Rankings/Ratings of Intertype Relations

[Jarno]

yes i think you certainly aren't far off.

maybe switching the comparative and look a like... The rest is similar to what i would think.

[uninspired]

For my two cents:

Good, great, grand!
1) Dual (ESTp)
2) Semi-Dual (ESFp)
3) Mirror (ENFj)
4) Activity (ISTj)

Pretty good
5) Beneficiary (INTj)
6) Look-a-like (ISFp)
7) Supervisee (ESFj)
8) Illusionary (ENTp)

Meh...
9) Identity (INFp)
10) Benefactor (ISFj)
12) Contrary (ENFp)
13) Quasi-Identical (INFj)

Not so good
14) Supervisor (ENTj)
15) Comparative (INTp)
16) Conflict (ESTj)
17) Super-ego (ISTp)

Te types and I do not mesh well.

[Exodus]

Here is, what I believe to be, the theoretical list in decending order of intertype relation compatibility. In the real world, deviations from the list are probably due to other reasons such as different life goals, different cultural/personal values, different interests and values etc. rather than socionic type. With all of the 'noise' of the real world you may find that you prefer interacting with X who is your Look a like over Y who is your Semi-Dual. However in a perfect world where all other factors are held constant, you would prefer your Dual over your Identical, your Identical over your Mirror, your Mirror over your Acitvity, et al. - Well this is my theory anyway.


1) Duality (ENFj)
2) Identical (ISTj)
3) Mirror (ESTp)
4) Activation (INFp)

5) Semi-Duality (ESFj)
6) Comparative (INTj)
7) Illusionary (ENTj)
8) Look a like (ISFj)

9) Beneficiary [Benefactor – ISFp]
10) Supervision [Supervisor – ENTp]
11) Beneficiary [Beneficiary – INTp]
12) Supervision [Supervisee – ESFp]

13) Superego (INFj)
14) Contrary (ESTj)
15) Quasi Identical (ISTp)
16) Conflicting (ENFp)

Comparative isn't even theoretically that good. They don't provide any Superid support, while hitting your PoLR at the same time.


I used to think a general rule is same dyad => similar relations with the same type. This is true, but not in terms of quality.

The main factors that lead to good relations are:
-same quadra values
-strength in one's Superid functions
-opposite on I/E
-same on J/P
-same subtype (irrational or rational)

But if we use all the Reinin dichotomies, each type is equal to every other type (and hence one's dual) in terms of similarity. Therefore not all of them can matter as much, right? IMO this is a question that still needs to be answered, especially since the Negative/Process/Narrator ones definitely do matter.

[liveandletlive]

In order of the value of intertype relations based on quadras:

1)Dual
2)Identity
3)Activity
4)Mirror
5)Semi-Dual
6)Comparative
7)Benefactor
8)Supervisor
9)Illusionary
10)Look-a-like
11)Beneficiary
12)Supervisee
13)Contrary
14)Super-ego
15)Quasi
16)Conflict

what do you guys think? obviously there should be some kind of logical hierarchy...

[aestrivex]

obviously there should be some kind of logical hierarchy...

why? explain it to me.

[xyz]

That should be obvious.

[aestrivex]

That should be obvious.

but it isn't. and i want to hear her reasoning behind this. my guess is that there isn't any.

[Jarno]

what do you guys think? obviously there should be some kind of logical hierarchy...

I've made a similar topic a while ago, maybe it's helpful.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...+relationships

[Logos]

I believe that there is a tendency to put too much weight behind the word conflict as well as the severity of Socionics conflict relationship.

[liveandletlive]

That should be obvious.

but it isn't. and i want to hear her reasoning behind this. my guess is that there isn't any.

wow that's cool of you...

there obviously needs to be a hierarchical ranking of relationships because of what some value and others dont, others strengths and others weaknesses- it's basically what the entire theory is based on.

btw, please don't try to extrapolate from this and just answer the question.

[Jarno]

I believe that there is a tendency to put too much weight behind the word conflict as well as he severity of Socionics conflict relationship.

I can understand why you say this. I can get along very well with my two conflictor colleague's. The relationship is ofcourse casual, not close.

But I've also lived with a conflictor girlfriend for 4 years. In that close relationship the description of the conflict relationship is an understatement.

[liveandletlive]

what do you guys think? obviously there should be some kind of logical hierarchy...

I've made a similar topic a while ago, maybe it's helpful.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...+relationships

thanks!

[liveandletlive]

what do you guys think? obviously there should be some kind of logical hierarchy...

I've made a similar topic a while ago, maybe it's helpful.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...+relationships

thanks!

[Jarno]

double post.

[liveandletlive]

double post.

i was really grateful

[aestrivex]

That should be obvious.

but it isn't. and i want to hear her reasoning behind this. my guess is that there isn't any.

wow that's cool of you...

there obviously needs to be a hierarchical ranking of relationships because of what some value and others dont, others strengths and others weaknesses- it's basically what the entire theory is based on.

btw, please don't try to extrapolate from this and just answer the question.

fine; there is no such hierarchy because that's not the way socionics works. socionics is about information metabolism and interrelations between different patterns of said information metabolism. types are a secondary construct to this, and any systematization of intertype relations can't be "quantified." this is extremely obvious if you look at it on a case by case basis; a particular person may lean towards one pattern of information metabolism over another (hence the construct of subtypes), and an individual may get along better with their semi-dual or illusion based on this (and not merely in that it favors one quadra over another; differences in people and in information metabolism can affect intertype relations in a myriad of unpredictable ways). this is not even mentioning the great deal of random variation and fluctuation in this entire process.

[liveandletlive]

That should be obvious.

but it isn't. and i want to hear her reasoning behind this. my guess is that there isn't any.

wow that's cool of you...

there obviously needs to be a hierarchical ranking of relationships because of what some value and others dont, others strengths and others weaknesses- it's basically what the entire theory is based on.

btw, please don't try to extrapolate from this and just answer the question.

fine; there is no such hierarchy because that's not the way socionics works. socionics is about information metabolism and interrelations between different patterns of said information metabolism. types are a secondary construct to this, and any systematization of intertype relations can't be "quantified." this is extremely obvious if you look at it on a case by case basis; a particular person may lean towards one pattern of information metabolism over another (hence the construct of subtypes), and an individual may get along better with their semi-dual or illusion based on this (and not merely in that it favors one quadra over another; differences in people and in information metabolism can affect intertype relations in a myriad of unpredictable ways). this is not even mentioning the great deal of random variation and fluctuation in this entire process.

idk if i agree with this or not... let me think about it and ill come back...

[aestrivex]

duality is better than conflict, for obvious reasons. but that's a qualitative, and ultimately subjective assessment rather than a systematic and predefined one. some conflict pairs may even be able to get along better than dual pairs, for various reasons.

[Slacker]

Socionics relationships are one part of the puzzle as to how well people will get along, but I don't know if they can be arranged a a #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., so much as a "generally better" on one end and "generally worse" on the other with a great deal of overlap between. And then outside of the Socionics part of the puzzle, you have whether you and the other person share goals and beliefs, upbringing, education, interests, etc. All of those things count toward creating a good relationship.

[aestrivex]

well when economists talk about utils and when a vacuum cleaner is supposed to give you 100 utils but instead it electrocutes you on first use, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the concept of utils. i thought we were talking about the types on average here.

to eloquently integrate socionics and economics (socioneconomics?), my problem lies not with the idea that (total utility)/(quantity) does not necessarily equal average utility, but rather with the idea that utils exist at all.

[aestrivex]

the idea of ordinal utilities and marginal substitution and blah does some to offset the fundamentally simplistic assumptions that economics makes about consumer behavior, but it isn't perfect. the very idea that utility can be measured in any kind of finite way is a fundamental fallacy, though an extremely important assumption, as it is the basis of some very good models.


similarly the idea that people have definite, static information metabolism preferences is an extremely useful assumption, but one has to realize what the fallacies in that kind of a model and recognize that other people are not defined solely by information metabolism, and that information metabolism can be variable and/or relative in certain situations.

[aestrivex]

yes, you can have a rough model. because this is based in information metabolism, that can present an unspecific, but workable model.

the following is probably about as specific as you can safely get:

duality

generally good relations : activity, mirror, identity

generally okay relations: business (lookalike), semi-dual, illusion, benefit, comparative, contrary

generally bad relations: quasi-identity, super-ego, conflict, supervision.

but this is not even very good at all, because some of these are very debatable. this model would have to be pretty fluid. should contrary (or benefit or comparative or business) go in the "bad" category? should super-ego or supervision or quasi-identity go in the "okay" category? what about identity? and does duality, which is it's own special phenomenon which legitimately merits exceptional attention in socionics deserve its own special category or should it be in the "good" category?



basically there's no answer to these questions. it's pretty meaningless to have to validate whether a comparative relationship is better or worse than a business one, for example. ordinal benefit from the relationship, as you might describe, is totally unmeasurable; they're each good and bad in their own way; they're merely different, and the dynamics play out differently for different reasons, which are partially explained by information metabolism.



if you tried to create a model with 16 different rankings, you would get a complete mess into which nothing fits, save perhaps duality and conflict.

[aestrivex]

It depends on precisely what a person thinks is "good" in a relationship.

i agree, there are probably lots of factors not accounted for in socionics. but to _some_ extent, socionics does try to predict what will be thought of as "good" by a person.

I think the precise order of value is best determined on a case-by-case basis.

ultimately, i agree that's probably the best way to use these models of such highly subjective phenomenon IRL.

that reminds me, though, of one other possible approach to this thread: the theoretical nonsense aside, it might be interesting just to see how people rank the relationships unsystematically, based on their life experience, "gut", etc. while we probably won't get enough replies to determine so here, it's always possible there is a useful theoretical guideline not yet discovered. for example, what if a POLR hit (as is the case in supervision) is worse than being in the opposite quadra? (not that i'm saying this is so)

but this is not even very good at all, because some of these are very debatable. this model would have to be pretty fluid. should contrary (or benefit or comparative or business) go in the "bad" category? should super-ego or supervision or quasi-identity go in the "okay" category? what about identity? and does duality, which is it's own special phenomenon which legitimately merits exceptional attention in socionics deserve its own special category or should it be in the "good" category?

i'm not going to get into each one right now, but just as an example of some existing information you may be overlooking: why shouldn't identity be necessarily better than quasi-identity? for the most part they are approximately equal in strengths and weaknesses so we shouldn't expect much of complementing effect. the predominant effect i would think be quadra values. and unlike identity, quasi-identicles are quite opposing there. and why would duality be the ideal relationship if it wasn't better than "good"?

these models were mostly made from theory, and partly from experience. they're not very detailed, but that's where i would put them. the very fact that you find reason to quibble them is possibly a reason that they may be too specific as they are.

basically there's no answer to these questions. it's pretty meaningless to have to validate whether a comparative relationship is better or worse than a business one, for example. ordinal benefit from the relationship, as you might describe, is totally unmeasurable; they're each good and bad in their own way; they're merely different, and the dynamics play out differently for different reasons, which are partially explained by information metabolism.

it's pretty easy to imagine someone saying this about personality and relationships in general in the begining stages of modeling information metabolism itself. how do you know there's no answer to these questions? they might become evident as we study the reinin dichotomies more. or functional differentiation in model A itself. they might already be answered and the research just hasn't hit the forum or its limited contacts in the East yet. and of course there will always be new empirical research done that may revise the models themselves. what the hell do we have to lose by leaving the possibility open?

you are grasping at straws.

[aestrivex]

whatever. clearly we disagree on the amount of innovation left in this particular model.


if you want more background knowledge, examine the IM elements more thoroughly. if you can significantly improve your understanding of all of the IM elements and the interrelations between them, you might have a chance of improving the system of intertype relations. if that happens, it'll get dealt with in due course.

as of now, however, the latter half of this discussion is really an excercise in nothing.

[munenori2]

i LiK eStJ's.

SuM eStP's DoN't LiK mE.

PeEpS aRe GeNrAlLy CoOl ThO, wHeN dEy AiN't HaTiN' oN eAcH uDdEr.

[misutii]

i LiK eStJ's.

SuM eStP's DoN't LiK mE.

PeEpS aRe GeNrAlLy CoOl ThO, wHeN dEy AiN't HaTiN' oN eAcH uDdEr.

please don't type like that... ever again... or I'll stick a scalpel in my eye-ball, rip it out, find you, and make you eat it. Thank-you!


As regards to ranking relations I agree with the general sentiment in this thread... that it's difficult and complicated. Here's some points that I think are important.

-Sub-types can play a large role in defining how "good" a relationship is, N with S subtypes and T with F subtypes are best.

-If we could rank relations, the ranking would not be uniform for all types. For example, I've observed that Rational (J) types, being that they desire stability in relations, are better tuned than irrational types to relations with types of a similar temperament (i.e. ESTj+ENTj works, in general, much better than INTp+INFp or ESTp+ESFp)

[liveandletlive]

look at the 3rd page of this thread at NiiTe's post

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...16858&start=30

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think this is the most accurate order of what intertype relationships are the best. Starting with Dual-Identical being equally the best, and ending with Conflictor as being the worst.

Notice how being a Supervisee isn't truly as bad as people think. I think this is true. My relationship with Ashton is going a lot better than I thought it would. And also notice how all this fits the ip/ip & ip/ep = good, ip/ij = eh, kinda, and ip/ej = blah.

In fantasy/ideals I think Super Ego or Contrary would appear more healthy than it really is, but in practice I think it really isn't that good for you... only good for short-term advice. Remember Betas, Deltas are actually our conflicting quadra not Gammas. Though Gammas like to put up a good fight like we do lol.

(infp-estp) Dual: A+
(infp-infp) Identical: A+
(infp-istj) Activity: A
(infp-enfj) Mirror: A-

(infp-entp) Illusionary: B+
(infp-isfp) Look-a-like: B+
(infp-intj) Benefactor: B
(infp-esfj) Supervisor: B-

(infp-esfp) Semi-Dual: C+
(infp-intp) Comparative: C+
(infp-isfj) Beneficiary: C
(infp-entj) Supervisee: C-

(infp-enfp) Contrary: D+
(infp-istp) Super Ego: D+
(infp-infj) Quasi-Identical: D
(infp-estj) Conflictor: D-

No type gets a failing grade as even conflictors can share some positive personal moments together, however they'll of course be very rare and aren't worth being counted on. Nothing is hopeless though… so no Fs.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

This is based on long-term relationships over time remember. So it really drives my point home that Supervisee isn't as bad as people make it out to be. (Well it's still pretty bad, I mean C- but it's not like worse than Conflicting like people make it out to be.) At first yeah I think it looks like this. But the more you interact the more they come to life. Just like how Duals seem boring to one another at first. Well they don't to me anymore since I'm beginning to be more well-versed in socionics lol. But yeah you know what I mean.

[betterthan]

I agree with all your ratings except...

(infp-esfp) Semi-Dual: B-/+ - depends whats going down, the two-faced thing drives me crazy & these relations are really slow to get going. But kinda love them anyways!
(infp-intp) Comparative: ?
(infp-isfj) Beneficiary: B-, strange communication style, I wish they'd brighten up, but they are sweet and lovely!
(infp-entj) Supervisee: B, I really like them, except when they are unhealthy.

cool thread

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Thanks. I tried to base my arguements on raw logic and shared function values.

[JuJu]

Duality being the most comfortable inter-type romantic relation--I think most would agree--what, in your personal opinions, are the other most and least comfortable relations?

E.g. Is activity more comfortable than mirror, or vice versa? Why?

E.g. Is supervision worse than conflict?

please tell about your experiences so we can all learn

[DirectorAbbie]

I googled it and got this. There are some good interrelationship links at the bottom.

[anndelise]

For an intimate relationship, dual or semi-dual.

For relaxing and chitchatting about common interests... a mirror or identical.

For seeing a slightly different look at common interests/ideas, a contrary.

For hiring to help me clarify my ideas, I'd say...uh, not sure how the term works, lol, but I'd hire my beneficiary (not benefactor!!) or maybe his mirror (my illusionary??).

And for asking someone to translate something for me, a comparative or supervisor (as long as it's understood that this person is there to HELP me, not tell me what to do, nor how I should think).

[Park]

Conflicting relationships can be pretty wild. There's nothing better than getting laid by your conflictor and screwing the crap out of each other. Opposing erotic attitudes are very challenging and the climaxes are godly, the trick is to keep the conflict in bed and preserve a fair psychological distance. Whenever you disagree on something just get your clothes off and solve it on the spot. It's a truly marvelous experience, totally worth seeking out.

[bluesballsbobs]

in my experience, duality would be the most "comfortable" romantic relationship, BUT:

Semi-duality seems more passionate to me.

I'm currently dating a girl that is my (SEE) semi-dual (IEI)

and our relationship is really fulfilling And exciting.

we do have our few stumbles, but it makes it more interesting, in my opinion, because the emotions experienced are wide-ranging.


I do notice, though, that I have dualized myself to her, and she has to me;
in other words, I usually tend to act more aggressive and assholey like her dual (SLE)

and she speaks slightly harsher with her words to me like my dual (ILI)





Identicals, in my opinion are 2nd best for romantic relations:

I dated an SEE and she was SO fucking fun to be around, she always kept me on my toes, and made me feel like it was constantly a competition, which kept me stimulated.

in the end, I would just OUT-Aggressor her, and pin her down, and BANG.

but she would look at me like she was ready to take it and give it.







as for the worst relationship that ruined me emotionally for years / best sex I've ever had -

it was with my Benefactor EIE (enfj)
that bitch. I loved her

she doesn't understand me and treated me like crap, so I aggressively banged her to oblivion

[betterthan]

in my experience, duality would be the most "comfortable" romantic relationship, BUT:

Semi-duality seems more passionate to me.

I'm currently dating a girl that is my (SEE) semi-dual (IEI)

and our relationship is really fulfilling And exciting.

we do have our few stumbles, but it makes it more interesting, in my opinion, because the emotions experienced are wide-ranging.


I do notice, though, that I have dualized myself to her, and she has to me;
in other words, I usually tend to act more aggressive and assholey like her dual (SLE)

and she speaks slightly harsher with her words to me like my dual (ILI)





Identicals, in my opinion are 2nd best for romantic relations:

I dated an SEE and she was SO fucking fun to be around, she always kept me on my toes, and made me feel like it was constantly a competition, which kept me stimulated.

in the end, I would just OUT-Aggressor her, and pin her down, and BANG.

but she would look at me like she was ready to take it and give it.







as for the worst relationship that ruined me emotionally for years / best sex I've ever had -

it was with my Benefactor EIE (enfj)
that bitch. I loved her

she doesn't understand me and treated me like crap, so I aggressively banged her to oblivion

Ooo, this sounds hot :wink:. Apart from the last bit, sorry that sucks .

Best relationship I have had is with an IEI. I just started talking to this IEI guy and OMGZ he is amazing, we just love each other so much () and feel so relaxed around each other. It's so awesome because we can just get crazy and have mad fun or have these deep, sharing the soul conversations - that I have always wanted but never felt I could have with anyone else, because they wouldn't care or understand, but he does .

And we have only been friends for a couple of weeks now, but he's always like -man I love you, you are the only one that makes me feel better about myself, you make me happy, I can trust you with anything-. That just makes me feel so happy :redface:, I love this kid so much. & then when I talk to other friends, it feels like such an effort compared to this. Whoa ramble, I just love him haha.

Oh and obviously, duals imo are the cream for romantic relationships, SLEs are so sexy .
And I love mirrors and activators, I prefer the latter, better understanding, more fun, growth, in the long run but I am having an ish starting these relations up . & I love mirror relations, EIEs are just so easy to be friends with and a lot of fun (mostly...).

Best romantic relationship was with an ISTj. But i've never been with an SLE...

Eh, worst would be supervision for romantic (obviously excluding Deltas), I have a best friend who is one of each. I have a lot of fun with them both but it's a bit of a strain - I wouldn't like that tension in a relationship. I don't think I would have a relationship with anyone outside of my quadra, unless I didn't have an option and it was a choice between them or cats.

[sarinana]

I'm in love with my identical. I always know what to expect from him so I am 100% secure with him even when he is far away. Also identical relationships are very good for those who want to became 'a better person' because when you are with your identical you can see all your flaws and easily learn from them. As for romance I think Ethic types in identical relationship can be pretty romantical.

[meatburger]

For relationships hmm i dont really know. I would say dual/semi dual aswell. Mirror would also be fairly comfortable. I would date my supervisor over my Conflictor any day of the week. I could handle an INTj girl judging me ok but an ISTj girl ordering me around would end badly. INTj's actually do get attracted to me ive found which is nice.

For friendship the best ive found are duality, activity and mirror. Identical ENFp girls i get on well with fine, but neither of us really gets much out of it. I do know an ENFp guy though and hes actually quite awesome but we are just accquantances. I have some dual friends but i must admit our lifestyles seem to differ. I have fun with my duals but i always feel slightly on edge or something. My mirror is great but theres something underlying that gets to me. Mirror has great potential though, same with duality.

The winner for friendship hands down for me is activity. I grew up with an ESTj and even if we do not see each other for a few months we are friends again instantly. I find him interesting and fun to be around, we share much of the same interests / morals and its very relaxing. No friendship has really ever come close to be honest.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't think supervision is worse than conflict. Supervision relationships are asymmetrical anyway. Well what does that mean exactly?

The supervisor is nowhere near as annoyed with the supervisee as the supervisee is annoyed with the supervisor. In confliction, there's a mutual hatred and everything around them kind of gets destroyed in the process.