Funny feel
I have got a funny feel in my stomack that rmcnew is definetly a rational very possibly logical type and if he insists on being intuitive than the combination is xNTJ. Could it be, rmcnew, that you are intj? I definetly feel "rationality and heavy/solid structure of the psyche". What is you are not sure about your type? Dmitri suggested your type as ENTP and what do you think? What the others think? Come on, rmcnew, there are so many experts around, it's about the time to crack it!
Socionics: XNFx
MBTI: INFJ
Re: Funny feel
I've been there, all the supposed experts seemed to be conflicted about my type. It seems like most tend to narrow my type down to either ENTp, ENFj, ENTj, INTj, or INTp.Originally Posted by Olga
Then there are other problems. If I am P type I have many J type tendencies. If I am F type I have many T type tendencies. If I am I type, I have some E type tendencies. If I say I am one type, someone always disagrees, and other type, someone else disagrees. I am sick of it.
Love to socionincs
Yes, yes, we all love socionincs otherwise we would not be here.
But why do we need to protect it from the flying stones? If people criticise that must be a reason for it... What the point in just swalloing the knowledge or chewing on what is already known? What is true will not be changed anyway, it will protect itself. What is in need of improvement will be improved or displaced one way or the other, sooner or later...Let others enjoy the creative thinking process and rejoice or criticise constructively - it is a good mental exercise.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Re: Funny feel
The fact that the supposed "experts" cannot definitively classify your type doesn't convince you a bit that there might be something wrong with the whole Socioncs framework, etc?I've been there, all the supposed experts seemed to be conflicted about my type. It seems like most tend to narrow my type down to either ENTp, ENFj, ENTj, INTj, or INTp.
Then there are other problems. If I am P type I have many J type tendencies. If I am F type I have many T type tendencies. If I am I type, I have some E type tendencies. If I say I am one type, someone always disagrees, and other type, someone else disagrees. I am sick of it.
Re: Funny feel
I actually find this question slightly offensive ... not only am I not shallow, I know better than to jump to silly conclusions such as that without first studying everything there is to know about socionics.
So to answer the question ... absolutly not! I know better ...
Also, read this article I wrote ...
http://socion.info/sif.html
Given the defense you show at Rocky's arguments, I really considered my question be to a valid question. I was quite surprised that you were prepared to defend Socionics to such lengths even though you aren't exactly the ideal candidate as far as its empirical evidence is concerned.
First off, I can not say that socionics is entirely wrong, because the ideas presented in socionics have already been questioned and instituted by philosophers essentially since the time of Plato and that socionics is to a major degree actually based on Platonian philosophy. However, I get pissed when people try to question its very foundation without first realizing that theoretical models are just purified perfected forms of the observable or theoretical, and that not everyone is expected to fit perfectly in those molds. It is like they think that people were shaped by molds as opposed to the molds being shaped to them.
Now, what really makes me cringe is that there are people who think they know better than the philosophers and screw around with the theory like it is some sort of sex toy. Mercy, have some respect!
I am going to just assume that Socionics is a scientific hypothesis. Trust me, you don't want to deny Socionics of that stature otherwise you stand to lose all. I am also going to assume that Socionics is a very rough model and that not everyone is expected to fit perfectly. What percentage of all relationships function as predicted by the Intertype model just in terms of compatible/incompatible? What percentage of all relationships function as predicted by at least 50% of the Intertype model? You need to pursue these questions if you want socionics to still have any merit.First off, I can not say that socionics is entirely wrong, because the ideas presented in socionics have already been questioned and instituted by philosophers essentially since the time of Plato and that socionics is to a major degree actually based on Platonian philosophy. However, I get pissed when people try to question its very foundation without first realizing that theoretical models are just purified perfected forms of the observable or theoretical, and that not everyone is expected to fit perfectly in those molds.
Now, what really makes me cringe is that there are people who think they know better than the philosophers and screw around with the theory like it is some sort of sex toy. Mercy, have some respect!
I don't know too much about how Socionics is presented in academia but I hope it is not presented as Philosophy because it will almost discredit its merit as a scientific hypothesis and as a branch of Psychology.
Having read some of the exchanges between you and Rocky in greater detail, I have decided to ask something else in addition. Do you even consider Socionics to be a scientific hypothesis?
That is interesting, and what methods are going to be done to show that socionics is statistically accurate? Surely you can not poll the whole population ... maybe a sample? Whoops ... there is still a margin of error!I am going to just assume that Socionics is a scientific hypothesis. Trust me, you don't want to deny Socionics of that stature otherwise you stand to lose all. I am also going to assume that Socionics is a very rough model and that not everyone is expected to fit perfectly. What percentage of all relationships function as predicted by the Intertype model just in terms of compatible/incompatible? What percentage of all relationships function as predicted by at least 50% of the Intertype model? You need to pursue these questions if you want socionics to still have any merit.
Anyhow, I think the suggestion that trying to look at it at a statistical level will not do any good either, and I disagree that that will allow socionics to have any sort of merit and that is why that sort of research has been avoided for the most part by Socionics theorist. MBTI researches have tried to do something similar to that, making statistical examples, yet whether they are accruate or not is another matter all together. That is often why you hear the phrase "all the types are presented equally throughout all the population." I seriously doubt you will get them to do anything official about it with that attitude, as if it would do any good anyhow.
I hate to make you sound stupid, but any credible University professor with a PHD will tell you that science fits under the realm of philosophy, and I think the origional implication is actually showing a certain degree of ignorance; in fact, many of the philosophiers were very much scientist. Heck, Aristotle knew Plato personally and he was the first one to begin making classifications of animal species and helped to found the beginnings of modern biology and taxidermy. Then there were others like De Vinci [ who did dissections of dead bodies and made charts so well that are still used today in medicine] and Voltaire [who experimented with fire and had an aspect of electricity named after him].I don't know too much about how Socionics is presented in academia but I hope it is not presented as Philosophy because it will almost discredit its merit as a scientific hypothesis.
Voltaire being a very good example of philosophers, I'll post a little bit about him ...
However, it was philosophy that drove him to do his scientific experiments with fire, not the other way around. If you read about some of the stuff he probably did, you might chuckle because they sound so silly; but, he helped to formulate the properties of the energy used to fuel the damded computers we are all sitting in front of and I think he is owed a bit of respect for that and shouldn't be shit all over like some are trying to shit all over socionics theory, no matter how silly one thinks it is in reality.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire
Fran็ois-Marie Arouet (November 21, 1694 May 30, 1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire (also called The Dictator of Letters), was a French Enlightenment writer, essayist, deist and philosopher.
Voltaire is well-known for his sharp wit, philosophical writings, promotion of the rights of man, and defense of civil liberties, including freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform despite strict censorship laws in France and harsh penalties for those who broke them. A satirical polemist, he frequently made use of his works to criticize Church dogma and the French institutions of his day. Voltaire is considered one of the most influential figures of his time.
Voltaire then set out to the Chโteau de Cirey, located on the borders of Champagne, France and Lorraine. The building was renovated with his money, and here he began a relationship with the Marquise du Chโtelet, Gabrielle ษmilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil. Their relationship, which lasted for fifteen years, led to much intellectual development. Voltaire and the Marquise collected over 21,000 books, an enormous amount for their time. Together, Voltaire and the Marquise also studied these books and performed experiments. Both worked on experimenting with the "natural sciences", the term used in that epoch for physics, in his laboratory. Voltaire performed many experiments, including one that attempted to determine the properties of fire.
Natural science most generally is the rational study of the things we know about, the universe via rules or laws of natural order rather than divine actions involving a human-like consciousness exercising its control over all things at whim.
The term natural science is also used to identify science as a discipline following the scientific method, in contrast to natural philosophy, or in contrast with social sciences, which use the same scientific method applied to different subjects.
Natural sciences form the basis for the applied sciences. Together, the natural and applied sciences are distinguished from the social sciences on the one hand, and from the humanities, theology and the arts on the other. Mathematics, statistics and computer science are not natural sciences, but provide many tools and frameworks used within the natural sciences.
Alongside this traditional usage, more recently the words "natural sciences" are sometimes used in a way more closely matching their everyday meaning, stemming from natural history. In this sense "natural sciences" can be an alternative phrase for biological sciences, involved in biological processes, or perhaps also the earth sciences, as might be distinguished from the physical sciences (more directly involved in the study of physical and chemical laws underlying the universe).
No one is asking you to poll the whole population but in routine research in Psychology, it is not uncommon to have 2,000 people used as sample points. If you think there is still a margin of error that is statistically significant then perhaps you need to study some more about statistics especially data sampling.That is interesting, and what methods are going to be done to show that socionics is statistically accurate? Surely you can not poll the whole population ... maybe a sample? Whoops ... there is still a margin of error!
Anyhow, I think the suggestion that trying to look at it at a statistical level will not do any good either, and I disagree that that will allow socionics to have any sort of merit and that is why that sort of research has been avoided for the most part by Socionics theorist. MBTI researches have tried to do something similar to that, making statistical examples, yet whether they are accruate or not is another matter all together. That is often why you hear the phrase some socionist alot "all the types are presented equally throughout all the population."
I don't quite understand your reasoning as to why a statistical analysis would not give socionics more merit. There is nothing more supportive than a statement saying, "60% of all relationships work as predicted as socionics!" Don't you agree?
I hate to make you sound stupid but science broke off of Philosophy in the 1600s with the Scientific Revolution. Before then, almost all the "science" that was conducted is actually Philosophy, especially the stuff that Plato was dealing with. Nowadays, Philosophy is only related to science in that Philosophy is used to justify scientific inquiry (aka empirical science). The specific branch is called, "The Philosophy of Science." Furthermore, Taxonomy, though is an important aspect of Biology, is only related to scientific inquiry in organization of the data (which is not even strictly required for scientific inquiry), but not the most sigificant portion, which is formulation of explanations and their empirical justification. Taxonomy is not a scientific hypothesis/theory at all, despite the fact it is called a science because the word for science has been abused to the extent that any study is a science. What you mentioned about Da Vinci falls in to the same catagory as Taxonomy. As mentioned, the most important aspect of scientific inquiry concerns with the formulation of explanations of physical phenomena using empirical evidence. This is quite different from the way Philosophy works.I hate to make you sound stupid, but any credible University professor with a PHD will tell you that science fits under the realm of philosophy, and I think the origional implication is actually showing a certain degree of ignorance; in fact, many of the philosophiers were very much scientist. Heck, Aristotle knew Plato personally and he was the first one to begin making classifications of animal species and helped to found the beginnings of modern biology and taxidermy. Then there were others like De Vinci [ who did dissections of dead bodies and made charts so well that are still used today in medicine] and Voltaire [who experimented with fire and had an aspect of electricity named after him].
Huh? Where did you read that from? Are you trying to argue that just because he is a Philosopher, and he started to do science, philosophy drove him to do start scientific experiments? Wow, that's very logical, lol! Then, what drove people like Louis Pasteur, who was not a Philosopher to science? Perhaps a better explanation is: Voltaire started to doing scientific experiments, like Louis Pasteur, because philosophical inquiry is insufficient to determine the properties of energy. If you try to use Philosophy to determine the properties of energy, all you get is a bunch of drivel that is completely useless to the real world. "What is energy? When we move, we need energy. What makes us move? If we don't eat, it is harder to move. That means food is energy. Water is energy." This is really useful for understanding why burning coal will power a steam engine.
About the predictive nature of socionics. There is quite a bit of debate among socionists in the former Soviet Union about what it is exactly that socionics predicts (in terms of intertype relations). You can't say "socionics predicts A and B" just based on what's written on a popular website. Don't look for predictions that aren't there. If there are predictions at all, they have to do with underlying information exchange in relationships. Does this translate into things like "A and B get married, C and D do not"? Of course not.
Bukalov and his team of socionists have done numerous large consulting operations in Russia and have statistics on the types and relationships for a small industrial town where they typed a large segment of the population over several years. I believe they found the percentage of dual marriages to be around 40%.
Finally, science provides not only predictions, but also explanations. Some philosophers of science argue that the explanatory nature of science is actually what guides science -- not it's predictive potential. People want to understand why things happen, and not just have a tool that tells them what will happen if you put A and B together.
Because socionics provides such a 'deep' and potentially satisfactory explanation of interpersonal interaction, and because there are really no other serious competing theories in this area, people who have gotten into socionics rarely if ever discard socionics from their thinking, even if they stop talking about socionics, stop meeting other socionists, etc. People like to move upward on the ladder of understanding, not downward.
I like the way you explain things, Rick
If I understand the intertype relations theory correctly, all it really predicts is the nature of any conflict that might happen (which is explained by the information flow). No descriptions I've read make any claims as to who likes each other and who doesn't like each other, instead they outline the potential positive and negative aspects of the relationship.
Dual relationships is the only thing I have informally understood to be accurate. In fact, given that the compatibility of dual relationships can be counter-intuitive makes just this aspect to be a prize of the theory, even if everything else is all wrong (hence cannot make predictions/make incorrect predictions.)
You are absolutely right that science is about understanding and hence, the explanatory nature of science is important. However, it is always the predictive power of science that is examined first because that's the criteria by which the accuracy of the explanations are judged and accuracy of the explanation is most important.
Perhaps my biggest gripe about Intertype Relationships, which is why I even started this thread is that I noticed that Socionics has defined a relationship between every single type, yielding, a total of 8 types of relationships. That's very comprehensive and I think Socionics is really overstepping its bounds as a valid scientific explanation. It's possible that the authors are actually making stuff up because many of the definitions, such as type are not even well-defined in the first place.
Are you claiming that the potential positive/negative aspects are applicable to real-life relationships?I like the way you explain things, Rick
If I understand the intertype relations theory correctly, all it really predicts is the nature of any conflict that might happen (which is explained by the information flow). No descriptions I've read make any claims as to who likes each other and who doesn't like each other, instead they outline the potential positive and negative aspects of the relationship.
Well it certainly seems that way. Some of the descriptions are a little sketchy (mainly because I haven't had the chance to fully experience them - mostly look-a-like and mirror), but mostly they describe things I noticed before stumbling across socionics. As I read them I had many "Aha!" moments.Are you claiming that the potential positive/negative aspects are applicable to real-life relationships?I like the way you explain things, Rick
If I understand the intertype relations theory correctly, all it really predicts is the nature of any conflict that might happen (which is explained by the information flow). No descriptions I've read make any claims as to who likes each other and who doesn't like each other, instead they outline the potential positive and negative aspects of the relationship.
I am curious. Could you please post here a small sample of a non-dual relationship that you found to be accurate? If you have a link, that would be great too.Well it certainly seems that way. Some of the descriptions are a little sketchy (mainly because I haven't had the chance to fully experience them - mostly look-a-like and mirror), but mostly they describe things I noticed before stumbling across socionics. As I read them I had many "Aha!" moments.Are you claiming that the potential positive/negative aspects are applicable to real-life relationships?I like the way you explain things, Rick
If I understand the intertype relations theory correctly, all it really predicts is the nature of any conflict that might happen (which is explained by the information flow). No descriptions I've read make any claims as to who likes each other and who doesn't like each other, instead they outline the potential positive and negative aspects of the relationship.
Do you mean descriptions?
Here's a good place to start: http://www.the16types.info/relations.php
There's a functional Analysis on that page as well.
From http://www.the16types.info/articles.php?article_id=1
From the very beginning we need to make a note that Socionics describes only one aspect of relationships - the circulation of informational signals between psychological types (and the resulting interactions). All the rest, including the factors of gender, age, social status - may influence them and even distort them, but even under such distorting circumstances one can observe that the same information (or action) is perceived by different people in different ways.
Which ones did you find to be accurate?
That's irrelevant. What matters is whether Socionics can even make accurate predictions even in this very small aspect.
Socionics is not the only field in this position (of trying to figure out what it predicts). There are other very interesting theories out there that explain a lot (a great example would be memetics), but it's not yet clear what they predict. Understanding often runs far ahead of experimental practice. Gradually socionists in Russia/Ukraine are starting to demand more empiricism and experiments. However, they have no outside funding to perform them.
One hypothesis I would feel comfortable making based on socionics is that if you placed pairs of pre-typed in-patient hospital patients together and then regularly tested their emotional state, some socionic relationships (there are 16, not 8) would consistently produce better emotional states than others.
This is completely feasable (with some funding), but the weak spot is that someone would have to type the people, and there would be uncertainty as to whether the experiment was testing socionics itself or the individual socionist's ability to type.
I like this statement. I fear that's what's happening to Socionics.
This problem can definitely be alleviated if multiple Socionics experts do the typing, independent of each other and see whether they can come to a consensus (or near consensus).
I have found all intertype relations to be accurate. However, I understand the theory behind them, so I haven't read descriptions for years. I have had the chance to study all the relationships up close (except perhaps 'request'). In each case there is an underlying interaction pattern that doesn't change much, if at all, after people tune in to each other (my rule is five meetings where you interact with the person one on one). There are small differences from one person to another, but the pattern is still recognizable.I am curious. Could you please post here a small sample of a non-dual relationship that you found to be accurate? If you have a link, that would be great too.
Oh, that was in response to other things that have been mentioned (I think by Olga), rather than a follow up of my previous thought.That's irrelevant. What matters is whether Socionics can even make accurate predictions even in this very small aspect.
Anyway, the ones I've found to be accurate:
Identical, Dual, Semi-Dual, Activity, Benefit, Supervision, Comparative, Contrary, Quasi-Identical, Conflict, Super-Ego.
Keep in mind that you are talking to people on a forum who have discovered socionics fairly recently. In most cases, their practice lags behind their theoretical knowledge, especially since there is not yet a real-life English-speaking socionics community. This might not be the best representation of the field. It takes years to build up the practical experience necessary to stop thinking in theoretical terms.I like this statement. I fear that's what's happening to Socionics.Understanding often runs far ahead of experimental practice. Gradually socionists in Russia/Ukraine are starting to demand more empiricism and experiments. However, they have no outside funding to perform them.
I think that socionics in Russia/Ukraine is already moving towards empiricism. This is because the main theoretical space was opened by founder A.Augusta and has only slightly increased since then, so now more energy is being focused on formulating, ordering, and testing. Keep in mind that people here are mostly still in the process of discovering that theoretical space.
OK, I now understand your first post (I didn't get what you meant by superficial level the first time). I now understand your explanation as to why the information posted on website are not accurate.
OK, I have another question. You mentioned in your first post that it is difficult to objectivize. Is it possible that Socionics is vague and simply predicts "everything" in that everything you notice can be explained with the framework. In other words, it is possible that the framework is not falsifiable. Here are corresponding questions: From what you have seen in the relationships, is there any pattern at the functional level that never shows up? For a given Intertype relationship, does the framework exclude certain kinds of interactions?
Well, dual relationships did not work for me and I want the answer why on earth the relationships can be defined as dual if they do not work.
I think something somewhere is terribly wrong with intertype relationship.
I already mentioned that the reason may be that socionics does not account for some other very important differences within the types.
Like in psychology, there are a few factors which may impact on the dependent variable (socioeconomical status, age, IQ and etc). People are not just process and exchange info. We are not just computer models of different shapes and colour. When I read the definitons of intertype relationship I can not help to feel critical and angry because they are not true for me. In many way socionincs can help you to understand the relationship around you and in many ways it does not. I don't like the definitions of the intertype relationship - they do not quite reflect the reality and predispose people to certain expectations, they actually form the perception and do not give space for doubt - they are defined already and there is no open end. This is not right, it separates the population in blaks and whites, in those who fit and those who does not.
May be I feel this way because I am a judging type. I am not against typology but I am not happy with intertype relationships as they are.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Well, I was aware of that. I was actually hoping to find the answer out myself by asking people how their relationships went and determine by myself whether they fit the descriptions.
Well, I now know the answer from that from your posts. The theory does not predict things on a superficial level, which is the type of data I am culling, despite what the websites write.
DarkAngelFireWolf69s description of duality says
From my understanding, duals aren't meant to "work", they're just meant to be more favourable overall when they do work (which is only in certain situations).But do not overestimate duality! This is a model of relations for dealing with everyday problems. As you get used to your dual, you will begin to want something more, namely social significance of your personality, certain challenges and deviations from everyday activities. This cannot be achieved within dual relationships. And finally, do not forget that no one dual pair is omnipotent on the contrary, it is strong only within certain fields of activity, where the dual's strong traits complement each other.
I now understand that I should place blame the websites such as Sergei Ganin's website, for raising the expectations too high by attempting to describe things on a superficial level. I think it is rather misleading about Socionics.
The main weakness of socionics is the subjective process of identifying type. Unfortunately, I can't take other people's word for the types they have had relationships with. How do I know I would type Olga's friends and relationships the same as she does?
The result of this is that each independent socionist basically has his own individual typology. These individual typologies overlap with each other to varying degrees.
In other words, is socionics like reading horoscopes? Yes and no. Numerous studies (including within the socionics community) have shown that people will identify with many or most type descriptions, especially if you explain that it is 'their type.'OK, I have another question. You mentioned in your first post that it is difficult to objectivize. Is it possible that Socionics is vague and simply predicts "everything" in that everything you notice can be explained with the framework. In other words, it is possible that the framework is not falsifiable.
Also, I agree that is frustrating when it seems like people can explain anything in terms of some function or another -- even things that seem to directly contradict socionics theory.
My antidote to this is to practice describing observable phenomena (including your own subjective reactions) as accurately as possible to counterbalance the mental theorizing. This also trains your ability to verbalize semi-conscious sensations and is ultimately more useful to other people.
I think socionics is much better than astrology, though. Astrology can't provide an explanation for why one constellation affects you and another doesn't!
Patterns?... hm. Don't know.Here are corresponding questions: From what you have seen in the relationships, is there any pattern at the functional level that never shows up? For a given Intertype relationship, does the framework exclude certain kinds of interactions?
Exclude certain kinds of interactions? Yes. For example, it's physically impossible to be cheerful and spontaneous one-on-one with a conflicter after about the second interaction/meeting.
I think it would be useful to make a list of things that one would definitely not experience in each intertype relation. I don't feel like starting one here, but it would be worth it.
Descriptions are written superficially to make sense to people who don't know much about socionics. My current intertype relations descriptions (at http://www.socionics.us/relations.shtml#0) aren't necessarily any better, though I plan to eventually write functional descriptions that are less superficial.I now understand that I should place blame the websites such as Sergei Ganin's website, for raising the expectations too high by attempting to describe things on a superficial level. I think it is rather misleading about Socionics.
Another fundamental issue is that people are barely conscious of much of their own psychic functioning. How then can you trust what they say about themselves and their own relationships? On the other hand, how can you ignore it? In many cases people bend the truth about their relationships to make them seem better or worse than they are. And they describe not their functioning directly, but their understanding of their functioning based on comparisons with other people they know, descriptions of themselves that other people give them, and ideal self-images that come from one's upbringing.
I concede that this experiment is riddled with sources of errors but I was not really looking for too much though. I just wanted to know whether Intertype Relationship is pertinent to reality (even if only slightly) or just a mere intellectual curiousity. The breadth and elegance of the framework leads me to believe the latter.
I have been assembling a list of the types and relationships that I know personally, for my own personal interest.
Perhaps it's interesting as a micro-sampling, but the problem Rick mentioned remains - - are those typings correct, and are the relationships really as I perceive them? Who knows?
All I can say is that in all cases I typed each person individually, independently of the relationship; I know all of them well; none of them is myself nor anyone of the forum.
ISTj male ESFp female, supervision: ended after some 25 years of marriage, when she left him for another guy, leaving him baffled. She married him at 18.
ISFj ISFj, identical: very happy after over 10 years. But both have very stable lives on a practical level, no real crises.
ISFp female ENTp male, duality: very happy after 20 years, despite some practical difficulties.
ISFp male ESFj female, mirror: stable during the ISFp's lifetime, generally happy but with a lot of minor crises and quite a few disagreements regarding life goals.
ESTj male ESFp female, benefit: rocky before marriage, with several short-lived break-ups. Marriage lasted for 10 years before she decided to leave him.
ESFp female ENTj male, activity: quite stable and happy after two years, trying to hang together during practical obstacles.
ENFp female ISTj male, conflict: ended in bitter divorce, with fight over custody, after 5 years. Very rocky from the start. Stayed together for the sake of children.
ISTj male ISFj female, look-alike: very stable and apparently happy after 20 years, but seems to be based on routine.
ESFp female ISTp male, illusion: apparently more based on common interests than anything else, broke up after 3 years during first major practical crisis.
INFj male ESTp female, conflict: lasted 3 years but later the INFj told me that he was miserable most of the time and often wanted to break up.
ESFj female INTj male, dual: very happy and stable after 20 years.
INTj male ISFj female, super-ego: got together very quickly and remained together for at least 10 years, but with lots of uncertainty according to the ISFj. Unaware of current status.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Expat, Thanks! This is really good and this is what I was looking for actually.
Shouldn't that be Super-Ego?
I have two more to add:
ESTj female - INFj male, duality: very stable after 7 years, apparently rock-solid having survived several difficulties of a practical nature.
ESTj female - ISFp male, supervision: - 15 years altogether, with several separations in between. It was always the ISFp who left and came back. She seems to blame only him for the crises, never herself.
Yes it should. Corrected. Thanks!Shouldn't that be Super-Ego?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote