Rankings/Ratings of Intertype Relations

[silke]

@silke, which type pairs (aside from two identicals) are most often perceived as similar from outsiders or when being interacted with separately, by other types who aren't their identicals?

Business relations is a common mix-up - SLI/ILI, SEI/IEI, etc. - they have same creative/activating elements so their immediate observable reactions are similar, while the leading function is harder to notice because it's like an ever present subtle background that often escapes direct observation.

Benefit pairs are next - SLI/ESI, LII/SLI, IEI/LII, etc. - this is more likely to occur if a person is strongly reliant on leading function, which has the effect of boosting their hidden agenda. Some will go on to interpret their bolstered HA as their leading function, due to its prominence (e.g. Ti-LII may be mistaken for a SLI).

Supervisees typings their supervisors, surprisingly. Typically how it goes is that the supervisee feeling admiration/attraction for the supervisor types them into some more favorable type, such such dual, mirror, semi-dual, mirage.

[Park]

^ Makes sense, but I would swap supervision with semi-duals/illusionaries. More introverted EPs can come across as their IP semi-duals and vice-versa. For rational types, I think illusionary > semi duals.

[Radio]

@silke, which type pairs (aside from two identicals) are most often perceived as similar from outsiders or when being interacted with separately, by other types who aren't their identicals?

i posted something regarding this a long time ago, maybe you would find it interesting:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post866560

I tested out my earlier hypothesis and it turns out I wasn't too off.
Out of a pool of roughly 100 people:

20 - Kindred
19 - Mirror
16 - Benefit
15 - Business
15 - Quasi-identical
06 - Activation
04 - Dual
04 - Extinguishment
04 - Semi-dual
01 - Illusory
01 - Supervision
01 - Superego
00 - Conflict

[Park]

i posted something regarding this a long time ago, maybe you would find it interesting

I don't. The author smells like faggоtness.

[Radio]

I don't. The author smells like faggоtness.

you're being an asshole because of one time i disagreed with you 2 years ago. just let that sink in for a moment.

[Park]

you're being an asshole because of one time i disagreed with you 2 years ago. just let that sink in for a moment.

Ah, I see you've kept track of time. Honestly though, you do smell like a gay curry loser. And I disagree with your list.

[shakealittle]

as much as semi duals are great they are equally grating in a close relationship

[suedehead]

I think I had a friend who was my illusionary, which was great for about a month. I haven't liked Extinguishment that much. My longest friendship was apparently my supervisee.

[Olimpia]

I really like the list @silke came up with.

I agree, though I might move up the "identical" to a higher position.

[golden]

Tier 1: defined as, “These relationships can be smooth even if I have little in common with the other person; situational conflicts usually can be resolved”

* Dual
* Mirror
* Activity
* Identical

Tier 2, defined as, “These relationships can be smooth if I have a fair amount in common with the other person; situational conflicts often can be resolved”

* Beneficiary
* Semi-dual
* Look-a-like
* Kindred
* Supervisee
* Supervisor
* Benefactor
* Illusionary

Tier 3, defined as, “These relationships can be rough if I have little in common with the other person; situational conflicts are harder to resolve”

* Super-ego
* Contrary
* Quasi-identical
* Conflicting

[ScarlettLux]

Tier 1: defined as, “These relationships can be smooth even if I have little in common with the other person; situational conflicts usually can be resolved”

* Dual
* Mirror
* Activity
* Identical

Tier 2, defined as, “These relationships can be smooth if I have a fair amount in common with the other person; situational conflicts often can be resolved”

* Beneficiary
* Semi-dual
* Look-a-like
* Kindred
* Supervisee
* Supervisor
* Benefactor
* Illusionary

Tier 3, defined as, “These relationships can be rough if I have little in common with the other person; situational conflicts are harder to resolve”

* Super-ego
* Contrary
* Quasi-identical
* Conflicting

Are all of those also in order within the tiers? Why did you place them as such?

[golden]

Are all of those also in order within the tiers? Why did you place them as such?

They're only loosely in order within the tiers. There's just too much variation in my experience to call it cut-and-dried. Even the tiers are iffy.

[ghost of forum past]

Superego isn't that bad for friendships. I get along pretty well with male ESIs. I think these relations look pretty cold to outsiders though. Would most definitely be problematic for close (SO-level) relationships.

I am of the opinion that one should not determine their friendships with Socionics. I know superego, supervisor, quasi-identical friends, etc. Very close relationships are another story, and can more accurately be modeled with Socionics.

[Jarno]

Superego isn't that bad for friendships. I get along pretty well with male ESIs. I think these relations look pretty cold to outsiders though.

I once read in an article that superego is the easyest to start relationship. like in, if you see them you already like them.

[silke]

This is the ranking according to Victor Gulenko in one of his older articles. I'm kind of surprised that he placed Business relations on the same level as Superego and hasn't really explained this.

http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/shkala.html

1. Duality, Semi-Duality
2. Activation, Direct Benefit
3. Mirror, Direct Supervision
4. Identical, Kindred
5. Mirage, Extinguishment
6. Quasi-Identical, Reverse Benefit
7. Conflict, Reverse Supervision
8. Superego, Business

Gulenko: "The resulting rankings of intertype relations has a number of aspects that are sure to evoke surprise in many socionists. Therefore, they should be explained.

5.1. The first surprise. That Supervision falls into the category of relations of average comfort, while the majority of socionists rank Audit (Supervision) as an uncomfortable relationship type. The point here is that traditional Socionics does not distinguish between Direct Revision (DR) Reverse Revision (RR). When in Supervision dyad, the Supervisor takes the leading role and the Supervisee accepts this state of things, this relation is that of Direct Revision. It is characterized by mild condescension and humane treatment by the supervisor of the supervisee. If the supervisee seizes the initiative and begins to play the leading role in the dyad, this relation "reverses" and acquires characteristics of petty control and quarrels. This is the case of Reverse Revision, which I rank in the category of discomforting relations.
The same applies to the second asymmetric intertype relationship – Benefit/Request. When the benefactor takes up the leading role in the pair, and the beneficiary does not dispute it, this is the case of Direct Benefit – a proactive type of relations of average comfort level. But if the leading role is taken over by the beneficiary, then this relation loses effectiveness and activity, and turns into Reverse Benefit, the comfort levels of which are below average.

5.2. The second surprise. The most uncomfortable relation turns out to be not Conflicting one, but the relations of Superego. This is explained by the balancing of the intro-static temperament of Relations of Conflict in Socionics. Conflictors can be ignored for some time. Superego partner perceives your actions as deliberate creation of inconveniences and discomfort. Your actions towards him or her are interpreted in the same manner, which starts a vicious circle of mutual complaints. Thus, remember that superego is for you the most uncomfortable partner at close communication distances.

[Suz]

5. 1. The first surprise. That Supervision falls into the category of relations of average comfort, while the majority of socionists rank Audit as an uncomfortable relationship type. The point here is that traditional Socionics does not distinguish between Direct Revision (DR) Reverse Revision (RR). When in Supervision dyad, the Supervisor takes the leading role and the Supervisee accepts this state of things, this relation is that of Direct Revision. It is characterized by mild condescension and humane treatment by the supervisor of the supervisee. If the supervisee seizes the initiative and begins to play the leading role in the dyad, this relation "reverses" and acquires characteristics of petty control and quarrels. This is the case of Reverse Revision, which I rank in the category of discomforting relations.
The same applies to the second asymmetric intertype relationship – Benefit/Request. When the benefactor takes up the leading role in the pair, and the beneficiary does not dispute it, this is the case of Direct Benefit – a proactive type of relations of average comfort level. But if the leading role is taken over by the beneficiary, then this relation loses effectiveness and activity, and turns into Reverse Benefit, the comfort levels of which are below average.

Really? The direct supervision description here does not sound like a pleasant interaction to me... condescension??? who wants that? I mean i can see how that might potentially be "attractive" at first, but i dont think it would be a sustainably happy relationship. Also can't the roles reverse? i feel like Direct supervision can easily turn into Reverse supervision. Maybe that's why socionics has not traditionally distinguished between the two.

[Olimpia]

This is the ranking according to Victor Gulenko in one of his older articles. I'm kind of surprised that he placed Business relations on the same level as Superego and hasn't really explained this.

http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/shkala.html

1. Duality, Semi-Duality
2. Activation, Direct Benefit
3. Mirror, Direct Supervision
4. Identical, Kindred
5. Mirage, Extinguishment
6. Quasi-Identical, Reverse Benefit
7. Conflict, Reverse Supervision
8. Superego, Business

"The resulting rankings of intertype relations has a number of aspects that are sure to evoke surprise in many socionists. Therefore, they should be explained.

5. 1. The first surprise. That Supervision falls into the category of relations of average comfort, while the majority of socionists rank Audit as an uncomfortable relationship type. The point here is that traditional Socionics does not distinguish between Direct Revision (DR) Reverse Revision (RR). When in Supervision dyad, the Supervisor takes the leading role and the Supervisee accepts this state of things, this relation is that of Direct Revision. It is characterized by mild condescension and humane treatment by the supervisor of the supervisee. If the supervisee seizes the initiative and begins to play the leading role in the dyad, this relation "reverses" and acquires characteristics of petty control and quarrels. This is the case of Reverse Revision, which I rank in the category of discomforting relations.
The same applies to the second asymmetric intertype relationship – Benefit/Request. When the benefactor takes up the leading role in the pair, and the beneficiary does not dispute it, this is the case of Direct Benefit – a proactive type of relations of average comfort level. But if the leading role is taken over by the beneficiary, then this relation loses effectiveness and activity, and turns into Reverse Benefit, the comfort levels of which are below average.

5. 2. The second surprise. The most uncomfortable relation turns out to be not Conflicting one, but the relations of Superego. This is explained by the balancing of the intro-static temperament of Relations of Conflict in Socionics. Conflictors can be ignored for some time. Superego partner perceives your actions as deliberate creation of inconveniences and discomfort. Your actions towards him or her are interpreted in the same manner, which starts a vicious circle of mutual complaints. Thus, remember that superego is for you the most uncomfortable partner at close communication distances.

I can agree with this ranking to some degree (mostly), except for Superego and Business being the worst... like... No, haha.

At least this description finally explains what he has meant with Direct/Reverse Benefit/Supervision all the time...

With his outline in mind, I would rearrange his ranking like that:

1. Duality, Semi-Duality
2. Activation, Direct Benefit
3. Mirror, Mirage
4. Identical, Kindred
5. Business, Extinguishment
6. Quasi-Identical, Reverse Benefit
7. Direct Supervision, Super-Ego
8. Conflict, Reverse Supervision

[glam]

5. 2. The second surprise. The most uncomfortable relation turns out to be not Conflicting one, but the relations of Superego. This is explained by the balancing of the intro-static temperament of Relations of Conflict in Socionics. Conflictors can be ignored for some time. Superego partner perceives your actions as deliberate creation of inconveniences and discomfort. Your actions towards him or her are interpreted in the same manner, which starts a vicious circle of mutual complaints. Thus, remember that superego is for you the most uncomfortable partner at close communication distances.

this is all entirely true in my experience, when i have had to deal with SLIs at a close distance for an extended period of time, whether psychologically, emotionally, and/or physically. Conflict relations are also pretty bad, but in a way there can still be some "balancing out" since one is Introverted and the other is Extraverted, you have differing strengths, and IME you can still get along superficially for short periods of time. maybe there's something about sharing a temperament with your Superego that contributes to the conflict, i.e. the feeling that they are being deliberately annoying and trying to sabotage you.

[The Exception]

This is the ranking according to Victor Gulenko in one of his older articles. I'm kind of surprised that he placed Business relations on the same level as Superego and hasn't really explained this.

http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/shkala.html

1. Duality, Semi-Duality
2. Activation, Direct Benefit
3. Mirror, Direct Supervision
4. Identical, Kindred
5. Mirage, Extinguishment
6. Quasi-Identical, Reverse Benefit
7. Conflict, Reverse Supervision
8. Superego, Business

Semi-duality is equal to duality? That doesn't make sense.

[Olimpia]

Semi-duality is equal to duality? That doesn't make sense.

How I understood it: Duality and Semi-Duality are on the "first level". Duality is still better than Semi-Duality, of course. Hence it is mentioned before Semi-Duality.

Aka, his list would actually have to be like this:
1. Duality
2. Semi Duality
3. Activation
4. Direct Benefit

etc etc.

[The Exception]

How I understood it: Duality and Semi-Duality are on the "first level". Duality is still better than Semi-Duality, of course. Hence it is mentioned before Semi-Duality.

Aka, his list would actually have to be like this:
1. Duality
2. Semi Duality
3. Activation
4. Direct Benefit

etc etc.

To me, they are still distinctly different levels.

[Olimpia]

To me, they are still distinctly different levels.

Fair enough.

That means you disagree with Gulenko at this point.

[Ilamatecuhtli]

This is the ranking according to Victor Gulenko in one of his older articles. I'm kind of surprised that he placed Business relations on the same level as Superego and hasn't really explained this.

http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/shkala.html

1. Duality, Semi-Duality
2. Activation, Direct Benefit
3. Mirror, Direct Supervision
4. Identical, Kindred
5. Mirage, Extinguishment
6. Quasi-Identical, Reverse Benefit
7. Conflict, Reverse Supervision
8. Superego, Business

Gulenko: "The resulting rankings of intertype relations has a number of aspects that are sure to evoke surprise in many socionists. Therefore, they should be explained.

5.1. The first surprise. That Supervision falls into the category of relations of average comfort, while the majority of socionists rank Audit (Supervision) as an uncomfortable relationship type. The point here is that traditional Socionics does not distinguish between Direct Revision (DR) Reverse Revision (RR). When in Supervision dyad, the Supervisor takes the leading role and the Supervisee accepts this state of things, this relation is that of Direct Revision. It is characterized by mild condescension and humane treatment by the supervisor of the supervisee. If the supervisee seizes the initiative and begins to play the leading role in the dyad, this relation "reverses" and acquires characteristics of petty control and quarrels. This is the case of Reverse Revision, which I rank in the category of discomforting relations.
The same applies to the second asymmetric intertype relationship – Benefit/Request. When the benefactor takes up the leading role in the pair, and the beneficiary does not dispute it, this is the case of Direct Benefit – a proactive type of relations of average comfort level. But if the leading role is taken over by the beneficiary, then this relation loses effectiveness and activity, and turns into Reverse Benefit, the comfort levels of which are below average.

5.2. The second surprise. The most uncomfortable relation turns out to be not Conflicting one, but the relations of Superego. This is explained by the balancing of the intro-static temperament of Relations of Conflict in Socionics. Conflictors can be ignored for some time. Superego partner perceives your actions as deliberate creation of inconveniences and discomfort. Your actions towards him or her are interpreted in the same manner, which starts a vicious circle of mutual complaints. Thus, remember that superego is for you the most uncomfortable partner at close communication distances.

Would change for:

(Very positive)
1. Duality
2. Activity
3. Semi-Duality
4. Direct Benefit

(Nicely neutral)
5. Identical
6. Mirror
7. Direct supervision

(A bit draining)
8. Mirage
9. Kindred
10. Reverse Benefit

(Ok with keeping a distance, otherwise horrible)
11. Superego
12. Quasi-Identical
13. Conflict

(Ever horrible)
14. Bussines (ESI imposing Fi on my Ti, so nope)
15. Reverse Supervision
16. Extinguishment (can't possibly imagine how anyone may be attracted to them for even a minute. Maybe particularly LSE are such monsters, not sure.).

[ghost of forum past]

I think that if they happen to interact superficially conflictors can be pleasant. People that might rub me the wrong way are often victims of circumstance rather than necessarily my conflictors.

Conflictors can be enigmatic which can have an effect of drawing each other closer. This can happen seemingly randomly because of opposite temperaments. If both parties shift to a closer psychological distance true "conflict" begins to produce extreme tension, if not open hostility (this depends heavily on the types involved - just as not all dual pairs may act the same in a given situation, not all conflictors may act the same in a given situation).

I don't know any SEEs well enough to type them SEE (though I am sure I have interacted with them before), but I have with difficulty attempted to mediate between a confirmed ILI and confirmed ESE, both of whom are close to me(the above comments are based on this). It's stressful, and attempting to come up with a "perfect solution" is frustrating when neither party can accept the sincerity of the other.

[End]

I like how @silke put it. If one accepts the terms they're under in a relationship then things proceed much more smoothly, perhaps even in a desirable direction. Now I can see why people end up falling for their supervisors and benefactors, and why those relationships didn't eventually explode into nastiness like one would think given the theory. Both sides accepted the arrangement and weren't exactly dissatisfied with it. The supervisor and supervisee accepted their roles in the relationship and neither tried to do anything except that. Same with the Benefactor and Beneficiary.

It's not as good as being with a dual, but if the interests are aligned correctly and the two people value each other enough the typology begins to mean less. Not everyone can have an "ideal" relationship, one must learn to cherish and treasure the people around us who are there for us regardless of their type. One can get along with damn near anyone else if they psychologically healthy, it's just that things might not work out perfectly. They may work out well enough though, even in a romantic relationship.

[chrys]

Okay, is this theoretical or applied to my own life as a certain sociotype? I really got excited about doing this... but I guess I can't do it.

I'll prolly try doing both ways lol actually, when i get the chance; honestly I dont know over half of them, and none of them in depth.

[Hitta]

Who the fuck deleted my post?

[Muddy]

I'll add my thoughts on why a lot seem to be reporting supervision to be better then expected.

The supervisee's most subdued functions, the ignoring and Polr, are supervisor's areas of greatest understanding, the Base and Demonstrative. This allows the supervisor to skillfully handle the areas in which the handle the areas where the supervisee shows the most inadequacy and inertness, perhaps more so then in dual relations in some cases. Being on the same side of process/result also allows a more direct flow of information and understanding of each other, unlike Mirage relations. The quality of supervision relations, perhaps more so then any other relation, probably depends a lot on the level of health of the people involved and if they can accept each others flaws and differences.

[Myst]

I'll add my thoughts on why a lot seem to be reporting supervision to be better then expected.

The supervisee's most subdued functions, the ignoring and Polr, are supervisor's areas of greatest understanding, the Base and Demonstrative. This allows the supervisor to skillfully handle the areas in which the handle the areas where the supervisee shows the most inadequacy and inertness, perhaps more so then in dual relations in some cases. Being on the same side of process/result also allows a more direct flow of information and understanding of each other, unlike Mirage relations. The quality of supervision relations, perhaps more so then any other relation, probably depends a lot on the level of health of the people involved and if they can accept each others flaws and differences.

I'd add that strengthened creative function of supervisor helps - it seems to create a channel of communication both ways (even if with hiccups here and there). So ILE-Ti's are often better for me than ILE-Ne's. The stronger the Ti, the better.

[LuckyOne]

For me it goes:

Dual
Mirror

Identical

Kindred
Semi Dual
Super Ego

Activator

Benefactor

Quasi Identical

Supervisor

Conflictor

Beneficiary

Extinguishment

[Olimpia]

Today I came across this article, and I pretty much agree with its descriptions and general conclusion that for most (or many) people, the best relations are typically Duality, Activity, Semi-Duality (and Mirage, as far as I know):

As you could see, Duality is the best and the most satisfying relationship possible. Activation is pretty good, too, and Semi-Duality can be fine for some couples. Other relationships – you’ll have to try hard to make them work.

Of course, personal issues, such as background, lifestyle and goals matter. When talking about marriage, they matter a lot, indeed. Besides, you do not just live with a personality type – you live with a person. One person is good, the other isn’t.

However, given the same circumstances, a relationship with your Dual will benefit you most. Your Dual has the biggest chance of being your soulmate. Getting closer with him, you discover the best and often under-valued sides of yourself. These are the most loving and lasting relationships.

[Muddy]

I'm on the side that thinks introverts prefer interacting with other introverts and vice versa for extroverts, and therefore I would rank activity as higher then duality.

While a dual might offer the most potential in helping you achieve your goals and aspirations, I think activity is better in terms of pleasantness and sincerity between partners. The extrovert in a dual pair may often too much for the introvert to digest, and each partner may prefer their activity or benefactor over their dual due to matching energy levels. The fact that are each partner are trying to extract more from their activators creative could lead to tighter and stronger bonds then with duals in some cases.

I think a similar kind of logic applies to conflict and super-ego. I would rank super-ego as worse then conflict since the different energy levels can help conflictors stay separated. Super-ego is harder to ignore and it is more likely that they will connect and exchange blows.

I'll also add that I think Identity and Activity is preferred more amongst Si (and possibly Fi) valuing types, introverts especially, then it is amongst Se valuing types. Se valuing types might see it as more important that they accomplish their goals and thus seek their duals more often, while Si valuing types place more emphasis on the comfort of the relationship itself then what it has to offer.

I also have the impression that Si valuing Extroverts tend to go for their benefit types more often then other types for some reason.

[Olimpia]

I'm on the side that thinks introverts prefer interacting with other introverts and vice versa for extroverts, and therefore I would rank activity as higher then duality.

While a dual might offer the most potential in helping you achieve your goals and aspirations, I think activity is better in terms of pleasantness and sincerity between partners. The extrovert in a dual pair may often too much for the introvert to digest, and each partner may prefer their activity or benefactor over their dual due to matching energy levels. The fact that are each partner are trying to extract more from their activators creative could lead to tighter and stronger bonds then with duals in some cases.

I think a similar kind of logic applies to conflict and super-ego. I would rank super-ego as worse then conflict since the different energy levels can help conflictors stay separated. Super-ego is harder to ignore and it is more likely that they will connect and exchange blows.

I'll also add that I think Identity and Activity is preferred more amongst Si (and possibly Fi) valuing types, introverts especially, then it is amongst Se valuing types. Se valuing types might see it as more important that they accomplish their goals and thus seek their duals more often, while Si valuing types place more emphasis on the comfort of the relationship itself then what it has to offer.

I also have the impression that Si valuing Extroverts tend to go for their benefit types more often then other types for some reason.

This reminds me of an interesting excerpt I read from this book:

 

"The [introverted] female and the [extroverted] male is the most traditional pairing. Jane Jones and Rush Sherman write in their book, Intimacy and Type, "Our extensive clinical practice and research seems to indicate that the [introvert-extrovert] relationship works better if the male is the extrovert and the woman is the introvert" (1997, 106). [...] This couple combination functions very well especially if the partners are from cultures that expect the man to be in charge. They often have less conflict because their roles are well defined and sanctioned by the culture."

"Another study about marital satisfaction [...] followed couples over seven years to monitor marital behavior, satisfaction, and divorce. Among the couples they studied, introverted men tended to marry later and [...] they usually paired up with introverted women. The study also found that extroverted women married to introvert men were the least satisfied. Clearly, [...] cultural influences filter down into our relationships, even without our realizing it. The difficulties faced by this type of pair are based, at least in part, on the negative way introverted men are seen in our culture."

"[...] [S]ame-temperament relationships aren't as common as [introvert-extrovert] ones [...]."

"In Marti's own research about introvert and extroverted relationships, she found that the [introvert-introvert] couples report the most relationship satisfaction of all the variety of couple combinations. A high level of satisfaction in this type of relationship makes sense, since they tend to have fewer daily conflicts than couples of different temperaments."

"An [extrovert-extrovert] pairing is one of the most problematic ones. It's fun, exciting, and full of dopamine – while it lasts. [...] A common hobby, interest, or occupation, or even the task of raising children, can strengthen their bond and keep them moving."

 

"Of course, all of the differences we have discussed crop up in same-sex couples, too. This couple already faces discriminations, so adding other challenges like differences in temperaments can be stressful. [...] Introverted gay men may face rejection from extroverted partners who idealize outgoing temperaments."

In summary (satisfaction rating):

1. Introvert & Introvert
2. Introvert female & Extrovert male
3. Extrovert & Extrovert
4. Introvert male & Extrovert female


Now, let's translate this into Socionics.

The supposedly best ITRs for...

Introverts & Extroverted women: Identity, Activity, Look-A-Like, Kindred, (Benefit), ((Super-Ego)), ((Quasi-Identity))
Extroverted men: Duality, Mirror, Semi-Duality, Mirage, (Supervision), ((Extinguishment)), ((Conflict))


The supposedly worst ITRs:

Introverted men & Extroverted women: ((Duality)), (Mirror), (Semi-Duality), (Mirage), Supervision, Extinguishment, Conflict


I think those findings could spark an interesting discussion.
Is Duality actually only the best for extroverted males (in our culture)? Or is Duality actually worse for introverted men/extroverted women?
How much does culture influence the success of ITRs?

[Myst]

"The [introverted] female and the [extroverted] male is the most traditional pairing. Jane Jones and Rush Sherman write in their book, Intimacy and Type, "Our extensive clinical practice and research seems to indicate that the [introvert-extrovert] relationship works better if the male is the extrovert and the woman is the introvert" (1997, 106). [...] This couple combination functions very well especially if the partners are from cultures that expect the man to be in charge. They often have less conflict because their roles are well defined and sanctioned by the culture."

Bullshit. In my case. It needs more than just extraversion vs introversion for it to work. Plus I'm pretty much ambiverted in terms of levels of activity, etc. I most definitely don't care to have the man being in charge too much. Absolutely zero chance of me liking such a thing. I feel more natural if I'm in charge in enough things. So fuck these stereotypes lol

[Muddy]

Is this based on your experience? I think immature people would like conversing with people of their same orientation but mature people will prefer inverse orientation. Reason is pretty simple.

With the dual pairing both people can be in their nature role. The extravert will naturally led the conversation and the introvert will enjoy that. Because of this the interaction is very balanced. Both people are activated but not over activated. It's a good pace.

In contrast the activity pair tends to over stimulate both people. It's very crash and burn. Like a rollercoaster with huge highs and then lows. Don't get me wrong it's still a very enjoyable relationship but it definitely is not as balanced. There is a tendency for the two people to talk over each other.

It is possible what I said earlier could just apply to the levels of classical extroversion/introversion between partners instead of socionics extroversion/introversion and that I mistook that as activity. Energy level can vary within the same type, and my hypothesis is that we prefer to be around other people that exhibit levels of restlessness and chattiness closest to our own, independent of socionics related factors.

As @Cassandra posted, gender roles could also influence this. Males tend to not like being controlled/overshadowed as much as females and thus prefer their partners to be more agreeable and submissive on average. I am a male so maybe this might factor in my experiences.

[Muddy]

Isn't "classical" extroversion/introversion just a misunderstanding of Jung's definitions?

Maybe but I don't really see why this is relevant towards the point I was trying to make.

I think this also has to do with personality (not types tho) / maturity. From my experience weak men like weak women. As you said these people (majority of people) have self-esteem and are uncomfortable with a strong women. Inversely, I am a strong man (you'll just have to take my word on that) and I require strong women. The low self-esteem of weak women mean they get easily offended by me. As for the overshadow part, weak women do not like being in the spotlight and that will frustrate me so I want a women who isn't afraid of being the center of attention.

This works very similar to the way men and women match up by height. A taller man an average will pair up with taller women then a short guy. However, no matter the height range you almost always see the guy being taller then the woman. Statistics have proven this, even when factoring in that men tend to be taller then women on average. As guy who as stronger/tougher then the average man, you would probably like your woman to also be tougher then average women. However, chances are you would still only pair with a woman who is at least a few notches below your own levels of strength/toughness. When I go to the gym for example I see this one super ultra-masculine dude who just so happens to have a wife that is also super-masculine, more masculine then the majority of guys in there even, but she is still less the masculine the him, hence maintaining the "close but less than" rule.

[Myst]

Is this based on your experience? I think immature people would like conversing with people of their same orientation but mature people will prefer inverse orientation. Reason is pretty simple.

With the dual pairing both people can be in their nature role. The extravert will naturally led the conversation and the introvert will enjoy that. Because of this the interaction is very balanced. Both people are activated but not over activated. It's a good pace.

In contrast the activity pair tends to over stimulate both people. It's very crash and burn. Like a rollercoaster with huge highs and then lows. Don't get me wrong it's still a very enjoyable relationship but it definitely is not as balanced. There is a tendency for the two people to talk over each other.

I agree on some of this. The activity pair thingy, as described, I experience that with IEIs pretty much. And EIEs are fine with more balance yes. Actually, LIEs too (Rational Mirage for me), I must mention this dynamics too since there's definitely a neat balance but it's also with a certain distance that may not be noticed by the parties but never gets closed. Like with me and my LIE ex, I noticed and decided only after quite the delay that this distance was there and could simply not be closed. My ex on the other hand didn't ever get aware of this. Probably the 1D Fi sucks even more at noticing than my 2D Fi role lol. I don't find the LIEs different from EIEs in terms of being activated initially. But that distance thingy, I think it leads to less activation over time. In the long term especially.

With the LIEs, I also notice that this balance will be self-sustaining very neatly (with that distance that is hard to notice and can never be closed), like forever. Unless external circumstances mess with the Ethics aspect of things - because then this balance is very quickly disturbed and it looks real BAD to outside observers especially. To the LIE vs me, it's less noticeable, especially to the LIE (again the 1D Fi thingy) and we can sort out things Logically after a while. Intense arguing until then can be quite fun, hell, lol.

Actually, it's all pretty much like described here about Cold-Blooded (IxTx) vs Business (ExTx) relationship: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ication-styles ("3. "Business-like" (PL) and "Cold-blooded" (LP) types.
: Events in this pair usually follow this scenario. Both partners in this pair are quite indifferent to ethical influences. "Business-like" partner tries to use "Cold-blooded" partner for his purposes, but his efforts don't lead to anything. Over time and after a series of unsuccessful attempts, the desire of "Business-like" partner to change situation to his own tastes fades, and partners start drifting apart. Internal equilibrium, nevertheless, is attained in this way. In relation to people around them, this pair turns out to be insensitive. Each is busy with something of his own. However, if external influences are so strong that they affect the low-activity ethical functions of partners, quarrels begin between them concerning how to respond. This impaired balance with the outside world for them is very difficult to restore.")

It's otherwise alright, being one of these two relationships: "The following two kinds of relationships provide psychological homeostasis only partially. Compatibility between them is of average significance. Either internal disagreements or external destructive influence can undermine these relations".

Isn't "classical" extroversion/introversion just a misunderstanding of Jung's definitions?

No, this dichotomy has been defined several times by several different psychologists/researchers. Jung is just one of them. The picture is slightly more complex than what Jung painted though he definitely had some nice insight into some um, patterns that seem like a lot more sensible insights than what some other ideas by others were from his time. A very unfinished system though, so...

I think this also has to do with personality (not types tho) / maturity. From my experience weak men like weak women. As you said these people (majority of people) have self-esteem and are uncomfortable with a strong women. Inversely, I am a strong man (you'll just have to take my word on that) and I require strong women. The low self-esteem of weak women mean they get easily offended by me. As for the overshadow part, weak women do not like being in the spotlight and that will frustrate me so I want a women who isn't afraid of being the center of attention.

I think your definition of what's weak vs strong in women is a bit unrefined. Lol

It is possible what I said earlier could just apply to the levels of classical extroversion/introversion between partners instead of socionics extroversion/introversion and that I mistook that as activity. Energy level can vary within the same type, and my hypothesis is that we prefer to be around other people that exhibit levels of restlessness and chattiness closest to our own, independent of socionics related factors.

As @Cassandra posted, gender roles could also influence this. Males tend to not like being controlled/overshadowed as much as females and thus prefer their partners to be more agreeable and submissive on average. I am a male so maybe this might factor in my experiences.

Eew, submissiveness, not my thing. Fought a lot with my LIE ex over him feeling too controlled by me. EIEs don't mind in the same way, must be that they mind the Ti less. It's funny, my ESI-Se mom is also anything but submissive or agreeable seeming but my LIE dad was fine with her way of controlling - more Ethics based than mine I suppose.

As for the levels of activity, restlessness, chattiness, whatever... No I prefer to be around certain duals who are definitely more restless and more chatty than me. Level of general activity is similar though, in terms of amount of initiative taking. I'm more initiative taking in the sensory/physical areas essentially, compared to them, and they are more initiative taking socially. There can also be mutual initiative taking in some areas and that's cool too.

[Myst]

The beauty of Fi/Te. Just needs to be good enough to get the job done.

IEE

Oh a conflictor. Okay. Lol

I don't think SLIs like to be in the spotlight tho'. Most introverts don't care to. Still they could be strong people.

[Myst]

Hard to say. The cognitive functions models don't take into account all personality traits. It's hard to say whether liking attention or being strong relate the personality types. I would personally say no with regards to personal strength (however we define that) and unsure with regards to introverts and the spotlight.

Agreed partially in that the correlation between type and personal strength would not be very strong, definitely not a direct line of causation there. With introverts, I think there is a clearer correlation, I would say they can sometimes like being in the spotlight but not constantly. That would just require too much extraverted information processing. So my point was that this is not necessarily due to lack of personal strength, and not due to fear etc.

[Rebelondeck]

I took a different approach in addressing this subject when I wrote the article below. I thought that processing perspective (need?) would produce a greater holding force. However, since our primal needs have to be met first and both, in any relationship, is affected by all the baggage that the other carries, this makes cognitive style a distant tertiary consideration and perhaps somewhat irrelevant. I think that Socionics theory is best used to help one understand oneself and the partner(s) that one ends up with rather than to use it to find theoretically ideal relationships........

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

a.k.a. I/O