Which is a better match in duality, same subtype pairing or different subtype? For example, LIE-Ni goes better with ESI-Fi or with ESI-Se? Why?
And in Activity (i.e. LIE-Ni with SEE-Se or SEE-Fi)?
Subtype matching or not in duality and activity
Which is a better match in duality, same subtype pairing or different subtype? For example, LIE-Ni goes better with ESI-Fi or with ESI-Se? Why?
And in Activity (i.e. LIE-Ni with SEE-Se or SEE-Fi)?
LIE-Ni with ESI-Se, always the same emphasis needed. Esp when otherwise, you have a rational with an irrational subtype which messes with the function dynamics.
Activity can mimick duality, then you have LIE-Ni with SEE-Fi at best to get along. When both creatives are at work the suggestives are just fine. Though it also means you have an effect similar to business relations since the demonstrative functions are so strong in the contact subtypes.
well the contact/inert subtype system operates on the premise of accented perception suppressing its opposite form, so Ne IEE subtype is less attentive to sensing aspects and more attentive to thinking aspects, whereas the Fi type would be the opposite. the conclusions they draw is that you actually want differing (creative/base) subtypes, so as to maximize information transfer, so the increased bandwidth is made use of. in other words, Ne subtype IEE wants to be with Te subtype SLI since they both will have increased bandwidth across thinking and intuitive channels.
I prefer gulenkos DCNH system but from my experience Meged and Ocharav are right, you see this a lot in academia where Te SLI is more common and they really want to discuss intellectual topics and want Ne and neither party needs a crazy amount of Fi or sensing etc, although of course its still there, they're just relatively attenuated, they're both "nerds" so to speak
possibly It depends on what subtype system, but chae is wrong about emphasizing the same subtype across board (2x creative or 2x base, etc) (Gulenko's subtype complimentariness revolves around group roles people take, which is a different take on things, which may actually come out to same (2x creative/base) subtypes being more complimentary, but its more about DCNH roles that any consistent crossover to creative/base subtyping systems)
I think the general opinion is that LIE-Te & ESI-Fi, and LIE-Ni & ESI-Se are better matches than combinations with the opposite sub-types. I have read differing opinions, though. Something about enhanced Te being too incompatible with enhanced Fi, IIRC.Originally Posted by lavos
What I've read so far is that the relations stated above are best for long-term, productive collaboration, and the opposite matches (LIE-Te & ESI-Se) are better for sex.
I have very limited experience in this area myself. I've spend some time with a couple of ESI-Fi's and a couple of ESI-Se's (platonically), and I can say that I (LIE-Te) am sexually attracted to the ESI-Se's that I've met IRL, but they seem fairly flighty. I find the ESI-Fi's to be much more like nesters. It's like pitting a showgirl against a brown hen. The brown hen might be better in the long run, but the showgirl is the one I notice.
I can make inferences about the LIE-ESI sub-type compatibilities by comparing them to the ILI-SEE duality. As an LIE yourself, think of what an SEE is like compared to an ESI. The SEE is much more outgoing, more e7-like, less stable, higher maintenance, etc, as her Se rises over what an ESI has. Conversely, think of what an ILI is like compared to an LIE. The ILI is more stoic, more subdued, more rational, less impulsive, more stabilizing. These ILI characteristics counterbalance the SEE's characteristics. So, It seems to me that a woman with more Se (an ESI-Se or an SEE) needs a guy with more Ni (an LIE-Ni or an ILI).
However, we like what we like. Personally, sex is important to me (but so is stability) and I find ESI-Se's to be sexier, if slightly unstable. Who knows, I might be attracted to the instability.
From a DCNH perspective:
It doesn't matter what the relationship is. Subtype match is always the same. So also for duality it has to be either D+N or C+H.
If you really are a Creative then you need a Harmonizer regardless of the socionics relationships. But I also see some D+C so that might function sometimes.
If you use 2 subtypes there is a risk that you are not gonna get the desired precision for a realistic match.
I have dated duals of the "wrong" subtypes and there is clearly some basic flaw in such a relationship. DCNH is imo the basis of any stable relationship.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
General rule is that contact is better matched with contact, and inert goes with inert (so creative+creative and leading+leading).
Contact and inert subtype have somewhat different needs in duality relationships, which only the same subtype can provide for them.
Contact subtypes start from a position of being hyperactive. As name implies, they make a lot of "contacts" with their environment. They need a partner is equally as responsive in a conversation and who will also stabilize them and calm them down. This is what happens when they meet their dual, whose contact functions fall directly on their own inert functions having a stabilizing effect and slowly filling their weakened inert functions which balances them out.
Inert subtypes start from a position of being inert and kind of sluggish/in their own head. They need is a partner who will 'speed them up' and incite them to come out and integrate information from their environment. This is what happens when they meet their dual of inert subtype whose hyperfocus on leading and activating functions begins to 'coax out' the creative and suggestive functions in them.
When contact and inert subtypes get together, this effect is lost. Mismatching creative/contact and inert/leading subtypes is thus not as complimentary and does not feel as fulfilling in relationships.
The contact/creative subtype may find their inert partner to be kind of boring and unresponsive, while the inert person might find the contact person to be irritating, talking without much substance to their words. There is also an overload on one set of information elements in these pairs, which creates disbalance in both shared info and on rationality-irrationality dichotomy, creating a sense of discomfort. For example I've heard SLI-Sis say that IEE-Fis are too 'pressuring' and 'exacting' for them, since between them there is a excess of rational element Fi. This eventually makes the SLI-Si want to slip away and distance. The SLI-Si needs an equally 'irrational' partner who appreciates same levels of freedom in a relationship, which they meet in the matching irrational subtype IEE-Ne.
Subtypes ideally match, no matter what the specific ITR is.
Simply because preferred and emphasized IEs go better with each other.
LIE-Ni would hence be best with anyone whose subtype is either Se or Ni.
Aka ESI-Se and SEE-Se.
(And ILI-Ni, LIE-Ni, LSI-Se, EIE-Ni.*)
Now in real life, LIE and SEE is a rather uncommon pairing, no matter the subtypes. They are just too stubborn and keep fighting for the upper hand in the relationship. Generally, Gamma Extroverts do much better with introverted partners, afaik.
* Technically also IEI-Ni and SLE-Se, but the ITRs worsen the interaction. I wouldn't recommend those matches for romance.
There are, of course, other factors which affect compatibility. In addition to the psychological factors of sub-type and instinct stacking and enneagram matching, there are the social factors of intelligence levels, social class, physical attraction, and Imago.
There are also the many unique factors which make you, you, and which dictate your preferences in a partner.
Personally, I've been wondering why I'm preferentially attracted to ESI-Se's over ESI-Fi's, and I think it has to do with my being e8w7 and ready to go anywhere and to fight at the drop of a hat. (Although I spend a lot of effort in suppressing that latter trait in order to get what I want long-term.) (https://i.imgur.com/UjAfL5X.jpg) ESI-Fi's say nothing but one day you wake up and find that they've made you "theirs" without a word having been spoken. Conversely, A slightly flighty and hard-to-pin-down ESI-Se 6w7 I know recently said "I need to know that I'm worth fighting for" and I, as an e8, have no problem with showing her that she is worth fighting for.
I know an LIE-Ni IRL. I like him, he's really smart and gets the job done with only a bit of complaining that he needs someone to help him and how can this thing ever work, there are so many problems, etc. I recently asked him if he (who told me he really wants kids but his wife does not) has been able to resolve the "kids issue" with his wife. He said, "Eh, it will be what it will be.", which sounds to me like he's given up without a fight.
When my ex-wife told me she didn't want kids, I told her that I did and I planned to have them, and I also hoped that they would be with her. She got pregnant that month. (It might seem like I was being an asshole, but it worked out. She told me that our son is the best thing that ever happened to her.)
So perhaps my willingness to fight for what I really want is an initial attractor to ESI-Se's which will lead to disaster later. IDK. I'm still exploring the territory.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 01-28-2018 at 04:01 PM.
a lot gets muddied in translation, but basically opposite subtypes are considered "complimentary" which implies "better" but its not; rather most harmony comes from identical subtypes (contact/inert) because "complimentary" types accentuate conflicting information channels: logic/ethics, intuition/sensing; in other words, they're more like two ships in the night--likely to emphasize different information aspects which is really all conflict is--what you clamp I expand and vice versa. nevertheless there are some advantages to this, and of course people can make it work, but this identical subtype = best is flat out wrong from the point of view of contact/inertRelatively incompatible (antagonistic) subtypes with reinforcing the opposite elements of information metabolism: logic and ethics, sensory and intuition. This does not mean that such people can not get along with each other. Here everything depends on intertype relations, but at the information level it will be more difficult for them to understand each other than to previous partners. But at the emotional level, with favorable intertype relationships, they can feel more comfortable than in discussions and general occupations.
Representatives of the same subtypes - in some respects there may be compatibility, but in others - not in everything. Here a lot depends on what exactly these subtypes are and in what exactly they interact.
Supplement each other in the work of such subtypes:
1. Intuitive subtype is combined:
a) with an ethical subtype
b) with a logical subtype
2. The touch subtype is combined
a) with an ethical subtype
b) with a logical subtype
3. The logical subtype is combined:
a) with an intuitive subtype
b) with a sensory subtype
4. The ethical subtype is combined:
a) with an intuitive subtype
b) with a sensory subtype
Representatives of intuitive subtypes unite with some subtype ethics some idealism and the desire to change the world for the better, and with the logic (at the level of subtypes) - the relative ability to abstract thinking and the analysis of various phenomena. Subtype sensorics with subtype ethics brings together interest in the specific problems of each other, caring about the comforts of people, and with the subtype logic - the clarity and clarity of the goals and the effectiveness of methods to achieve them.
Despite the difference of all these subtypes, they can find a way to mutual understanding if they learn to use more that which unites them, rather than concentrate on the opposite qualities of each other. It is more difficult, but it is possible to adapt to the opposite subtypes.
Opposite subtypes:
1. The logical subtype is the opposite of the ethical;
2. The intuitive subtype is the opposite of sensory.
There is a law of unity and struggle of opposites. If we apply it to socionics, then the most striking example of the unity of opposites are dual pairs. Even if the subtypes do not coincide, they complement each other quite well, although the commonality of interests, mutual understanding and harmony in the relationship will nevertheless be the best for the coinciding (relatively identical), rather than complementary, subtypes.
The struggle of opposites, of course, will be more pronounced in conflict pairs and, especially, when their subtypes do not coincide. This does not mean that such cases are hopeless, but they will require more efforts for mutual adjustment.
The degree of compatibility of the same subtypes, as, indeed, any other, may depend on various factors. In particular, not only from their intertype relations, but also from the accents of type, temperaments, psychoforms, and also various individual characteristics that may be outside the typology.
Knowing your degree of compatibility with a partner on a subtype level, it is easy to foresee some of the possible causes of disagreements that may occur in the opposite subtypes. Consider them.
1. Logical and ethical subtypes can most acutely perceive their dissimilarity, which at times engenders antagonism. After all, this is a conflict between the thinking and feeling types of the person, the more intensified with the additional, subtype manifestation of these qualities in them. In this case, ethics will suffer from the coldness of logic and from its uncompromising relations and decisions. A logician will experience emotional discomfort because of excessive emotionality, resentment and unreasonable, from his point of view, claims of ethics. A compromise is possible if everyone takes a step forward to accept the other as he is and will try to answer his requests a little.
2. Sensory and intuitivesubtypes will have disagreements for other reasons. This is a realist conflict with the idealist. Specifically, a thinking, practical and impatient sensory, the intuitive type may seem to be an abstract loafer or gang. Intuition will suffer from the grounding and meticulousness of the sensorics, its inability to capture the essence of what has been said or what is happening with a hint. On the other hand, when an intuition starts to explain something, it makes it so vague and difficult to understand sensorics that the person does not have enough patience to try to understand or understand this, especially since he is not capable of associative-imaginative thinking. As a result, both feel that their interests are just as different as the way they think. They will be able to achieve greater harmony in the relationship only if they correctly distribute the duties and will not require the impossible from each other.
source: http://ru.laser.ru/authors/meged_ovcharov/85.htm
^ what I don't understand about that, even if real socionists support the notion - is why write the subtype descriptions to make it sound like compatible subtypes (Fi-Te and Si-Ne, in the case of SLI-IEE) are better suited for each other, if the opposite is actually true? both IEE-Ne and SLI-Te are unsure of their feelings, whereas IEE-Fi is enticed by someone who's emotionally reticent, which I always pegged to be SLI-Te, because it gives them the freedom to be the "leader" in relations, in contrast with SLI-Si who are less enticed by direct and/or aggressive romantic approaches, which isn't IEE-Fi per se, but they naturally operate on a shorter psychological distance, whereas IEE-Ne would be less direct and/or aggressive as a rule. in the case of IEE-Ne, they "bloom" next to a sensual and attentive partner (which seems more characteristically SLI-Si than SLI-Te, because the description sounds like someone with a preference for Si over Te) whereas in the case of IEE-Fi, they thrive with a partner who's more energetic (which I took to mean "contact") with strong business acumen and the like, which seemed like SLI-Te because there's less focus on sensuality and more focus on Te-buzzwords. I could draw comparisons all day but the point is that whenever I read the subtype descriptions, I kept thinking it was obvious they were playing an angle, like "yeah yeah I get it, you just emphasized SLI-Si traits in the IEE-Ne sexual section, and you emphasized IEE-Ne traits in the SLI-Si romantic section"
I'm not saying the above theory is wrong because I understand how they came to that conclusion - it's their theory after all - but it contradicts what's actually written in the subtype descriptions, and I can't really makes sense of that disparity, because it always made sense to me that you'd need someone whose strengths/weaknesses are the anti-thesis to your own. stronger Te can mean there's less emphasis on Fi, but I thought it mean something more like, "they put less emphasis on Fi, therefore they need a partner who places more emphasis on Fi for balance." (for SLI-Te and IEE-Fi)
so in that sense I assumed that contact/inert duality combos would result in a bond that's more akin to activity relations than duality relations
i think two people being unsure of their feelings kind of goes to the overarching IEE SLI dynamic which is a kind of ongoing irrational chase that keeps things interesting. in a sense your entire point as to why you find it to be contradictory is a projection of a relational dynamic you assume "makes sense" and then draw certain conclusions about it all when its like: its supposed to be irrational. my point is that your conclusion on the basis of certain descriptions making "more sense" if they did it x way instead of y as purported by the theory is an imposed assumption. I would just take it for what it is, especially since meged and ovcharov are IEE/SLI themselves. every behavioral description in socionics suffers from this problem, the problem of language and outer behavior meaning different things to different people. you have to penetrate to the psychological perspective which subsumes values and re centers it around the dyad in question rather than try to judge it from a central perspective (only gulenko does a good job of de-loading this in objective language as far as I can tell). gulenko himself realizes the need to craft a system that is not subject to projections rooted in language and outer behavior so it doesn't just become more talking past one another by imposing our own meaning on the descriptions. otherwise you just get endlesss bickering over the "image" of types etc, you see this a lot around here, there's even a pinterest going around that takes up this game, but all that is a lost cause
Depends if you want understanding(opposing Px-Jx match) or chemistry(similar[P-P/J-J] Match.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
fair enough, I'd still put their own understanding above my own, but it seemed like relations with different subtypes would resemble activity (even if it's still duality at the core) which would make them easier to establish, but they wouldn't exactly cover for each other's weaknesses like same-subtype duality might, because even in the example you outlined on the previous page with IEE-Ne and SLI-Te being somewhat like "nerds" in the academic world:
^ that's built on Ne-Te synergy (information exchange which triggers their respective leading/mobilizing functions) which makes it sound more like activity relations than duality relations, which then makes it sound like activity > duality due to the higher potentiality for quality information exchange, but their Fi/Si channels are practically abysmal now. neither of them are giving or receiving enough Si/Fi feedback, so shouldn't the fact that IEE-Ne places MORE emphasis on Ne-Te mean that they're searching for a counterpart who places MORE emphasis on Fi-Si (since they don't exactly struggle with Te in the same way that IEE-Fi might struggle with Te) so they're more likely to search (unconsciously) for somebody who places a higher emphasis on Si? like IEE-Ne might find an intellectual counterpart in the SLI-Te and vice versa, but neither is accounting for the Si/Fi channels, which is still there but it's relatively depraved in comparison to how their same-subtype duals might account for those channels, which defeats the purpose of duality which is ultimately about balance, but you can't have balance if they're just like "yeah we got all the Ne and Te in the world here, but uh... eh nvm who needs Fi and Si anyway?"Ne IEE subtype is less attentive to sensing aspects and more attentive to thinking aspects, whereas the Fi type would be the opposite. the conclusions they draw is that you actually want differing (creative/base) subtypes, so as to maximize information transfer, so the increased bandwidth is made use of. in other words, Ne subtype IEE wants to be with Te subtype SLI since they both will have increased bandwidth across thinking and intuitive channels.
something about it seems off to me because why would IEE-Ne not want more Si to counterbalance their complete and utter lack of Si; with that said, why would they seek more Te when they have a decent handle on Te to begin with, which comes at the direct expense of Fi and Si? how is that duality (aka they're not strengthening their weak functions, their weak functions are still weak, but it's cool because now their strong functions are stronger)
its not really about strengthening things in terms of covering more territory, if that were the case conflict would be the best for everyone, rather its about accentuating the same channels, i.e.: caring about the same forms of information. also activity would be strengthening different channels, differing subtypes track eachother just shift the entire dyad, whereas same subtype would actually pull them apart
gulenko's theory does complimentariness in terms of covering more territory better, imo but its totally different. honestly the base/creative or contact/inert systems only apply to a subset of people and are kind of general so there's only so much to be done with them (in other words, most people I don't think fit neatly into such a dichotomy)
This calculator also follows the principle that the same or complementary IEs (e.g Ni+Ni subtype, or Ni+Se subtype) are the best matches.
I also used to wonder about the conflicting information on the subtype theory, and I came to the conclusion I mentioned earlier.
When you look at the IEs from a 'valuing' and complimentary perspective, it simply makes the most sense.
The subtype of a person emphasizes which information elements they both value more and the complement they require more.
The Ni subtype makes the individual value that particular IE and its complement Se more. So naturally, the individual will get along better with people who share Ni and Se valuing, especially those who are also either Ni or Se subtype. An LIE-Ni will naturally get along better with Betas > Deltas for that reason. An LIE-Ni also has more 'need' for help regarding Se. (That's also why I used to say that Se can become the "secondary DS" of an LIE-Ni with a strong subtype.) Hence an ESI-Se would be of much more help than an ESI-Fi.
Depending on how strong the subtypes are, ESI-Fi can actually be a worse typological match than SEE-Se for the LIE-Ni. The ESI-Fi individual has weakened Se and boosted Fi and Ni. The same applies to the LIE-Ni individual. In that manner, they cannot help each other as well. The complement isn't perfect. Also, the ESI-2Fi values Fi much more than the LIE-2Ni. The ESI-2Fi will get along better with Deltas, whereas the LIE-2Ni will get along better with Betas. Duals are being drawn into opposite directions. Same applies to SEE-Se vs SEE-Fi. One would think that the SEE-Fi is a better match for LIE-Ni because they have boosted Fi and LIEs are Fi seeking. But the LIE-Ni doesn't even care as much for Fi. The same 'channels' of SEE-Fi and LIE-Ni are weakened and create a loophole of weakness, with the added downside of one person valuing Fi more and the other valuing Ni more, which in a sense is a values mismatch. Furthermore, Ni vs Fi subtype can repel each other (Pi vs Ji emphasis), and that can show up in Duality as well.
So all in all, Se or Ni subtype individuals are better for LIE-Ni. Both them and the LIE-Ni get along better because of the same boosted valuing, and they can help and complement each other much better (in case of LIE-Ni with an Se subtype individual).
Btw @Adam Strange, I have been thinking for quite a while you are either No subtype or Ni subtype. Based on your behaviour and your stories.
Caution: This could be a thread derail.
@Olimpia, What makes you think that? I usually get accused of having no insight and too much Te. Certainly, the IEI's I know IRL seems to recoil from my Te, and my ex-wife is an SLI-Te, as are my son and father. I get along with them better than I do SLI-Si's, who seem like aliens to me. My mother is LSE on the Te side. With respect to your post above, I like EII's much better than I do SEE's, and finally there is this:
Adam's Extended Socionics test results - pg 2 of 2.jpg
I will admit, I do the "multiple branches of possible future realities" all the time. It is kind of my life, but I assume from observation and inference that other LIE's and certainly ILI's and IEI's do it better. I'm better on follow-through, though.
I could attribute my attraction to ESI-Se's to the better builds (over the ESI-Fi's) that the ones I know have, or I could assume that what I'm doing is going for the more familiar; the type with enhanced Se. I've seen many types go for someone similar over a dual, especially when they are first dating. Certainly, my marriage was fairly cool and exposure to an LSI showed me the importance of sexual attraction. I also had a great friend in HS who was ESI-Se, and that could be influencing my choices.
There are lots of possible reasons why I might find ESI-Se's attractive, but my being an LIE-Ni doesn't seem like one of them.
*EDIT*
I was looking at my chart above and noticed the crazily enhanced Se I have over most LIE's. All I can say about that is my mother was a violent narcissist who tried to mentally erase the person I am and replace me with her. In a situation like that, in order to survive, you place everything you have on the line or you go under.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 01-29-2018 at 01:47 PM.
There are no subtypes. Or they are not important as you described them here as there are more significant factors.
Some relatives of mine are an IEE-Fi - LSI-Se couple. He is is D, and she is N. They're a very unhappy marriage. I think the original inter-type matters more than DCNH, but you are spot on on that most couples are complementary DCNH pairs.
would agree. I've interacted with several LIE-Tes online and they have this kind of blitzkrieg effect that is not present with Adam. They need that calm stability of an ESI-Fi, which coincidentally is the same thing that makes ESI-Fis appear unspectacular to LIE-Nis.
I've tested as both SLE and LSE on that test. While online tests can in most cases point towards the general direction, they don't have the kind of precision needed to determine subtype. There is also the question of enneagram type as some of the more extraverted types like 8 or 7 may boost the extraversion score.
Their Conflict relations are the main cause of their unhappy marriage.
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
oh yes, of course. You can't fix a bad socionics combination with DCNH. But it's still a major component in compatibility. And I think sometimes people get seduced into bad relationships if they happen to have a good DCNH and Enneagram match.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Thanks, @Olimpia and @silke. This is food for thought.
Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed at the thought of my having so much Te and so little Ni, so your saying that I could actually be closer to a normal LIE is kind of affirming. I actually want more Ni, because I sometimes feel that I can't see future possibilities as well as I'd like to. I think that is the basis of my (professional) attraction to the many IEI's and ILI's whom I know IRL.
This is causing me to re-evaluate a web of ITR's in my life. I'm now wondering if I have the definitions of LIE-Te and LIE-Ni wrong from a functional, observable standpoint. It seems unlikely, but it is certainly possible.
I've also been thinking about the "blitzkrieg" effect that you mention as a characteristic of LIE-Te's. I've seen this myself in a friend of mine, and I think it hurts his financials. His first response to opposition is to go straight to offensive asshole mode and it pisses people off. I've seen him do this many, many times. Let me say, I do this, too, but I do my best to hide that fact. I mean, my first reaction to opposition is to attack. It takes no time at all.
However, I grew up in what seemed to me to be a concentration camp (not to make less of the people who actually did grow up in concentration camps) where I was there to serve the master until I was no longer useful, at which point I would be disposed of. This was very real to me. There was no love there, and I was faced with living under an unbeatable, hostile force that was violent and which gave me no doubt that killing children was something they could to without any qualms or remorse.
I think this taught me to hide my feelings and to guard my reactions, because showing how I actually felt was seriously not safe. Instead, I would set my feelings aside and bide my time and gather my resources for the time when I could present them with an overwhelming force. In the meantime, I'd appear to collaborate but I would not give in. Giving in meant psychic death.
One of the most vivid memories of my childhood was when I got to be about twelve, my mother raised her hand to hit me in the face (something she'd been doing all my life - she broke the cheekbone of one of my younger sisters doing this to her) and I was finally strong enough to grab her arm and hold it above her head and say, "You're not going to hit me any more."
Look, I'm a realist. I know that blitzkriegs can be effective. Force is effective. I can do force. But I also know that it is better to conquer an enemy by making them a friend. It is much, much harder to convince a person of your mutual interests than it is to beat the crap out of them, but the payoff is much greater. And so I suppress that blitzkreig reaction. Learning to do that has paid off pretty well for me, just as not learning it has caused my LIE friend to leave money on the table. But believe me, I have that blitzkrieg reaction. Oh, yes.
Regarding the calm stability of ESI-Fi's which causes them to appear unspectacular, I've noticed that and I think it is a great observation. I am attracted to that somewhat. I'd be forming a partnership with the EII-Fi that I work with if our sexual appetites were aligned. It's just that I find the ESI-Se's more sexually appealing.
But I have to say, the jury is still out on which sub-type I would actually prefer to live with. I find the ESI-Se's sexy and hard to pin down and the ESI-Fi's easy to pin down and unexciting. Clearly, more information and more experimentation is needed here.
In any case, I'd be very interested to know what other factors make you think I have more normal Ni or less Te than I think I do. I'd feel slightly less like a freak or a blockhead, I think, if I thought I were a more mainline LIE. (I have great respect for both of your opinions, but you probably already know that.)
@Adam Strange, this one gives you your subtype and its strength http://www.sociotype.com/tests/
Thanks, @Crystal. That test consistently gives me LIE-Te.
I think for work It is best to have an opposite subtype while for personal relations its best to have a matching subtype.
A lie-te plus see-se can be sledgehammers. A lie-ni plus see-fi can politically get out of truly complicated situations.
But many people have no subtype.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes. It's called Advanced Duality. Advanced duality is an exclusive find by Socionics New Wave. (Of course, the credit really begins with the pioneers of subtypes and dualization. My find is additive.)
Note that for each socionics type on my socionics type list one subtype has a positive charge and the other subtype has a negative charge. So as to avoid confusion with the positive/negative dichotomy in reinin, just call it a light/dark split (or +/-).
Let's take SLE and IEI, both duals. SLE-Ti is the negatively charged subtype and SLE-Se is the positively charged SLE subtype. IEI-Fe is the positively charged IEI subtype and IEI-Ni is the negatively charged IEI subtype. It's best to match up with your oppositely charged dual, though it may be much funner for a - (minus) subtype to hook up with another - (minus) subtype.
But for long term, SLE-Ti dualizes better with IEI-Fe, and SLE-Se dualizes better with IEI-Ni.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 02-01-2018 at 04:34 PM.
Would you say C-IEEs are IEE-Fi or IEE-Ne?
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Functionally extraverted function in extraverts makes person more dominating or stabilizing (D and N). Introverted emphasis increases instability and adaptability (C and H) and this is reversed in introverts.
However, if you want to put emphasis on subtypes based on rationality and irrationality it is not the same.
And then there is contact and inert subtypes which might use same two functional notation system.
In essence: two subtype system is a notational mess.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I prefer IEE-Fi and I am apparently SLI-Si, so may be a base subtype prefers the creative subtype.
Fi subtype is better for establishing bonds, Ne subtype or just no subtype are good for fun and entertainment, they're often always running around as though the most mundane things became a new toy at Christmas, which is fun.
Still, i'm not sold on subtype making an impact on duality, because it's difficult for me to separate what's having the most impact: subtype or personality (my traits and there's too).
May be the answer is to have several duals on the go
And for part time, some activators, I work with an EII who I really like and get on with, she's very caring and has an optimistic happiness about her. I like the sense of predictability I get from her, a feeling of stability in our interpersonal connection, it feels like something I can almost depend on to help me get through the day.
According Gulenko
people pair up: D&H, C & C, N &N
Aligns well with Helen Fisher's personality system.
While the subtype duality is D & N and C & H.
If we assume that N & N happens between introtim and extratim then there exist two subtype match (something like at least 50 % people) which also holds true with C & C introtim and extratim pairings.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 02-04-2018 at 10:28 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Okay, question for the master on this one. Why would a stronger function located in the position of "dual seeking" be less valued instead of more emphasized? For example, if I was LIE Ni, and I still like Fi, as that is my DS function, I just place more importance on it and feel more comfortable in matters pertaining to it; why wouldn't it make more sense to be attracted to somebody that spoke the same Fi-Ni language as me (ESI Fi), and not want my weak and vulnerable Se brought out (ESI Se)?
Hopefully, @Olimpia will see this and reply, but if she doesn't, you can read her answer in her post that you quoted above. You might initially be attracted to someone who has similarities to you, but you can stay longer with someone who can better help you in your weak areas.
This is the basic reason I'm not jumping on my EII secretary, even though she's sent me an invitation. Long experience has shown me that she and I can't motivate each other. On the other hand, my experience with my Duals (only males at work, so far), has shown me that we definitely not only can motivate each other, but we can easily and naturally cover each other's weaknesses.
The best pairing for a productive relationship seems to be an equal balance of input to output processes for the couple as a combined unit; for example, INTj-Ti with ESE-Si. However, this won't assure success because there are so many other issues that can override the positive effects of type matching.......
a.k.a. I/O
EDIT: Activity relationships seem to be marginal at best so subtype matches wont change the apparent cognitive disharmony by a significant amount......
Last edited by Rebelondeck; 03-20-2020 at 02:07 PM.
Hey Adam. Thanks for the help. I understand what your getting at with the short term vs long term durability and all, and real life experience is a totally valid answer, I guess what I wanted to know is more of a why it works that way answer. For example, the word used in most subtype articles is that the DS is "boosted" which I don't understand why that equals less value instead of more valued. That was how I understood contact inert subtypes to work, they were basically loops created by functions sharing the same dichotomy (inert or contact). The same channel idea (Se Ni) seems to just be assumed with no connection to that original theory. I say asumed, for lack of a better word. If olimpia and yourself say you can see it in real life, then that's as good an answer as anybody can give regarding how the inner minds of people work right now.
All I know is that ILE-Ti vastly prefer the company of ESI-Se and LSI-Se and SLE-Ti over ESI-Fi and LSI-Ti and SLE-Se.
That's all you need to know in life.
CAN CONFIRM.
Oh My God.
I just cannot with ESI-Fi. Too much Fi. This is so true, LIE-Ni doesn't care much for Fi.
But I like ESI-Se. And I actually realise I'm drawn to Se or Ni subtype such as ESI-Se, LSI-Se, and even EIE-Ni.
Thank you for this!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
