Type this relation:

[Ms. Kensington]

X and Y know each other at work.

X is extremely laid back, yet has interests, usually sports oriented. X meets Y sporadically, but always has Z around when he sees Y.

Y always liked X and can barely contain herself when she sees X. However, whenever she sees X he is always with Z. So she can't really get a word in. Y first noticed X because of some endearing physical abnormalities, which don't seem to phase X at all. Combined with the laid back attitude, it makes X seem carefree. Y piles X with smiles and laughter, and she tries to touch him whenever she can, especially when Z leaves for a few moments. X probably notices but doesn't act like it at all. He doesn't seem to mind, but Y can't seem to tell if he cares either. In the meantime, Y is concerned that she looks weird to Z.

Y learns that X is also involved with cancer research, and that his abnormalities are a result from birth. Which Y finds even more adorable.

this sounds like an asymmetric relation..

[Ms. Kensington]

well, i would want to type the relation.. however Y does seem quite infantile.

[tiny_dancer]

This seems like the 'he's just not that into you' relation. Is there something about it I'm missing?

[Ms. Kensington]

ah.. did I mention that X is a dog?

[tiny_dancer]

ah.. did I mention that X is a dog?

Hm. This makes is significantly harder. What kind of dog is it?

[Ms. Kensington]

Hm. This makes is significantly harder. What kind of dog is it?

the most adorable little...

ah.... he's a Golden Retriever.

[Ms. Kensington]

Ah ... but who's Z?

Z is the nosy owner

[Jarno]

My first impression is that this is not the way to type a relationship.

It's like saying X and Y got into a fight this morning, so I guess they have a conflict relationship.


The relationship(s) you are describing don't show any of the characteristics as described by socionics, so there can't be drawn any parallels.


ow... I managed to read somewhat further and these are dogs relationships. Well that makes it easy, since all dogs are ESFJ, these are all 'Identical' relationships.

[Ms. Kensington]

My first impression is that this is not the way to type a relationship.

It's like saying X and Y got into a fight this morning, so I guess they have a conflict relationship.


The relationship(s) you are describing don't show any of the characteristics as described by socionics, so there can't be drawn any parallels.


ow... I managed to read somewhat further and these are dogs relationships. Well that makes it easy, since all dogs are ESFJ, these are all 'Identical' relationships.

X and Y have a relationship that is a little more familiar than aquaintences; Y is obviously likes X very much and X does not recoil from it but it is unclear (to Y) whether X likes Y.

[redbaron]

My first impression is that this is not the way to type a relationship.

It's like saying X and Y got into a fight this morning, so I guess they have a conflict relationship.


The relationship(s) you are describing don't show any of the characteristics as described by socionics, so there can't be drawn any parallels.


ow... I managed to read somewhat further and these are dogs relationships. Well that makes it easy, since all dogs are ESFJ, these are all 'Identical' relationships.

all dogs are not ESFj. we had a thread on this before.

[tiny_dancer]

Oddly, I'm still a shade unclear as to whether we're really talking about dogs.

But IF we were talking about people (and that's just speculation) I'm not sure that there's just one type relation it describes. There was an EIE chasing an SLI in high school, and that pretty much describes it spot-on. He wasn't interested in her, for one, and he wasn't reacting to her Fe on top of it, simply because he's SLI. Their relationship wasn't so obviously conflict, as it was with the other EIE in our class.