Some matters about relations.
Adding on some issue I've previously handled.
This first post is about mirror and supervisor relationships and some of the intricacies in the dynamics.
Full Mirror relationships.
This is a relationship where the type of both individuals is centered exactly or very closely to the corresponding function of the other one. This means for example ESTj-Te and the ISTp-Te. But the following discussion is now limited to this duo.
Both types have the same interests and equal potential for capability in their own role in this sphere. These two may commonly compete for the same job roles and the same resources. Depending on the situation they may be most respectful teammates though. This is most likely to happen in circumstances where both win or fail at the same time.
These dynamics havea areas of symmetry: both are either extrovert or introvert, either taciturn or narrative and in equal measure. If one is likely to go out and test something, the other is equally likely to grab onto the same issue. If one is likely to stay back and explain an issue, the other is likely to try to tell a story of their own. If the actions of one partner depletes the possibility of the other to do their thing, this fuels competition and possibly enmity. If the two are trying to perfect a matter in the same team, their competition will enhance the end product. If the two have their own sets of resources, they may ignore each other, create respect or form a union to enhance their interests against a mutual enemy.
The two are also united in aristocracy or democracy, though this is trivial.
The two have areas of asymmetry. Most pointedly one is positivist, the other negativist or the partner may be limiting versus enabling. This creates a mismatch in energy levels. The limiting/enabling thing is one of the most likely issues to create conflict. At this point the balance of power has most likelihood of being equal but the enabled partner has every desire to move with eager anticipation while the limited partner feels increasing stress and threat with every moment. There's a lot of potential for one partner to make a direct move against the other.
To counteract this, the enabled partner may actually benefit from offering some kind of a security to the limited partner to dissuade their fears. Such a security needs to be carefully evaluated though. If the situation continues expectedly for both participants, the limited partner will continue to become more and more stressed and the enabled partner more and more rambunctious. There's a significant chance that the other partner will view the actions of the other as betrayal despite any security. It is quite possible that a buyout situation will be the best solution.
In the case of one partner being fully positivist, the other fully negativist... this basically means that the other partner feels they are forced in their choice or action. The positivist partner is mentally more able to choose what happens and basically has initiative.
It's completely possible that a situation of generosity may evolve. Importantly though, actual power of individuals may not be associated with the psychological feeling of the situation. THe positivist might not be the individual that has actual power. It is vital for them to realize that the other partner is stressed and potentially dangerous. What actually works for them is that they should push the negative partner into asynchrony with themselves.
Another area of asymmetry is the creative vs. accepting or the process vs. result. This is ultimately an area of misunderstanding. One partner does not understand the others' focus of resources. What's important to one is trivial to the other. This is not directly associated with 'powerlevel' or 'skill level'. This is related to the view of what is the end-goal, intensity, investment. This is associated with endings, beginnings and midpoints.
The result partner is unattached, likely to end or start new projects. The project partner is sort of 'on their way'. Their invested, not likely to end or begin anything just to continue on their way. The result-partner will tend to surprise the project partner. This surprise may of course be positive or negative. The process-partner will seem reliable but boring.
The creative partner views themselves near the end of a cycle, they feel they have momentum. The accepting partner isn't much invested. It is easier for them to dodge things because they're less firm. The creative partner will be more intensive and the accepting partner will give way.
One can of course go further into the specific dynamics but all other issues are a created by a combination of the former factors and non-socionics issues.
Then ... the supervisor partnership. This is a lot LESS asymmetric than is usually claimed.
The relationship is defined by being one quadra distant while being in a mirror relationship. The relationship is defined by sequential processes.
Usually it is suggested that the supervisor has the mentally stronger position in this relationship but the matter is a bit more complex in reality.
Let's first consider the quadra progression, the club in and of itself. Sequentiality is the primary issue. Is a primary creator of a product in a better or worse position compared to the distributor? This is absolutely not obvious. Truth depends on the details of the matter.
So then... If one person has an idea and distributes it and the next person uses that idea to create a good product... did somebody beat someone else? No, both succeeded.
Now if the product is bad and the creator is destroyed by it, does this help the one who made the idea? No, both fail.
These individuals do not compete. Neither are they separate. THey have enough to differentiate themselves that there's no direct threat to the other but enough to connect so that they are relevant to each other.
One partner is democratic, one is aristocratic or one partner is perceiving and the other judging. This is just another way to describe the distance between the interests of the two partners.
The two partners have important similarities. Both are either positivist or negativist or enabled or limited. The shared state tends to create emotional balance. This makes it easier to create a team-mentality where both partners do their part and they both either sink or rise.
Partners also share the quality of process or result or creative or accepting. This view of shared intensity helps create a functional work culture. Either both partners work intensely or both are open, or both are striving toward more or less intensity.
As for the differences between the partners, the two are even further helped by one being extrovert, one introvert, one being taciturn, one narrator. This creates a natural dialogue dynamic which help the transition of information and maintains interaction.
While all of the aforementioned things create potential for a positive functional partnership there's also plenty of potential for dysfunction. If the partners should work closely together, they will have difficulty. Tension will increase rapidly.
If the two share the same title, such as both being members of parliament, main actors, doctors or any job which puts the two into a situation where both are trying to define what their job actually means, it will be difficult to find common course.
Finally there's the individuals who are somewhere between the two above versions...
The dynamics between two individuals who are not quite mirrors and not quite supervisors are particularly interesting.
They are close enough to have similar interests but not quite close enough to be direct competitors. This distance allows them to variably either take a similar role as when rowing a canoe or separate roles as when one person is just a little bit more focused on the political aspects of a matter than the other.
This creates an interesting variable dynamic of push-pull where the more distant the individuals are, the more empathy they feel and while they're capable of stepping on each other's toes they naturally feel wary of doing such.
The confusion keeps the duo feeling that the relationship remains interesting. As mutual experiences continue to collect, the two will see a bond grow but since the bond remains unstable, there will always be a level of separation. Appearance of other individuals will tend to magnify this separation and make it more clear.
The potential for unique and important friendship remains in this relationship. It takes effort though.
The main problem of same valued close types as mirror and identity is the lack of support. Both have same weak regions and may give not much as persons to each other. They may cooperate good but surfacely, may to help each other to study skills and info in strong regions. They may understand each other good too (though surfacely), due to similarity.
It's easy to start relations and easy to support if you don't want much from them and don't expect much from weak regions of the both. It's relations of good pals.
Mirror gives the supplement of E/I. But also adds the contradiction of J/P types. Unlike other dichotomies, J/P is hard to match between people and people are not attracted to other side: J types are not attracted to instability of P, while P types perceive J as too rigid.
While what relates to Reinin's traits is baseless.
Activity and benefactor partners
These are relations of natural cooperation but misunderstanding. These are the relationships where socionics has the most potential to teach us something important.
Starting with activity partners.
The partners have opposite spheres of interest and hence have potential to complement each other.
Both are aristocratic or democratic. The ideals of the relation fit well and the other represents the qualities where the other is weakest.
On the level of discussion, there's natural compatibility. One is extrovert, one is introvert or one is narrator, one is taciturn. Conversations and interactions flow naturally and meaningfully.
The single most important thing about these relations though is that both share and amplify each others' emotional states. When one is positivist, so is the other. When one is negativist, limited or enabled, so is the other. There exists a natural reason to make the other feel better because immediately so will you. This is the only relationship where this holds true.
The great problem comes with the issue that negativity is amplified as well. When there's a problem, the presence of the other makes it feel worse and it's difficult to see how the other is trying to fix things. It may take a long time for partners to trust each other enough that they can work through the difficult phases. The most useful possible thing socionics can teach anyone is that while this negativity feels really bad, one needs to remember that the partners remain on the same side. They need to learn to see that beyond their partner when looking for the source of the angst they feel when their partner becomes negative.
Correcting any action of the other partner is difficult because things tend to escalate easily. Partners should learn that most fights are simply not worth having.
An area where the partners lack symmetry is pacing. They're either process vs. result or creating vs. accepting. This dichotomy is mostly related to pace of work but since the partners can't really work with the same project anyway, what with their abilities being related to completely opposite types of matters... this is hardly a major issue. Understanding the differences the partners have in this area can be beneficial for the partners to gain further respect to each others' viewpoints but generally this is not that important in action.
The individuals are one full type/quadra distant from each other.
They have enough of a distance that they realize they're different... they don't really fully complement each other and neither do they really compete with each other. They're just... distant... other.
One partner is democratic, the other aristocratic or one is judging, the other perceptive. This is just further pressing the previous point.
These relationships are not all similar. The partners have a surprising number of similaritites that mostly don't help them gain mutual understanding. If both are extrovert, each of them pushes and neither is trying to control the situation. If both are introvert, they will compete over control. The same goes for taciturn and narrator. There's noncomplementary action without a point. The chemistry doesn't work.
The partners are also both accepting or creating or process or result. They share intensity. If both are accepting, they'll dodge each other more likely and if both are creating they will likely butt heads more energetically.
Finally there's a difference in the positivism/negativism or limiting/enabled. This decreases empathy in the relationship. If one partner is fully negative and the other fully positive, there's little incentive for approachment.
If the partners are separated from being activity partners by negativism, the partners are more likely to become even further distant and eventually end up in competition. If the partners are separated from being activity partners by positivism, the partners can approach each other and enjoy it. They can learn to have interactions that are pleasant in a way that surprises both partners and they may experience personal growth.