Socionically unfavourable relationships

[Delilah]

Socionically unfavourable relationships seem very common, ime and observations. By 'unfavorable' i mean anything outside of quadra. Maybe my sample is too small, but seems to go against this idea that favourable types will generally easily attract each other. What have you noticed or experienced? Any concrete examples you can share?

I'm aware there are many other factors involved of course, but still seems to be a bit glaring. Any thoughts or comments to share?

I'm generally referring to close psychological relationships so dating, marriage, very close friendships etc.

[Olimpia]

When it comes to friendships, people mostly focus on certain shared interests or hobbies. That can even make Conflictors become friends with each other, for they at least have the basis of complementing each other clubs-wise (NF with ST, NT with SF), which often creates interesting discussions. In my group of friends, there is an LSI guy and IEE woman who have been friends for 7 years (!) and they get along fine. But also, because they maintain a respectful distance. They agree to disagree. (It probably helps they are both 9 fix as well.) So I've found you can be friends with anyone for as long as there is a sufficient emotional distance and a laissez-faire attitude. This becomes trickier once the friendship grows closer, but even then I find that the interpersonal distance matter is much more casual in friendship than in romance and family.

That's why I keep saying, Socionics compatibility really starts to matter in the "nuclear family" and in romance/dating, because our influence on the other person is the greatest and most intimate in those instances.

Though as you said, you see people dating outside of their Quadra a lot more often than expected. Why?

The simple reason is: Most people are primarily guided by their attraction to someone, and then specific values and relationship goals which can be unrelated to sociotype to some extent; values like religion, marriage, children, etc.

Attraction is involuntary and not just reserved for people inside of your Quadra. If you've had some kind of childhood trauma or just significant discord with one of your caretakers or similar, you'll most likely be the most attracted to someone who reminds you of that person in certain ways unconsciously. And that person is often not your Dual or from your own Quadra (though there can be exceptions, depending on the kind of trauma you've experienced and/or how aware you are when it comes to who you choose as a partner; for example, someone who knows about Socionics is more likely going to pick someone who is more socionically compatible).

Based on my observations of married couples irl and online etc., I've found that Semi-Duality, Mirage, Lookalike, Benefit, and even Supervision marriages are fairly common, and they can be surprisingly long-lasting (e.g my Lookalike parents have been married for 20+ years). All those marriages added together, it seems like they may outweigh same Quadra marriages. Same Quadra marriages are mostly comprised of Identicals, followed by some Activity couples. Mirror marriages seem reserved for Fi ego couples. I haven't known any other kind of Mirror marriage before actually, when I think about it. Duality seems about just as common as Mirror marriage.

The ideal is that you are with someone you are highly attracted to and who is highly compatible with you. But depending on your past (trauma), life circumstances, and so on, you may not be able to find someone like that. Many if not most people opt for high attraction > high compatibility, if they have to choose one. They may say or claim otherwise, but when you look at their relationships, you'll see they are in denial. And I'm not blaming them, for pair bonding is usually quite instinctual and not rational.

Also, modern Western culture idealizes the high attraction union, so it is culturally expected to date someone you are highly attracted to but who is not necessarily that compatible on an intimate and/or personality level; for marriage, many if not most Western people tend to rather focus on superficial "compatibility" markers, like status, wealth, education, and similar. This can influence who we choose as a mate, especially for marriage. In other cultures where arranged marriages or similar are more common, like in India, compatibility is more important than attraction. Though arranged marriages certainly do not guarantee same Quadra coupling by default, they also tend to mostly focus on superficial "compatibility", so that social expectation/custom can be flawed, too.

When it comes to a happy and enduring relationship, I've found that if one aspect is a bit lacking, the other one has to be quite good or high. For instance, if you are with someone who is from another Quadra, at least the attraction needs to be good for it to work fairly well; the higher, the better, especially for problematic relations like Benefit and Supervision. (The exception to this principle would be opposite Quadra – I haven't known any happy and/or longterm opposite Quadra relationship/marriage before. It's a doomed enterprise, even if the attraction is high. Simply because the incompatibility is too great.)

[Adam Strange]

When it comes to friendships, people mostly focus on certain shared interests or hobbies. That can even make Conflictors become friends with each other, for they at least have the basis of complementing each other clubs-wise (NF with ST, NT with SF), which often creates interesting discussions. In my group of friends, there is an LSI guy and IEE woman who have been friends for 7 years (!) and they get along fine. But also, because they maintain a respectful distance. They agree to disagree. (It probably helps they are both 9 fix as well.) So I've found you can be friends with anyone for as long as there is a sufficient emotional distance and a laissez-faire attitude. This becomes trickier once the friendship grows closer, but even then I find that the interpersonal distance matter is much more casual in friendship than in romance and family.

That's why I keep saying, Socionics compatibility really starts to matter in the "nuclear family" and in romance/dating, because our influence on the other person is the greatest and most intimate in those instances.

Though as you said, you see people dating outside of their Quadra a lot more often than expected. Why?

The simple reason is: Most people are primarily guided by their attraction to someone, and then specific values and relationship goals which can be unrelated to sociotype to some extent; values like religion, marriage, children, etc.

Attraction is involuntary and not just reserved for people inside of your Quadra. If you've had some kind of childhood trauma or just significant discord with one of your caretakers or similar, you'll most likely be the most attracted to someone who reminds you of that person in certain ways unconsciously. And that person is often not your Dual or from your own Quadra (though there can be exceptions, depending on the kind of trauma you've experienced and/or how aware you are when it comes to who you choose as a partner; for example, someone who knows about Socionics is more likely going to pick someone who is more socionically compatible).

Based on my observations of married couples irl and online etc., I've found that Semi-Duality, Mirage, Lookalike, Benefit, and even Supervision marriages are fairly common, and they can be surprisingly long-lasting (e.g my Lookalike parents have been married for 20+ years). All those marriages added together, it seems like they may outweigh same Quadra marriages. Same Quadra marriages are mostly comprised of Identicals, followed by some Activity couples. Mirror marriages seem reserved for Fi ego couples. I haven't known any other kind of Mirror marriage before actually, when I think about it. Duality seems about just as common as Mirror marriage.

The ideal is that you are with someone you are highly attracted to and who is highly compatible with you. But depending on your past (trauma), life circumstances, and so on, you may not be able to find someone like that. Many if not most people opt for high attraction > high compatibility, if they have to choose one. They may say or claim otherwise, but when you look at their relationships, you'll see they are in denial. And I'm not blaming them, for pair bonding is usually quite instinctual and not rational.

Also, modern Western culture idealizes the high attraction union, so it is culturally expected to date someone you are highly attracted to but who is not necessarily that compatible on an intimate and/or personality level; for marriage, many if not most Western people tend to rather focus on superficial "compatibility" markers, like status, wealth, education, and similar. This can influence who we choose as a mate, especially for marriage. In other cultures where arranged marriages or similar are more common, like in India, compatibility is more important than attraction. Though arranged marriages certainly do not guarantee same Quadra coupling by default, they also tend to mostly focus on superficial "compatibility", so that social expectation/custom can be flawed, too.

When it comes to a happy and enduring relationship, I've found that if one aspect is a bit lacking, the other one has to be quite good or high. For instance, if you are with someone who is from another Quadra, at least the attraction needs to be good for it to work fairly well; the higher, the better, especially for problematic relations like Benefit and Supervision. (The exception to this principle would be opposite Quadra – I haven't known any happy and/or longterm opposite Quadra relationship/marriage before. It's a doomed enterprise, even if the attraction is high. Simply because the incompatibility is too great.)

I’m quoting this because I think it is brilliant.

[consentingadult]

That's why I keep saying, Socionics compatibility really starts to matter in the "nuclear family" and in romance/dating, because our influence on the other person is the greatest and most intimate in those instances.

Don't forget relations at work, they can bring a person down even much easier when things are going wrong, as there are even less possibilities of managing the distance, other than breaking the relationship altogether.

[Olimpia]

Don't forget relations at work, they can bring a person down even much easier when things are going wrong, as there are even less possibilities of mananing the distance, other than breaking the relationship altogether.

Hm good point.

I'd say work relationships are somewhere in-between friends and family/romance in that regard.

The specific ITR doesn't matter as much at work as it does in family and romance, for you are not trying to be emotionally close or share personal values with the other person, but it certainly becomes more critical than when it comes to friendship; for friendships are generally more relaxed, and you mostly interact in low pressure situations, whereas work is more high pressure typically, and you are working towards a specific common goal.

So the rule of thumb could be...

Family and romance: No opposite quadra.
Work: No conflictor (and quasi-identical, depending).
Friends: Any quadra.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Hm good point.

I'd say work relationships are somewhere in-between friends and family/romance in that regard.

The specific ITR doesn't matter as much at work as it does in family and romance, for you are not trying to be emotionally close or share personal values with the other person, but it certainly becomes more critical than when it comes to friendship; for friendships are generally more relaxed, and you mostly interact in low pressure situations, whereas work is more high pressure typically, and you are working towards a specific common goal.

So the rule of thumb could be...

Family and romance: No opposite quadra.
Work: No conflictor.
Friends: Any quadra.

The best approach at work is to remain professional, don't give too much away. This way you can have cordial relationships with almost anyone.

On the subject of work though, I notice in the team I work with. There's LII, ESE, SEE, SLE, EII, SLI, LSI. Myself and the EII gravitate towards each other more, but this has taken over time. I've noticed the ESE and LII get on quite well (the LII is rather strange in my opinion.) The ESE gets on with everyone, but there's small differences that not everyone will pick up on, because mostly, we have to try to get on with diverse people at work.

So, I still go for my remain professional option.

(Personally, i've preferred to develop close friendships - if I do at work, with people outside my team, because then if it goes wrong there's less daily friction, and a person in a different team/work envinronment gives me a break, but this is just my approach might not be everyones.)

[Olimpia]

The best approach at work is to remain professional, don't give too much away. This way you can have cordial relationships with almost anyone.

I find it difficult to see Conflictors being able to work together well. Conflictors entirely disagree on goals. Work is about achieving specific goals. You'd constantly fight over those goals, and the best way to achieve them. Sounds disastrous to me.

[Eliza Thomason]

Hm good point.

I'd say work relationships are somewhere in-between friends and family/romance in that regard.

The specific ITR doesn't matter as much at work as it does in family and romance, for you are not trying to be emotionally close or share personal values with the other person, but it certainly becomes more critical than when it comes to friendship; for friendships are generally more relaxed, and you mostly interact in low pressure situations, whereas work is more high pressure typically, and you are working towards a specific common goal.

So the rule of thumb could be...

Family and romance: No opposite quadra.
Work: No conflictor (and quasi-identical, depending).
Friends: Any quadra.

My closest colleague (and only one in my field there) is my conflictor and I am struggling with that right now. She is such a downer. My husband's brother, son, and ex-wife are all my conflictor also, but I get along great with them - we see each other for relaxing social situations and do not problem-solve together....

[Suz]

Also, modern Western culture idealizes the high attraction union, so it is culturally expected to date someone you are highly attracted to but who is not necessarily that compatible on an intimate and/or personality level; for marriage, many if not most Western people tend to rather focus on superficial "compatibility" markers, like status, wealth, education, and similar. This can influence who we choose as a mate, especially for marriage. In other cultures where arranged marriages or similar are more common, like in India, compatibility is more important than attraction. Though arranged marriages certainly do not guarantee same Quadra coupling by default, they also tend to mostly focus on superficial "compatibility", so that social expectation/custom can be flawed, too.

I really liked your post, but i do want to point out that traditional arranged marriages in India are more often based primarily on societal status, one family wanting to be joined with another for political/business reasons (arranged marriages in other cultures are also often based on this), compatbility between the families, more so than the compatibility between the couple that is to get married. Once a suitable match meeting these criteria is found, there may be a secondary consideration as to the couple's "compatibility" as predicted by vedic astrology (not actual experiences). Perhaps we should be learning astrology, not socionics?

[Soupman]

When it comes to friendships, people mostly focus on certain shared interests or hobbies. That can even make Conflictors become friends with each other, for they at least have the basis of complementing each other clubs-wise (NF with ST, NT with SF), which often creates interesting discussions. In my group of friends, there is an LSI guy and IEE woman who have been friends for 7 years (!) and they get along fine. But also, because they maintain a respectful distance. They agree to disagree. (It probably helps they are both 9 fix as well.) So I've found you can be friends with anyone for as long as there is a sufficient emotional distance and a laissez-faire attitude. This becomes trickier once the friendship grows closer, but even then I find that the interpersonal distance matter is much more casual in friendship than in romance and family.

That's why I keep saying, Socionics compatibility really starts to matter in the "nuclear family" and in romance/dating, because our influence on the other person is the greatest and most intimate in those instances.

Though as you said, you see people dating outside of their Quadra a lot more often than expected. Why?

The simple reason is: Most people are primarily guided by their attraction to someone, and then specific values and relationship goals which can be unrelated to sociotype to some extent; values like religion, marriage, children, etc.

Attraction is involuntary and not just reserved for people inside of your Quadra. If you've had some kind of childhood trauma or just significant discord with one of your caretakers or similar, you'll most likely be the most attracted to someone who reminds you of that person in certain ways unconsciously. And that person is often not your Dual or from your own Quadra (though there can be exceptions, depending on the kind of trauma you've experienced and/or how aware you are when it comes to who you choose as a partner; for example, someone who knows about Socionics is more likely going to pick someone who is more socionically compatible).

Based on my observations of married couples irl and online etc., I've found that Semi-Duality, Mirage, Lookalike, Benefit, and even Supervision marriages are fairly common, and they can be surprisingly long-lasting (e.g my Lookalike parents have been married for 20+ years). All those marriages added together, it seems like they may outweigh same Quadra marriages. Same Quadra marriages are mostly comprised of Identicals, followed by some Activity couples. Mirror marriages seem reserved for Fi ego couples. I haven't known any other kind of Mirror marriage before actually, when I think about it. Duality seems about just as common as Mirror marriage.

The ideal is that you are with someone you are highly attracted to and who is highly compatible with you. But depending on your past (trauma), life circumstances, and so on, you may not be able to find someone like that. Many if not most people opt for high attraction > high compatibility, if they have to choose one. They may say or claim otherwise, but when you look at their relationships, you'll see they are in denial. And I'm not blaming them, for pair bonding is usually quite instinctual and not rational.

Also, modern Western culture idealizes the high attraction union, so it is culturally expected to date someone you are highly attracted to but who is not necessarily that compatible on an intimate and/or personality level; for marriage, many if not most Western people tend to rather focus on superficial "compatibility" markers, like status, wealth, education, and similar. This can influence who we choose as a mate, especially for marriage. In other cultures where arranged marriages or similar are more common, like in India, compatibility is more important than attraction. Though arranged marriages certainly do not guarantee same Quadra coupling by default, they also tend to mostly focus on superficial "compatibility", so that social expectation/custom can be flawed, too.

When it comes to a happy and enduring relationship, I've found that if one aspect is a bit lacking, the other one has to be quite good or high. For instance, if you are with someone who is from another Quadra, at least the attraction needs to be good for it to work fairly well; the higher, the better, especially for problematic relations like Benefit and Supervision. (The exception to this principle would be opposite Quadra – I haven't known any happy and/or longterm opposite Quadra relationship/marriage before. It's a doomed enterprise, even if the attraction is high. Simply because the incompatibility is too great.)

My mom and dad have superego relations and their DCNH are weird as SLI-C for him and IEI-N for her, they have oddly compatible life values elsewhere, in allure of personality attributes not accounted by socionics; it's crazy when people think the complexity of humanity can be restricted to 16 or even 64 labels without even growth and development - some of which can contradict socionics.

Maintaining relationships is another separate skill people aren't taught, depending on how bright the folks involved are - it can make things good or horrible.

[Tallmo]

I don't really share this experience. Most people do in fact date or marry compatible types. And not only that, in most cases they also have DCNH compatibility (this might actually confuse the typings in this forum)

Compatible types I consider quadra + semi-dual

[Olimpia]

Most people do in fact date or marry compatible types.

If that was the case, wouldn't there be much fewer break-ups and divorces?

[Tallmo]

If that was the case, wouldn't there be much fewer break-ups and divorces?

I have a friend who is SEI. She found an ILE, fell i love and married him. They got a child, but some years later they divorced.

Why?

Maybe she wasn't ready for a real commitment?

Maybe they were too different?

They did NOT have DCNH compatibility. She is H and he is N.

There are many reasons why people break up.

Before she met him she had a long relationship with an C-IEE. So he was also a compatible type.

People break up, but I still see lots of socionically compatible relationships. People prefer them.

Btw, she and I also dated for awhile, identicals.

[Delilah]

I don't really share this experience. Most people do in fact date or marry compatible types. And not only that, in most cases they also have DCNH compatibility (this might actually confuse the typings in this forum)

Compatible types I consider quadra + semi-dual

I would be very happy to be wrong on this. Do you have a large sample you're basing this off? It is likely I might have a small sample.

[Tallmo]

I would be very happy to be wrong on this. Do you have a large sample you're basing this off? It is likely I might have a small sample.

Just the last 15 years or so of experience, but nothing I can show in this forum.

[Pookie]

I don't really share this experience. Most people do in fact date or marry compatible types. And not only that, in most cases they also have DCNH compatibility (this might actually confuse the typings in this forum)

Compatible types I consider quadra + semi-dual

Yeah. That's very unlikely.

[Chae]

I read "socially unfavorable relationships" and was ready to fight




To answer the questions, I find it straightforward:

Your upbringing predicts your inclination as you learn relationship antics from your parents first and foremost. The chance of having a dual as the significant parent is 1/16. Activity added is 1/8. The chance that your parents themselves are duals is even lower. So you don't know how it is, and wouldn't seek it as a non-socionist anyways. The majority will still be used to different elements.

So you likely aren't on quadra frequency later.

[Bertrand]

I get what you're trying to say but as an aside I don't think sociotype is random, so its a big assumption to say its a straight 1/16 chance of having a dual parent. this assumes not only randomness but also that every type is as common as every other type

[Sol]

Socionically unfavourable relationships seem very common

If people would look for friends in their future spouses, they'd did more good IR. They choose often by passion and the one of those passions becomes their spouse.

> By 'unfavorable' i mean anything outside of quadra.

for marriage there are 3 good IR: dual, semidual, activator. identity and mirror are not good.

> What have you noticed or experienced? Any concrete examples you can share?

significant feelings I had to: 2 semi-dual, 1 conflictor
my parrents are semiduals, same for marriage of sister of my mother
probably grandfather by father and brother of my father have semidual marriages too
non of them have divorced

I know 1 dual pair of neighbors.
Several not good IR. Including mirror EIE/IEI which have divorced after many years together.

> I'm generally referring to close psychological relationships so dating, marriage, very close friendships etc.

identity and mirror are boring for romances and don't give you enough support you want in a friendship

[Bertrand]

yeah I think it was pookie that said mirage is more like semi for irrationals

[Spermatozoa]

The probability of your parents having a favourable ITR is higher than what chance would predict. Mating patterns are not random.

The types are also not equally likely to find a compatible partner. Due to the uneven population distribution, Ethical females, Logical males and iNtuitives of both sexes have the advantage.

[Bertrand]

The probability of your parents having a favourable ITR is higher than what chance would predict. Mating patterns are not random.

The types are also not equally likely to find a compatible partner. Due to the uneven population distribution, Ethical females, Logical males and iNtuitives of both sexes have the advantage.

it sort of hinges on what you mean by "likely to find": just like type is not distributed randomly, neither do people navigate the world randomly. in other words, the world doesn't just throw random people at you--you are lead by your interest. in the end likelihood of finding a partner is going to be no less influenced by raw numbers as where you take yourself. in law school im surrounded by logical women for example. it wasn't exactly intentional (for the womenz), but it demonstrates how duals and quadra values and everything else creates invisible forces that attract partners who attracted to their other half. in other words, the brighter version you are of yourself the more you send out the vibe that draws in the right sort of people. if you play it like a numbers game you're just going to end up with people who play it like a numbers game (this is the fatal flaw of all red pill and PUA type groups--they malign the women they select for in a vicious cycle). if you want to make it a numbers game and so does your dual than randomly asking people out is likely to create better than random chance to select a dual. in the end numbers are only half the story, the person most likely to end up in a happy relationship is the healthy person. if we make relationships a matter of luck we are doomed at the onset because the relationship was never the focus and you can't hit at what you're not aiming at (well Fi demonstrative could be the exception). in this sense people think they want a relationship but they do everything to preclude a healthy one from forming--you see this all the time (non-valued Fi?)... in the final analysis people get what they deserve because it can't be otherwise in the realm of human relations. to cast it all as numbers is to not take any responsibility and ensure failure and all you're left with is an empty rationalization, which is how people get bitter and feel betrayed, but its all a prison of their own making they just can't admit it

as an aside, lets grant the premise one can be on the minority side of a dual dyad, so like theres 1 SLI to 3 IEE. this still presupposes that the IEES are interchangeable so that one is as good as another and that the odds favor you. the goal is not to just end up with any IEE. that is weird and abstract. its not a threshold issue where you roll the dice and come up with something and hopefully theyre in a favorable category irrespective of the specifics. the relationship and the way you go about it and your odds of success are improved precisely by being sensitive to that. if you do treat it like that kind of impersonal interchangeable categorical abstract numbers game, you're bound to be dissapointed. also likely to be one of those people that thinks that success is "getting a dual" and it turns out someone was mistyped all along. its a bizarre misuse of the system bound to fail. people are real beings first and socionics comes second, one must displace the other, i.e.: the relationship is primary, the theory is secondary. you can't draw strict conclusions about how to build Fi relationships on the basis of a Ti determinism, at best its a tool to supplement, not subsume the other

result Fe orientation toward relationships: ill seek out some abstract categories and if the Fe is in place the Fi must be in there somewhere--its an ideological approach to relationships that is fundamentally impersonal. i do believe this is the basis for the LSI EIE "team" because they put the idealogy first. but it is still not really a numbers game. they find eachother on precisely this basis. so numbers is an insufficient way to capture it. the bottom line is the species evolved in an elegant manner and there is an underlying wisdom to whether you get laid or not

[at sirac son of sirac]

@Olimpia,

I just thought I'd add to this, I think the hardest part of working with people who don't share my values (for instance, quadra) isn't the work itself, but it's that they annoy me on a personal level; their behaviors.

This is why I think not saying much is the best approach, because a) I won't annoy them equally and b) I won't risk arguing with them.

Most work/business relations collapse not because of differing goals, but because of personal falling out (which is why I think workplaces are often melting pots for gossip and backstabbing, because people of opposing quadras (values) become too close, don't hold back so much, and then continually don't get on personally.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I find supervisors are good for work situations. They can smooth over my weaknesses in inter-personal situations by providing assistance (supervision, but not all supervision is bad when it's helpful), whilst sharing largely the same values as me (don't know if this is the same for everyone's ITR, but I think it should be going by the descriptions.)

[Olimpia]

I find supervisors are good for work situations. They can smooth over my weaknesses in inter-personal situations by providing assistance (supervision, but not all supervision is bad when it's helpful), whilst sharing largely the same values as me (don't know if this is the same for everyone's ITR, but I think it should be going by the descriptions.)

I am a bit torn on Supervision for work. One would think that is a natural set up, but it can create problems easily.

A Supervisor boss might undervalue a Supervisee employee and treat them disrespectfully.

A Supervisor employee might not take their boss seriously enough, and try to "outsmart" them or reverse the hierarchical order.

Of course this also depends on which types are at play here. Supervision collaboration probably works best with people who either are Intuitives or Si Ego, for they either have weak Se or simply don't value it, so there isn't as much of a "power struggle".

[Olimpia]

On the note of Supervision, I also find it to be quite an odd set up in a family situation where the child is the Supervisor and the parent is the Supervisee.

It creates this odd dynamic where the child feels like they have the "upper hand" in some way and/or they see their parent as somewhat weak or fickle in certain ways.

[at sirac son of sirac]

On the note of Supervision, I also find it to be quite an odd set up in a family situation where the child is the Supervisor and the parent is the Supervisee.

It creates this odd dynamic where the child feels like they have the "upper hand" in some way and/or they see their parent as somewhat weak or fickle in certain ways.

Children should be seen and not heard

[at sirac son of sirac]

No SLI would ever say that.

Why not? Do they spontaneously combust by saying certain things or typing certain words on a keyboard?

[Adam Strange]

On the note of Supervision, I also find it to be quite an odd set up in a family situation where the child is the Supervisor and the parent is the Supervisee.

It creates this odd dynamic where the child feels like they have the "upper hand" in some way and/or they see their parent as somewhat weak or fickle in certain ways.

This is is exactly true.

One of the ways I early tested Socionics to see how well it predicted interpersonal relationships was to ask my SLI Supervisor son what he thought of me.
He was about twelve and we were going somewhere in an S-class Mercedes and I asked him, “John, do you think I’m a screw-up?”
He got really uncomfortable and didn’t answer. I tried again.
”Do you think I make bad decisions?”
This one he could answer.
“Dad, almost all your decisions are bad.”
I thought, Ah Ha.
”I can understand how you would feel that way, but think about this. Your mother and I have been in a successful relationship for many years, I’ve run a successful business for many years, the family went from debt to a high net worth and high income in that time, and most people like me. How is that screwing up?”
He didn’t have an answer, but he still was convinced I was a screw-up.

At that moment, I knew Socionics was true.

Objective reality goes out the window in ITR’s.

Incidentally, both my father and my now ex-wife are also my Supervisors, and they both think I’m a screw-up, too.

[Rebelondeck]

This is is exactly true.

One of the ways I early tested Socionics to see how well it predicted interpersonal relationships was to ask my SLI Supervisor son what he thought of me.
He was about twelve and we were going somewhere in an S-class Mercedes and I asked him, “John, do you think I’m a screw-up?”
He got really uncomfortable and didn’t answer. I tried again.
”Do you think I make bad decisions?”
This one he could answer.
“Dad, almost all your decisions are bad.”
I thought, Ah Ha.
”I can understand how you would feel that way, but think about this. Your mother and I have been in a successful relationship for many years, I’ve run a successful business for many years, the family went from debt to a high net worth and high income in that time, and most people like me. How is that screwing up?”
He didn’t have an answer, but he still was convinced I was a screw-up.

At that moment, I knew Socionics was true.

Objective reality goes out the window in ITR’s.

Incidentally, both my father and my now ex-wife are also my Supervisors, and they both think I’m a screw-up, too.

I've said similar in other threads that supervision was an undervaluing of the supervisee's perceptions and methods - a sort of colorblindness that the supervisor has. An SLI's measure of success seems to be the margin between how often does one win as opposed to how many have you lost. They look upon financial success as a security fortress and they'll often retreat to it but they also tend to believe that one does not win much by means of a fortress; the LIEs that I've met have expressed to me in one form or another that financial success was the true measure of worth so I can see the disconnect. Your SLIs may look upon your financial success as a single win......

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

I've said similar in other threads that supervision was an undervaluing of the supervisee's perceptions and methods - a sort of colorblindness that the supervisor has. An SLI's measure of success seems to be the margin between how often does one win as opposed to how many have you lost. They look upon financial success as a security fortress and they'll often retreat to it but they also tend to believe that one does not win much by means of a fortress; the LIEs that I've met have expressed to me in one form or another that financial success was the true measure of worth so I can see the disconnect. Your SLIs may look upon your financial success as a single win......

a.k.a. I/O

Undervaluing is a very good description. I’ve noticed that other LIE’s have nearly no respect for the ability of IEI’s to navigate in the world, when objective measures indicate otherwise.

Your perception of the respective measures of success between SLI’s and LIE’s is interesting. I don’t think I measure success by the amount of money accumulated. Money is just a scorecard of the activities I do when I’m not doing something more important. Success in life is more about loving others and, occasionally, being loved.

I will say that my SLI father views money very much like a fortress and not as oil for the machine. He stacked it up very slowly and conservatively, one brick at a time, and only once tried speculating in options, where he lost $10k on the third day. Never again. He stuck to boring but steady after that.

The SLI’s in my life may look at my net worth as a single win, but it was anything but that. It was primarily luck, and hard work, and trying again after serious losses, repeated ad infinitum.

[FDG]

Undervaluing is a very good description. I’ve noticed that other LIE’s have nearly no respect for the ability of IEI’s to navigate in the world, when objective measures indicate otherwise.

Your perception of the respective measures of success between SLI’s and LIE’s is interesting. I don’t think I measure success by the amount of money accumulated. Money is just a scorecard of the activities I do when I’m not doing something more important. Success in life is more about loving others and, occasionally, being loved.

I will say that my SLI father views money very much like a fortress and not as oil for the machine. He stacked it up very slowly and conservatively, one brick at a time, and only once tried speculating in options, where he lost $10k on the third day. Never again. He stuck to boring but steady after that.

The SLI’s in my life may look at my net worth as a single win, but it was anything but that. It was primarily luck, and hard work, and trying again after serious losses, repeated ad infinitum.

But why do you try to have approval about your decisions...good luck with that even with socionics favourable relationships...

[Rebelondeck]

......... I don’t think I measure success by the amount of money accumulated. Money is just a scorecard of the activities I do when I’m not doing something more important. Success in life is more about loving others and, occasionally, being loved..........

You would be unique to my experience although the way the adverb "occasionally" is used sounds very LIEish. All those that I've met had very similar attitudes; a sort of: "I don't know how the Chevy driver won; I drive a Mercedes so I deserved the prize." But, I thought that this type of elitism served many of them very well in corporate America........

a.k.a I/O

[Olimpia]

I think LIEs are screw-ups too

How so?

[domr]

How so?

I was joking. But honest answer, they are completely clueless about who to trust and who will betray them. Think they are good at influencing other people or knowing what is acceptable to say but in fact are just going with the flow because of 2D Fe. I also find it ironic how they are so action or task oriented but fail with implementation because of Si PoLR.

[Olimpia]

I was joking. But honest answer, they are completely clueless about who to trust and who will betray them. Think they are good at influencing other people or knowing what is acceptable to say but in fact are just going with the flow because of 2D Fe. I also find it ironic how they are so action or task oriented but fail with implementation because of Si PoLR.

... and because of just 2D Se.

[Adam Strange]

I was joking. But honest answer, they are completely clueless about who to trust and who will betray them. Think they are good at influencing other people or knowing what is acceptable to say but in fact are just going with the flow because of 2D Fe. I also find it ironic how they are so action or task oriented but fail with implementation because of Si PoLR.

Lol. There is a post somewhere on this forum which describes how each Supervisor sees their Supervisee’s faults, and you’ve just listed every one of them for SLI/LIE.

“Socionics Lives”

[para]

''Socionically''
What a word!

[Spermatozoa]

A brief summary:

Of the asymmetrical ITRs, Supervision is much less favourable for the disadvantaged party than Benefit. That is because in Benefit relations, your dual-seeking function is the Benefactor's creative function. In other words, Benefit bears some superficial similarities to an Activity relation (and may appear to be so at first). I have noticed many Benefit couples, and have myself indulged in Benefit relations both as the Beneficiary and Benefactor.

Supervision is a much, much less desirable ITR - it is no better than Conflict, to which it resembles. In Supervision relations, the Supervisor's lead function is the Supervisee's PoLR. In fact, it is worse than Conflict from the Supervisee's perspective, because the Supervisor's creative is the Supervisee's lead, which means the latter is less well equipped psychologically to fight back against their Supervisor's criticisms than they would be in a true Conflict relation (hence the asymmetry). I have found it impossible to communicate my point of view to my Supervisor type. They don't understand it and dismiss it.

As a rule: relationships of all types from the opposite Quadra will not endure (with the exception of Quasi-Identical, which can at least yield fruitful friendships). Supervision/Supervisee relations are also highly dissatisfactory and should also be avoided.

http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm

[Bertrand]

it bears reiterating comfort is a function of distance x ITR. coworkers with whom you need only maintain a cordial distance can be extremely fruitful and pleasant relations but if the same person were your Dad it could drive you into a hole. I admire many unfavorable ITRs from a distance. A good example would be someone like Nietzsche who I love to read, but probably would have not liked in person. its really more about needs. distant types can help very much in difficult situations, provided there is no attempt to close the gap on a personal level, because they focus on precisely the information you lack