Charting Intertype Romantic Quality

[DirectorAbbie]

I'm asking for everyone to rate these romantic combinations on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best and 1 being the worst. It's okay to give several things the same rating. If you use numbers outside the 1-10 scale (or even use a 3-6 scale), I can scale your range using math. This is only regarding romantically involved couples of one male and one female. And I'm including different male/female setups in case someone thinks that makes a difference. (m=male, f=female, e=extratim, i-intratim)

Same Quadra
Duals (m-e, f-i):
Duals (f-e, m-i):
Identicals (e):
Identicals (i):
Mirrors (m-e, f-i):
Mirrors (f-e, m-i):
Activators (e):
Activators (i):

Opposite Quadra
Conflictors (m-e, f-i):
Conflictors (f-e, m-i):
Quasis (e):
Quasis (i):
Contrast (m-e, f-i):
Contrast (f-e, m-i):
SuperEgo (e):
SuperEgo (i):

Balanced Neighbors
Semi-dual (m-e, f-i):
Semi-dual (f-e, m-i):
Kindred (e):
Kindred (i):
Illusionary (m-e, f-i):
Illusionary (f-e, m-i):
Business (e):
Business (i):

Imbalanced Neighbors
Beneficiary
benefactor m, beneficiary f (e):
benefactor f, beneficiary m (e):
benefactor m, beneficiary f (i):
benefactor f, beneficiary m (i):
Supervision
supervisor m-e, supervisee f-i:
supervisor m-i, supervisee f-e:
supervisor f-e, supervisee m-i:
supervisor f-i, supervisee m-e:

[Chae]

My is currently too lazy. @Vespertine or @passenger probs?

[Olimpia]

Duals (m-e, f-i): 10
Duals (f-e, m-i): 8
Identicals (ethical-ethical): 6.5
Identicals (logical-logical): 5.5
Mirrors (m-e, f-i): 6
Mirrors (f-e, m-i): 5
Activators: 7


Conflictors (m-e, f-i): 0.5
Conflictors (f-e, m-i): 0
Quasis: 2.5
Contrast (m-e, f-i): 4
Contrast (f-e, m-i): 3.5
SuperEgo: 3


Semi-dual (m-e, f-i): 7
Semi-dual (f-e, m-i): 6
Kindred: 4.5
Illusionary (m-e, f-i): 7
Illusionary (f-e, m-i): 6
Business: 5


Beneficiary
benefactor m, beneficiary f: 4.5
benefactor f, beneficiary m: 5.5
Supervision
supervisor m-e, supervisee f-i: 4.5
supervisor m-i, supervisee f-e: 4
supervisor f-e, supervisee m-i: 3.5
supervisor f-i, supervisee m-e: 4

[Olimpia]

I've created a blog post with my extensive ratings here.

 

Here, I rate the "romantic satisfaction" of all intertype relations from 0 to 10, based on anecdotal evidence and observations (of most matches of that kind; individual experiences will differ, dependent on subtypes, Enneagram, personal preferences etc). Ratings I am not as sure about will be in cursive.

Possible explanation for why the ratings differ amongst the genders in two words: gender roles. Furthermore, there have been studies showing that extroverted women were the least happy with introverted men on average. Not surprisingly, most introverted men ended up with fellow introverts. Besides that, I have found that certain types have personal standards that their Dual may not always fulfill; for instance, NTs commonly want high logical intelligence in a mate, and EIIs commonly want a mate with a good moral sense or core.

Note: This overview only deals with heterosexual couples. I do not have enough insight into homosexual relationships to also provide an overview for their relationship dynamics. One possible way to make this overview work for you as a homosexual, is to assign the "male" part to the person who fits the male gender role better (e.g "Butch lesbian" or "Top"), and the "female" part to the person who fits the female gender role better (e.g "Lipstick lesbian" or "Bottom"). It would be appreciated if you could add your own experiences in the comments below.

0-4: Below Average
5-5.5: Average
6-7: Above Average/Good
8-10: Great

---

Extroverted Male with Introverted Female

 

SEE-ILI: 10
ILE-SEI: 9
LIE-ESI: 8.5
SLE-IEI: 10
LSE-EII: 7.5
ESE-LII: 7.5
EIE-LSI: 8
IEE-SLI: 8.5

 

EIE-IEI: 6.5
SLE-LSI: 6
ILE-LII: 7.5
ESE-SEI: 7
LIE-ILI: 6
SEE-ESI: 6.5
LSE-SLI: 6.5
IEE-EII: 7

 

ILE-IEI: 7.5
ESE-EII: 7.5
SLE-SEI: 7.5
EIE-ESI: 7.5
LIE-LSI: 7
SEE-SLI: 7.5
LSE-LII: 5.5
IEE-ILI: 7.5

 

ILE-SLI: 7.5
ESE-LSI: 7.5
SLE-ILI: 7
EIE-LII: 7
LIE-EII: 7.5
SEE-IEI: 7.5
LSE-ESI: 7.5
IEE-SEI: 7.5

 

ILE-EII: 4
ILE-LSI: 4
ESE-SLI: 4
ESE-IEI: 4.5
SLE-ESI: 4.5
SLE-LII: 3.5
EIE-SEI: 4.5
EIE-ILI: 4
LIE-IEI: 4
LIE-SLI: 4.5
SEE-LSI: 3
SEE-EII: 3.5
LSE-ILI: 3.5
LSE-SEI: 4.5
IEE-ESI: 3.5
IEE-LII: 3

 

ESE-ESI: 3.5
ILE-ILI: 3
SLE-SLI: 3
EIE-EII: 3.5
LIE-LII: 2
SEE-SEI: 3.5
LSE-LSI: 2
IEE-IEI: 3.5

 

ILE-ESI: 0.5
ESE-ILI: 0.5
SLE-EII: 0.5
EIE-SLI: 0.5
LIE-SEI: 0.5
SEE-LII: 0.5
LSE-IEI: 0.5
IEE-LSI: 1

Extroverted Female with Introverted Male

 

SEE-ILI: 6.5
ILE-SEI: 7.5
LIE-ESI: 7
SLE-IEI: 6
LSE-EII: 6.5
ESE-LII: 6.5
EIE-LSI: 8
IEE-SLI: 8.5

 

EIE-IEI: 5.5
SLE-LSI: 6
ILE-LII: 7
ESE-SEI: 5.5
LIE-ILI: 5.5
SEE-ESI: 6.5
LSE-SLI: 6
IEE-EII: 7

 

ILE-IEI: 7.5
ESE-EII: 7
SLE-SEI: 5.5
EIE-ESI: 7.5
LIE-LSI: 7
SEE-SLI: 7.5
LSE-LII: 5.5
IEE-ILI: 7.5

 

ILE-SLI: 7
ESE-LSI: 7.5
SLE-ILI: 6
EIE-LII: 7
LIE-EII: 7
SEE-IEI: 6.5
LSE-ESI: 7.5
IEE-SEI: 6.5

 

ILE-EII: 4
ILE-LSI: 4
ESE-SLI: 4.5
ESE-IEI: 3.5
SLE-ESI: 4.5
SLE-LII: 3
EIE-SEI: 4
EIE-ILI: 4.5
LIE-IEI: 3
LIE-SLI: 4.5
SEE-LSI: 4.5
SEE-EII: 3.5
LSE-ILI: 3
LSE-SEI: 3.5
IEE-ESI: 4.5
IEE-LII: 4

 

ESE-ESI: 3
ILE-ILI: 2
SLE-SLI: 2
EIE-EII: 3
LIE-LII: 2.5
SEE-SEI: 3
LSE-LSI: 3.5
IEE-IEI: 3.5

 

ILE-ESI: 0
ESE-ILI: 0.5
SLE-EII: 0
EIE-SLI: 1
LIE-SEI: 0
SEE-LII: 0.5
LSE-IEI: 0
IEE-LSI: 2

Introvert with Introvert

 

IEI-IEI: 8
LSI-LSI: 5.5
ESI-ESI: 9
ILI-ILI: 5.5
SEI-SEI: 7.5
LII-LII: 7.5
EII-EII: 8
SLI-SLI: 6

 

LSI(m)-IEI(f): 7.5
LSI(f)-IEI(m): 6.5
LII(m)-SEI(f): 7.5
LII(f)-SEI(m): 6.5
ILI(m)-ESI(f): 8
ILI(f)-ESI(m): 7.5
SLI(m)-EII(f): 8.5
SLI(f)-EII(m): 6.5

 

LII(m)-LSI(f): 4.5
LII(f)-LSI(m): 5
SEI(f)-SLI(m): 6.5
SEI(m)-SLI(f): 5.5
IEI(f)-ILI(m): 6.5
IEI(m)-ILI(f): 6
ESI(f)-EII(m): 6
ESI(m)-EII(f): 5.5

 

SEI(m)-IEI(f): 6
SEI(f)-IEI(m): 5.5
LII(m)-EII(f): 6
LII(f)-EII(m): 5.5
LSI(m)-ESI(f): 7.5
LSI(f)-ESI(m): 6
SLI(m)-ILI(f): 6.5
SLI(f)-ILI(m): 6

 

LII(m)-IEI(f): 6
LII(f)-IEI(m): 5.5
LII(m)-SLI(f): 5
LII(f)-SLI(m): 5.5
IEI(f)-ESI(m): 5.5
IEI(m)-ESI(f): 5.5
ESI(f)-SLI(m): 5.5
ESI(m)-SLI(f): 6
SEI(f)-EII(m): 5.5
SEI(m)-EII(f): 5.5
EII(f)-ILI(m): 5.5
EII(m)-ILI(f): 5.5
LSI(f)-SEI(m): 5
LSI(m)-SEI(f): 6.5
LSI(m)-ILI(f): 5.5
LSI(f)-ILI(m): 5.5

 

SEI(f)-ILI(m): 1.5
SEI(m)-ILI(f): 1.5
LII(m)-ESI(f): 3
LII(f)-ESI(m): 2
IEI(f)-SLI(m): 3
IEI(m)-SLI(f): 1.5
LSI(m)-EII(f): 3
LSI(f)-EII(m): 1.5

 

SEI(f)-ESI(m): 2
SEI(m)-ESI(f): 1.5
LII(m)-ILI(f): 1.5
LII(f)-ILI(m): 1
IEI(m)-EII(f): 2
IEI(f)-EII(m): 1.5
LSI(f)-SLI(m): 1
LSI(m)-SLI(f): 2

Extrovert with Extrovert

 

EIE-EIE: 6.5
SLE-SLE: 8.5
ILE-ILE: 6.5
ESE-ESE: 8
LIE-LIE: 5.5
SEE-SEE: 5.5
LSE-LSE: 5
IEE-IEE: 6.5

 

ILE(m)-ESE(f): 7
ILE(f)-ESE(m): 6.5
SLE(m)-EIE(f): 7.5
SLE(f)-EIE(m): 6.5
LIE(m)-SEE(f): 6
LIE(f)-SEE(m): 5.5
LSE(m)-IEE(f): 6
LSE(f)-IEE(m): 6

 

ILE(m)-IEE(f): 5.5
ILE(f)-IEE(m): 5.5
ESE(m)-EIE(f): 5.5
ESE(f)-EIE(m): 5.5
SLE(m)-SEE(f): 6
SLE(f)-SEE(m): 5.5
LIE(m)-LSE(f): 4.5
LIE(f)-LSE(m): 4.5

 

ESE(f)-LSE(m): 7
ESE(m)-LSE(f): 5
ILE(m)-SLE(f): 6.5
ILE(f)-SLE(m): 5
EIE(f)-LIE(m): 6.5
EIE(m)-LIE(f): 6
IEE(m)-SEE(f): 6
IEE(f)-SEE(m): 6

 

ESE(f)-SLE(m): 5.5
ESE(m)-SLE(f): 5.5
SLE(m)-LIE(f): 5.5
SLE(f)-LIE(m): 5.5
LIE(m)-IEE(f): 5.5
LIE(f)-IEE(m): 5
IEE(f)-ESE(m): 5.5
IEE(m)-ESE(f): 5.5
LSE(m)-SEE(f): 5
LSE(f)-SEE(m): 4.5
SEE(f)-EIE(m): 5
SEE(m)-EIE(f): 5.5
EIE(f)-ILE(m): 5.5
EIE(m)-ILE(f): 5.5
ILE(m)-LSE(f): 5.5
ILE(f)-LSE(m): 4.5

 

ESE(f)-LIE(m): 2.5
ESE(m)-LIE(f): 1.5
ILE(m)-SEE(f): 3
ILE(f)-SEE(m): 2
SLE(f)-IEE(m): 2
SLE(m)-IEE(f): 3
EIE(m)-LSE(f): 1.5
EIE(f)-LSE(m): 3

 

ILE(f)-LIE(m): 1
ILE(m)-LIE(f): 1.5
ESE(m)-SEE(f): 1.5
ESE(f)-SEE(m): 1.5
SLE(f)-LSE(m): 1
SLE(m)-LSE(f): 1
EIE(m)-IEE(f): 2
EIE(f)-IEE(m): 2

---

The highest ranking relationships: SEE(m)-ILI(f), SLE(m)-IEI(f), ILE(m)-SEI(f), ESI-ESI
The lowest ranking relationships: SLE(f)-EII(m), LSE(f)-IEI(m), LIE(f)-SEI(m), ILE(f)-ESI(m)

This overview does not claim that every highest ranking relationship will be great; of course both individuals need to be attracted to each other and compatible on other levels beyond Socionics in order to have a great relationship. But all else equal, those matches tend to be the most satisfactory for the people involved and the most satisfied in comparison to the other ITR matches on average (in modern Western society).

The lowest rating I've found amongst long-term (married) couples was 4.5.

[Attis]

I've created a blog post with my extensive ratings here.

Interesting that you rate ILIm/IEEf as having greater romantic satisfaction than ILIm/SEEf. Also, the greatest rating that an ILIm can get is 8 with an ESIf, yet the ESI would be better off at 9 just going with another ESI. If this is accurate, this is fascinating information to take into consideration.

[uncivilized]

I'm not really sure which type I am, but I'm fairly certain I had a relationship with my activator which I'd rank a 9. SLI-EII is a possibility.

[Rebelondeck]

Romance is usually fleeting; it revolves around libidos and or mutual curiosity. The way one satisfies curiosity is likely type related but once satisfied it's gone. Perhaps some will remain curious about their partners for their lifetimes but I doubt that; the average romance period would likely be in the order of weeks. Assigning romance potential to intertype relations would be akin to detecting patterns from white noise. Most people are initially attracted by like-minded people with similar interests and or a looker so how long would romance last - well, that depends. I charted strength of long-term relationships based on need (certainly not romance), but success is conditional upon so many other factors (education? socio-economic? political? intellect? looks? sexual orientation? religious? etc.?) that such academic exercises offer little in practical application.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/thestrength.html

a.k.a. I/O

[Pastel]

I'm not really sure which type I am, but I'm fairly certain I had a relationship with my activator which I'd rank a 9. SLI-EII is a possibility.

Heya! Do you mind giving more details on why you'd rank the activation relationship a 9, if it's okay for you to do so?

[Sol]

duals - 10
activators - 7.5
semiduals - 7
the rest <5

I'll notice that it's for long and close relations with friendship like marriages, not for "light" variants when people "just spend time".

[Aylen]

Since I have not been romantically involved with all 16 types I cannot rank them. Not that I would rank people I have been romantically involved with. I can compare but rank seems a strange thing to do to people you were close enough to, to understand and possibly both like and love. I suppose it makes sense that a logical type would see more merit in this when it comes to romance . lol @myself for that last remark.

Rating other people's intertype relationships just seems like a lot of projection since you are only observing what people allow you to see so you use your strongest beliefs to fill in the blanks. I can pretty much guarantee that couples act differently around acquaintances, friends, family, and even close immediate family than they do alone. Like the type of parents that never let the kids see them fight so it is a shock when they divorce. Plus I can't see this giving an accurate picture considering the way people type based on how much they relate to someone or other subjective factors, like the length of their neck or their side profile.

Socionics already predicts these relationships so if you completely believe in it then your rankings should follow theory which shows how much you rely on the theory and not real people.

[Kiba]

@Aylen I was about to troll this thread because of the same reasons you listed... But now I dont need to, so thank you Jiminy Cricket.

But I don't think its interest of logical types, its more rational to me (j/p).

[Simo]

I suppose it makes sense that a logical type would see more merit in this when it comes to romance . lol @myself for that last remark.

ranking relationships would have merit if you rank the romantic relations you actually had (given that there is a way to confirm your & your partner's types)
if you can get those rankings from big & diverse enough sample then you can see how people actually feel about each IR & then use that info to either confirm or revise the theory

[Sol]

Rating other people's intertype relationships just seems like a lot of projection

You may decide how it would be good to have romantic relations with people of some IR even without experience of it, but having experience of other type of communications with that IR. "romantic relations" have mainly "to be friends" component from IR, it's not what is not available outside of them.

> since you are only observing what people allow you to see

what they do, including what they have no wish or possibility to hide. what means this can be common for that IR if fits to theory

> I can pretty much guarantee that couples act differently around acquaintances, friends, family

If to take marriages with known IR, - it would be enough to know about their relations in family for our context.
Also psychic state - how much a man looks happy and stable is universal trait.
If someone looks depressive in conflict IR marriage in 1st year of it, if you know the wife regularly goes away from the home "to guest" at parrent house. If you know other couple with that IR having regular quarrels, adultery, alcoholism at man and nervousness of woman. You may understand - it's not good IR for long romantic relations, not only for marriage.
If you know a couple typed to duals, which goes together in shops in their 70s, looks as having harmonious friendship and never was known to have significant conflictes - this seems to be good IR indeed.
If you know several couples of semi-duals with "not bad" relations, - stable and without BIG problems, - that are "not bad" relations indeed.

> Plus I can't see this giving an accurate picture considering the way people type based on how much they relate to someone or other subjective factors, like the length of their neck or their side profile.

everything in your perception is subjective, what does not mean it can't be objective meanwhile
for example, if you feel you have similarity with someone in something - this may be objective indeed

> Socionics already predicts these relationships so if you completely believe in it then your rankings should follow theory which shows how much you rely on the theory and not real people.

There is no basis to think that people who answered had no direct or close experience of what is discussed.
You may "completely believe" in something if you have experience which fits to that general IR theory good. Like me, for example.
You may remember communications with people of different types, including romantic ones. Also impressions from people of different types in videos, which can be close for IRL communication if you checked several examples and clips per example.