mirror = (Supervisee + Supervisor) - Conflicting
Supervisee = (Mirror + Conflicting) - Supervisor
Supervisor = (Conflicting + Mirror) - Supervisee
Conflicting = (Supervisor + Supervisee) - Mirror
Duality = (Semi-Duality + Illusionary) - Contrary
Semi-Duality = (Duality + Contrary) - Illusionary
Illusionary = (Contrary + Duality) - Semi-Duality
Contrary = (Illusionary + Semi-Duality) - Duality

Now let me digress from fact and move into the realm of speculation. On my earlier post, I proposed six level of compatibility thus ordered:

1. Identity/Duality
2. Activity/Mirror
3. Comparative/Look-a-like/Semi-Duality/Illusionary
4. Benefit/Supervision
5. Super-Ego/Contrary
6. Quasi-Identity/Conflicting

Compatibility decreases as the list goes downward. At level one, we have pure functional understanding and support and socionic compatibility is at 100%. At level two we have understanding and support although in reversed order putting compatibility at 80%. At level three we move into the adjacent quadras and although there is an element of support or understanding in these relations, functional correction and inhibition are introduced. Compatibility is at 60%. Level four reverses the functional ordering of level three and produces asymmetrical relationships. Compatibility drops to 40%. At level five we move into the opposing quadra and are met with pure functional correction and inhibition, leaving compatibility at 20%. Finally, at the sixth level, we have correction and inhibition, although in reversed order. The compatibility here is 0%.

So assigning a percentile value to levels of compatibility would look like this:

Identity/Duality = 100%
Activity/Mirror = 80%
Comparative/Look-a-like/Semi-Duality/Illusionary = 60%
Beneficiary/Benefactor/Supervisee/Supervisor = 40%
Super-Ego/Contrary = 20%
Quasi-Identity = 0%

Now I will show how speculation and fact meet in perfect harmony. The formula for identity:

Identity = (Comparative + Look-a-like) - Super-ego

Substituting the percentile values (although the numbers 1-6 will work just as well), we have 100% = (60% + 60%) - 20%. The equation works with Identity relations. It works will all other relations as well:

(Comparative) 60% = (100% + 20%) - 60%
(Look-a-like) 60% = (20% + 100%) - 60%
(Super-Ego) 20% = (60% + 60%) - 100%
(Activity) 80% = (40% + 40%) - 0%
(Beneficiary) 40% = (80% + 0%) - 40%
(Benefactor) 40% = (0% + 80%) - 40%
(Quasi-Identity) 0% = (40% + 40%) - 80%
(Mirror) 80% = (40% + 40%) - 0%
(Supervisee) 40% = (80% + 0%) - 40%
(Supervisor) 40% = (0% + 80%) - 40%
(Conflicting) 0% = (40% + 40%) - 80%
(Duality) 100% = (60% + 60%) - 20%
(Semi-Duality) 60% = (100% + 20%) - 60%
(Illusionary) 60% = (20% + 100%) - 60%
(Contrary) 20% = (60% + 60%) - 100%

There you go. Mathematical proof that semi-duality and illusionary relations offer the same level of compatibility and that your supervisee sucks just as much as your supervisor, etc.

[mimisor]

@tempus wow, thanks for elaborating, really ingenious =) I love aritmetics+formulas


"Mirror = (Supervisee + Supervisor) - Conflicting"

I like this. So Mirror partners supervise each other, but I assume concerning different matters, that's why they don't conflict (I guess)


Re your thesis: I still think, in practice, even if the percentage is the same, you will prefer or find more attractive one type better than other.

For example

1)even if Semi-Duality/ Illusionary = 60% (the level of compatibility as you demonstrated is the same)
-for an INTj (me), I prefer my illusionary (ESTj) to my semi-dual (ENFj)

2)even if Comparative/Look-a-like = 60% compatibility
-again I find my Look-a-like (INFj) more attractive than my Comparative (ISTj)

note: I've identified people with these types and I find to be true what I'm saying here. Otherwise, you can't make yourself aware of it.

How I am explaining this happening, in spite of the level of compatability being the same overall is the following:

since I am an NT and since neither of these pairs Semi-Duality/ Illusionary and Comparative/Look-a-like has both S and F, (SF being the natural complement to an NT, of course not all NT types get along with SF types, but that's another story) I have to choose S or F

1) ESTj or ENFj. In this case for some reason I value more the S over F

2) ISTj or INFj. In this case I would choose the F over S


I don't know how it is for you, but I suppose it's the same preferences in the pairs no matter what your type is, if you would apply this reasoning.

So considering the pairs

Identity/Duality = 100% -> you will obviously choose your Dual, even if the level of compatibility is the same

Activity/Mirror = 80% -> you will choose your Activity

Comparative/Look-a-like = 60% ->you will choose your Look-a-like

Semi-Duality/Illusionary = 60% -> you will choose your Illusionary

Beneficiary/Benefactor = 40% -> you will choose your Benefactor

Supervisee/Supervisor = 40% -> you will choose your Supervisor

Super-Ego/Contrary = 20% -> I really don't know here which I would choose from two... bad choices?

Quasi-Identity/Conflicting = 0% ...??


Now I realized I was wrong with the following two, I'm gonna reverse them, would it be better? =)
"the Beneficiary is more attractive than than one's Benefactor
the Supervisee is more attractive than one's Supervisor"
I infer it's the same explanation why this is happening, it's the perceiving/judging half of the quadra preferences, because the quadras are also divided into two

@Blaze
"The only flaw in this line of thinking is that say for entp's, who prefer Beta. That's all fine for the entp, but the beta's prefer gamma, not alpha."

It's nothing contradictory. That's why such relations are not that great probably because the "feeling" isn't reciprocal

[universal]

@tempus wow, thanks for elaborating, really ingenious =) I love aritmetics+formulas

If you are so hot on formulas, then I have a universal one: E = mc2. It basically means that the amount of hot water mass I add to a bath equals the amount of steaming energy it creates.

[Expat]

For all types is the same:
Illussionary relations are more attractive than Semi duality

Look-a-like relations are more attractive than the Comparative ones

the Beneficiary is more attractive than than one's Benefactor

the Supervisee is more attractive than one's Supervisor

Now let me digress from fact and move into the realm of speculation. On my earlier post, I proposed six level of compatibility thus ordered:

1. Identity/Duality
2. Activity/Mirror
3. Comparative/Look-a-like/Semi-Duality/Illusionary
4. Benefit/Supervision
5. Super-Ego/Contrary
6. Quasi-Identity/Conflicting

I followed tempus's argument, but I must say that in my experience I have found such relationships, in terms of decreasing compatibility, to follow this order:

Look-a-like > semi-duality > illusion > comparative

Which agrees with what gugu_baba just said, even though I said I preferred my semi-dual to my illusionary (but for me they're almost the same).

What I have observed is this:

With look-a-like, ENFj: zero PoLR smacking, many ways of looking at things in common, common interests, support of the other's role function, differences in creative function lead to different ways of looking at some things but it's never painful

With semi-duality, INFj: very little PoLR smacking, many common interests, support of suggestive function, but also major misunderstandings in the are of Personal Knowledge

With illusion, ISTj: awareness of the other's PoLR and conscious effort to avoid it, with occasional smacking; interactions are mostly restriced to 1st and 7th functions.

With comparative, ESTj: similar to illusion, but somehow more difficult.

Personally I'm usually more drawn to my benefactor - ENFp - than to my beneficiary, ESTp; and more to my supervisee - INFp - than to my supervisor, ISTp.

[Kirana]

hmm.... i also have to agree. in my family there are 2 betas - my mother the ISTj and my brother the ESTp. though relations are ok overall, friction often occurs between them and me. my brother and i tend keep our distance and we're fine. too close, and we'd fight over something. or nothing. i think my middle brother is INTp, but not sure. we're proud of each other, but not close. we've always wondered why our sibling relations aren't as close as 'normal' siblings (i.e. how siblings should be). i'm closest to my dad. he's likely ENFp. one of my best friends is delta - ESTj.

i must go and analyse this.

[Expat]

By the way, I don't agree that quasi-identity is as bad as conflicting. With conflicting there is a total lack of understanding of the partner; I don't think that is the case with quasi-identity.

[mimisor]

By the way, I don't agree that quasi-identity is as bad as conflicting. With conflicting there is a total lack of understanding of the partner; I don't think that is the case with quasi-identity.

I agree, quasi-identity doesn't seem to be as bad as conflicting. Even the name tells something.


And now I've done some more research, hihi

I've figured it out why for example INTjs and ESFjs prefer Delta first and ISFps and ENTps Beta, then Delta.

It's because the Illusionary and Look-a-like are part of that specific quadra.

for INTj - Look-a-like (INFj) and Illusionary (ESTj) are part of Delta
for ENTp - Look-alike (ESTp) and Illusionary (INFp) are part of Beta


So for this reason
"For all types is the same:
Illussionary relations are more attractive than Semi duality
Look-a-like relations are more attractive than the Comparative ones"

these sentences stand

but these one
"the Beneficiary is more attractive than than one's Benefactor
the Supervisee is more attractive than one's Supervisor"

I'm not sure, I think it's no preference.