You can view the page at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-by-Meged-VV
Article: Compatible subtypes by Meged VV
You can view the page at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-by-Meged-VV
This article is so needlessly verbose.
Here's a classic rational summing up that retains the same ultimate point:
In duals, there is likely to be greater compatibility when one person is the rational subtype of their TIM and the other is the irrational subtype of their TIM. This is because the emphasised information elements of these subtypes match up and therefore influence interests, potential careers and mindsets.
Te-LSE + Ne-EII (Te Ti Ne Ni) = Good
Si-LSE + Fi-EII (Se Si Fe Fi) = Good
Si-LSE + Ne-EII (Se Si Fe Fi vs Te Ti Ne Ni) = Less Good
Te-LSE + Fi-EII (Te Ti Ne Ni vs Se Si Fe Fi) = Less Good
This is very interesting if true, but must logically run contrary to Model A somewhat
Ti system symmetry sometimes leaves out room for the truth to seep in. Sometimes the truth isn't neatly logical.
Not sure I agree with Meged's conclusions. I think the strength of dual pairs comes from their complementarity, and it seems like two of the same subtype would be more complementary than one of each subtype. Fi-IEE has accented sensing and ethics to the detriment of intuition and logic. Wouldn't it therefore make sense that Te-SLI, with its heightened logic and intuition, would be a better complement than Si-SLI?
exactly...
maybe some of the references it includes has some actual evidence to support it though
I would suspect that the benefit of duality comes more from the fact that the two types will share the same kind of ethics (they'll either be more firm in base and suggestive positions or a bit more flexible in creative and mobilising positions).Originally Posted by heavynurse
Given that duals without subtype considered will fit into each other's IE configurations neatly, I don't think the duals' subtypes emphasising the same two Jungian dichotomies is a bad thing. I actually had this thought before coming across the article itself.
I'm not sure it's appropriate to elevate the importance of ethical functions. LSI has Fe in the suggestive position and ESE has Ti in the base position, thereby satisfying your criteria. Yet IEI would still be a better match for LSI, and ILE for ESE. Semi-dual SLE is a better match for ILI than benefit partner EII, despite the latter sharing the same valued ethical function. Forgive me if I've missed your point.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that things won't line up as neatly. Te-SLI's accentuated logic and intuition better complement Fi-IEE's accentuated ethics and sensing than do Si-SLI's accentuated ethics and sensing.
Last edited by Olduvai; 07-08-2014 at 05:44 AM.
Using the two dyad pairs of Gamma as an example (LIE+ESI and SEE+ILI), the Fi of LIE/ESI is more fixed and principled. Having the ethics in the creative position of SEE and the mobilising position of the ILI has a more flexible moment to moment version of Fi. For a more detailed idea of how that manifests, it's best to read this article for LIE/ESI and this article for SEE/ILI.
Yeah, the symmetry is more a concern for someone that values Ti. I care for what works, not what looks like it works in theory but not in practice.
I'm gonna go ahead and skip Strat's duality descriptions; I find her stuff to be needlessly verbose
Duality works because everything lines up, not just ethics. The more "things" that line up, the better the relationship. IEI is a better match for LSI than ESE is because IEI has both Fe and Ni as ego functions, despite ESE's having Fe in the same position as LSI's dual. And SLE is a better match for ILI than IEE is, even though IEE has Fi in the same position as ILI's dual.
It's not symmetrical for symmetry's sake, it's symmetrical because it just makes sense that way. And I don't think we can even say what works better in practice, because Meged's conclusions appear to be based on theoretical assumptions rather than empirical data.
Your loss, considering you're not understanding what I'm saying.I'm gonna go ahead and skip Strat's duality descriptions; I find her stuff to be needlessly verbose
I've found that activity relations across other quadras are generally a bad idea romantically but might be a better idea for platonic friendship.
I've made my own observations that the assertions in this article might be a point for consideration, it's a coincidence that I ended up finding that there was something already written on the matter.
You go with your idea of symmetric duality and I'll go with my idea of asymmetric duality.
I understand where Meged is coming from with her theory, namely the radical similarity between ethics and intuition (both abstract functions) and sensing and thinking (both concrete functions) which can lead to an ease in mutual understanding among subtypes with the same pairings. A couple of things however remain unclear to me:
1. How does this system work for ST and NF types? Neither of the two has a point of contact with the other. Arguing that a Ne-subtype ENFp is a better fit for a Te-subtype ISTp because the Ne-sub ENFp is more similar to an ENTp seems to completely run contrary to the current logic of socionics. Bringing forth this argument, you would quickly end up arguing that the best-fit for a Te subtype ISTp is a Ti-subtype ESTp due to the similarity in both logic and sensing. IMHO Meged is confusing the ability to work well with each other on the same technical or ethical project (and that's often given by "club" pairings, f.e. mirrors or supervisors working towards a common sensing, feeling, intuition or thinking goal is often the most effective pairing for completing a specific task) vs. the ability to form long-lasting, complementary and smooth relations which is given by complementary "clubs".
2. While you may argue that say a Se subtype ISFj may find a Te subtype ENTj "more suitable" because he looks "stronger" than a Ni sub, I'd argue that this is not a good premise for developing a long-lasting relationship, since two types who focus on extraverted and concrete functions are normally bound to butt heads a lot, whereas I would suppose that having a more yielding and "manipulative" partner leads to a long-term positive development. I see that Meged has considered this point in her explanation but explicitly chose to dismiss it.
In short I think Meged is cataloging an existing phenomenon (ease in "working" together for a specific project) in the "wrong" bracket (ease in forming a long-lasting positive relationship).
Maybe (not sure) you may conclude that an asymmetric duality is better suited for a working relationship whereas a symmetric duality is better suited for a romantic relationship.
Last edited by FDG; 07-08-2014 at 09:46 AM.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It seems like she's bringing up a point thats already been brought up before, and just giving her opinion that one's better(than the other).
IEI-Ni + SLE-Ti, are supposed to work better with each other and are therefore more compatible on a particular level due to both of them having enhanced skill and focus on Ti and Ni.
IEI-Ni + SLE-Se, are supposed to put each other at ease quicker, because they compliment ones strength with anothers weakness. IEI-Ni has the focus on Ni & Ti, and SLE has the focus on Se & Fe, while the strengths of the two are split differently.
It seems as though Meged just prefers the former, and not the latter. It's her opinion.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Perhaps you could explain it better for me and spare me the chore of having to slog through Strat's outrageously loquacious descriptions? You appear to be saying that the chief benefit of duality comes from the ethical IEs being in complementary positions; what I'm saying is that the benefit of duality comes from every IE being in a complementary position. Hence my argument regarding subtypes.
But activity relations are still better for romantic relationships than are relations of benefit, no?
Fair enough, but I'd rather you call my idea "complementary duality". Shit, you might as well just call it "duality".
From what I've seen compatible subtypes are those who match on the strengthened Judging/Perceiving line most of all.
I'm confused now. I thought rational subtypes work best with someone of the complementary rational subtype. And likewise with irrational subtypes. So LII-Ti is better with ESE-Fe and LII-Ne is better with ESE-Si.
I could be confusing it with DCNH theory. In DCNH irrational subtypes C and H best complement each other and rational subtypes D and N complement.
It's the exact opposite. P subtypes get along better and likewise so do J subtypes.
This is true as far as I always understood it...I'm an Fe-SEI, and I feel the best chemistry with Ti-ILE types. I met one ILE who I'm pretty sure was a strong Ne subtype. He was more relaxed, used less critical thinking, more friendly and open and laidback than most ENTps. And I tried to get close to him but I never felt the same duality chemistry as with the others.
Same. I've met SLI-Te types and I find them to active and controlling, like LSE, compared to the SLI-Si type, which is more much clam and laid-back. Prefer the Si subtype to Te.
This extends to all relationships. Even with judging types, I prefer the perceiving subtypes.
Yes, this makes sense! Especially if you are a perceiving subtype yourself, right?I've never thought about what subtypes I prefer outside of my duals, but I've noticed what you describe about SLI-Te subtypes. They tend to dominate the conversation, going on about all the details they've memorized about their most favorite subjects. One I knew was a major fan of guns and knives. He'd just go up to you and start talking. He could tell you every detail under the sun about all the different makes and brands, what the different features were made for, whether or not the features actually turned out to be useful in real-life circumstances, and so on. He'd back off if I gave a clear signal that I'd had enough, but otherwise he could go on for hours with me only interjecting a few "mm"s and "ahhs". His brain was like an encyclopedia for a few beloved subjects. It was pretty impressive, really. Whereas the LSEs I've met have a brain that's like an encyclopedia for practically everything o_o But they both are pretty assertive.
Then there was this other SLI I knew, and I'm pretty sure she was a more introverted one. She was just relaxed and unassuming, not very emotionally warm, but still considerate. At first it was me that got the friendship going, and I was worried she didn't want me trying to get to know her because she didn't respond with many facial expressions. She was pretty closed-off. But then about a week later, she started saying 'hi' and acting like it was already established that we were good acquaintances. She liked to bring lunches for me during class. It was hard to ruffle her feathers, so to speak, she was just so relaxed about everything. She'd pretty much go along with whatever you wanted to talk about and say lots of "m-hm"s and occasionally add her own, well thought-out opinion that was always down-to-earth/realistic.
Anyways, sorry if I'm rambling too much! You just got me thinking about my old SLI friends. I liked all of them, very easy-going people
Ohh, this makes sense, good explanation! Well that explains why I disagreed with this, initially, since I'm looking at subtypes from the perspective of finding a relationship rather than a work partner...
Yep, I've had the gun military conversation with my SLI-Te friend.
Yep, that's my type. It's nice because I get to do all the talking since I'm very Ne.
As far as semi duals go, speaking of SEI and IEE as an example, if IEE-ne is closer to alpha as I've heard, (I'm guessing that means closer to ILE type with similarities there), then would a SEI fe rational subtype possibly get along with a the irrational IEE over the FI subtype in any way, or is the rational/irrational stronger (I suspect it is), or is the theory about being closer to ILE invalid...? Obviously SEI-si is best (leaning toward Delta?) for IEE-ne but just wondering.
Pretty much this, FDG.
Always ime rational subtype with rational subtype and same for irrational
lol @ this narrative that its about work v relationships
people have just pre-defined "relationships"to validate their pre-existing assumption about same subtypes being preferable in some sense. its nothing more than saying, "I think same subtype is better" you can say "yes indeed its all opinion" and then you realize you've essentially cherry picked the subtype system in such a way that notions of "complimentary" and "relationship" become so subjective that you could just as easily extend the same justification to saying duality is inferior to conflict and so forth. its fine if thats your theory, its inconsistent with socionics though. gulenko actually says conflict is better in certain environments, so I can't help but feel a lot of these shades of divergence are expressions of lived experience in certain environments, but unmoored from the base theory. ultimately people can say whatever but they're not talking about socionics or 2 type subtypes anymore, they're just off in their own world. this is why M+O came up with 2 type subtype, so its weird to basically hijack it by altering their conclusions on the basis you know better without also throwing out the basis on which they were derived, since they stem from the same judgement and are linked by distinct logical chains. if you throw out the conclusion without addressing how it came to be, with more than simply its all subjective, it shows you never understood it to begin with. people just like the idea of 2 type subtype because it makes intuitive sense, but they don't really understand from whence it came and where it leads, hence they feel free to adapt it to whatever selfsame intuitive notions gave rise to them accepting it to begin with. this is fine, but you're thinking you're talking about the same system, but you're actually working within your own entirely distinct system. we should call it "the 16types 2 type system" because that is exactly what it is. in that sense it is all subjective, but its not because M+O or wrong, its because you're using the same words to refer to two different things. in all likelihood whatever one actually experienced as "ideal subtype matching" would actually correspond to both, the two camps would just call it something different. in other words, instead of saying "its all subjective" therefore M+O are wrong, its more like "its all subjective" so you're both right, but using language in two different ways, namely to subtly diverge on notions of "complimentariness"--if you look closely people just diverge via the notion of "complimentary" and what is contained with in it, redefine the essence of subtype to mean something different. honestly people seem to romanticize certain functions and their entire way of looking at duality and subtype is based on lining those notions up without ever thinking about how that may or may not be accurate. this is indeed rooted in some subjective notion of whats the best "relationship" but its also meaningless as it related to the subtype system because it runs completely independent of it and only imports its terminology to give it a certain veneer, without betraying the fact its essentially whatever the person wants it to be and was never derived from anything other than that starting point. its essentially saying something to the effect of "I define for myself what the best relationship is" which is true, but it also explodes socionics which claims to have a more or less rational basis for fixing ITRs, which has totally gone out the window, although in this case it is limited to some small piece of wiggle room, in principle it undermines all of socionics, which is probably part of the reason why people have such a hard time understanding it, because they can't decide whether they want to lead or follow. for the types who want to redefine the system they should really go ahead and just do that. there seems to me to be an element of either naivete or arrogance to that position though
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-12-2018 at 10:13 AM.
@Bertrand: what i was thinking when i wrote my conclusion about same subtype is that there are other people who have written quite a bit about socionics on this forum, like Smilingeyes, who also supports the same subtype system and that for instance one of the reasons why he concluded that (if i understand him correctly, of course) is that (for instance) TE practically acts as a protection for FI whereas there isn't much there that Si can do for Fi, in fact Fi corrects Si so a very strong Fi subtype with a very strong Si subtype would just be a relation of constantly correcting the SI in the Si person.
This is just an example, but something that i've accepted. I could be wrong, but from everything else i've read seems to hold (again, in my limited understanding)
yeah im just saying once you use "relationships" to justify altering their conclusion one is no longer talking about the two type subtype system, they're essentially using the same words, but they're actualy in world #2 not world #1, its sort of like how if you don't yeild on "relationships" and ultimately reserve the right, as a matter of theory, to assert your own opinion, it explodes socionics, since that is what socionics precisely is. I totally understand why people do this, because they don't need socioncis to tell them what relationships are better. but these are ethical types, and the mistake is not in the premise in the sense that such a move is wrong, its simply wrong when they say that this is the conclusion that the subtype system itself draws. its more like we're now in their personal alternate system, but they're using the same language as if they're the same, when they're in fact not. smilingeyes was more up front about this because he came straight out and said he was in his own system essentially. it would be more proper that if when everyone invokes subtypes to say irrational/irrational rational/rational subtypes go together better, if they disclaimed it by saying "this is according not to the theory but my own take on the theory--the base theory concludes the opposite"--it is tantamount to saying something like "i prefer activity to duality" which is fine, but people should know what they're getting, too many people make it sound, either intentionally or unwittingly, like the system itself concludes that i/i and r/r go together, when it doesnt. its dishonest campaigning to rewrite the system, at worst
I am starting to think this is right (rational and irrational subtypes being well-matched) for me in practice. I noticed in this article AV Boukalov, G. Boiko, "Why Saddam Xuseyn wrong, or what is Socionics" they also advocate the same thing:
"dualization relations are most favorable for the types with different subtypes: if one is stronger rational function, then the other must be irrational subtype - more developed an irrational function" and
"If the subtypes do not match (two rational or two irrational), then partners. seem more simple. Hence - the loss of interest in each other."
I have realised this is a practical reality for my relationships, SLI-si does not provide the "grit in the concrete" kind of feeling that Te subtype does and so it is harder to begin and maintain the relationship and it feels a little dull.
I also noticed in the subtype decriptions of SLI-si by megev and ovcharov it says "Dislikes abstract conversations, prefers deeds instead" which seems a bit less well-matched with Ne-IEE
For semi-duals the opposite may be the case though
It really remains to be seen but this is my experience so far
I agree with this. I am IEE-Ne and my husband is SLI-Si and yes, the SLI-Te seems more "simple", and less interesting.
Interesting. "Grit-in-concrete" is not a quality I particularly have an interest in; it must be a particular IEE-Fi thing. I wonder if @applejacks can relate to that interest, as she types IEE-Fi, and is happily married, I believe to a SLI-Te.
I see evidences of Si as this magical, interesting thing in my husband. Sometimes, especially if my mind is overfull of other things (like my work, as it has been some months now) and I ask my husband a question about what something is for example, and he starts on a long, detailed Te response, and I will have to stop him and say, "I can't think that way right now." - the Te-ness of the response is just too much. Other times I can handle it, when not so pressed in other ways. Like I can listen (from the next room) to him talking for hours with his son about Latin declentions (this being a real example of Te at work, IMO), and I find it a rather comforting background thing to have going on in the house...
My SLI-Si husband may dislike abstract conversations (he has not explicitly demonstrated he does not, but I know this is not his realm) but I do engage in them from time to time, and when I do have a need to talk such a thing out, he always listens, and he long-remembers what I say, which I love about him. It makes me feel really loved, and validated. He also does in fact have a liking for "deeds", as referred to in the above quote, and has expressed special thanks for them at times, or he'll fondly recall the "deed" much later, like the first time I cooked for him at my own house, when we were "dating", and put a piece of much-marinated meat, cooled slightly just off the grill, in his mouth for him to taste before we sat...
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I think in the final analysis subtype differences between duals are just good in different ways... ultimately its all duality. there's arguments to be made for different set ups having different advantages for different purposes, but ultimately its all umbrella'd under duality
what this article seems to be saying is that base + creative subtypes are great (ideal for getting stuff done), base + base is also good (for relaxation), and creative + creative is slightly less good (they tend have neither the advantages of the first two).. this changes if base function is irrational or rational. i.e.: the above is based on IEE + SLI. in LIE + ESI it would be different, because the entire premise is that different rational functions compete, thus 2x base rational subtypes would take the position creative + creative does in the above example
in other words, you look to the functions that compliment eachother:
in IEE + SLI
IEE +Ne +Te
SLI +Te +Ne
involves mutually enhanced non competing channels
IEE +Fi +Si
SLI +Si +Fi
same thing
IEE +Fi +Si
SLI +Te +Ne
this last one tends to work against eachother, despite the idea that the functions "compliment" eachother, they only compliment if they're coming from the appropriate block (i.e.: mobilizing<->creative) because the idea is otherwise each insists on their priority to the same degree the other person does. i.e.: the role functions compete, the creative functions compete, its not getting sent to its proper recipient channel, rather its requesting more on a channel the other delivers less on, or delivering more on a channel the other requests less on. instead of operating in a harmonious back and forth they're sort of diverging as to what they want vs what they want to provide
in LIE ESI
LIE +Te +Se
ESI +Fi +Ni
same issue, ultimately this sets each against eachother in a small way. all of this is based on the idea that logic supresses ethics and vice versa, despite the fact they may be dichotomous and not conflicting. in other words, its best if they're moving in the same direction together rather than trying to assert their individual priority...
to return to the first pair. +Te in the mobilizing (in IEE) wants more Te coming from a creative position, thus Te subtype SLI delivers.. in the last example Te doesn't want more Fi it wants more Se, and in return it gets Ni that is not coming from the position it expects, i.e.: creative Se, its getting mobilizing Ni, so the whole thing flows less smoothy. in return ESI wants more Ni coming from creative and its getting less...
the real takeaway here is you can't say for what base+base is best or base+creative, because it actually differs in the context of rational or irrational dual pairs
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-29-2018 at 09:13 PM.
Eliza, I love hearing about this stuff, sounds a great match and I am happy for you.
Actually I am Ne subtype too, whoops I forgot to mention that, so I guess I was thinking the opposite of you in terms of subtypes. But my experiences with each type of SLI only lasted a few months each as I wasted many years in a semi-dual relationship. So I am just basing in on small interactions now and my conclusions are speculative. I believe the quote about seeming simple was for the same subtype but obviously there is no consensus between authors and maybe that is a good thing. After all we are individuals with different backgrounds etc. For example my father was TE polr, so maybe that's why Te is appealing to me, who knows? I just meant about the "grit" feeling like the person is there are reacting, because I'm pretty chill, even if sometimes that reaction might border on painful/brutish, it is something concrete that can be worked with, something externalised. I guess we each have an individual amount of bluntness/sensitivity and chaos/order that we can handle or find workable so it makes sense that different subtypes appeal differently.
And yes I agree Si and magic- there is something to it.
Bertrand thanks for clarifying.
having possible IEI you should have this for all "duals" as LSE in closer communication as those are conflictors. minor functions strenght difference should not change the general positive attititude in good IR to negative impression, which is common for bad IR
there are no even methods accurate enough to identify nuances of functions strenghtes to talk about subtypes related to this.
there are only people with doubtfully supposed types and different non-types traits influencing on your perception, based on what you talk related to doubtful hypotheses as this heresy.
I disagree with meged. An LSI-Ti really needs an EIE-Fe more, since they're subtyped towards the same quadra and since one compensates for the others' weakness while having similar values (or less values... LSI-Ti and EIE-Fe tend to not have as strong of idiosyncratic values as LSI-Se and EIE-Ni, unless they're born into it). an EIE-Fe will cover for the LSI-Ti's weaknesses (especially when dealing with social things), although they see eye to eye a bit less with the LSI-Ti. I realize that in rational/rational pairings one type has to work harder than the other, but the thing is is that so many people are so dependent. Also, EIE-Fe and LSI-Ti are slightly more egalitarian in their outlook on humanity and more adaptable to (or at least less constantly upset about and less heavily rebellious against) new societal norms compared to EIE-Ni and LSI-Se, which is correlated with LSI-Ti and EIE-Fe being subtyped towards non-Se valuing quadra (Se is stronger in EIE-Fe, but valued less). In other words, EIE-Fe and LSI-Ti will have less desire to build a civilization which oppresses people and will do something more constructive.
The LSI-Ti is also somewhat more thin-skinned than the LSI-Se and less able to calm the more volatile EIE-Ni down anyway. For an EIE-Fe, they'd probably be happier with an LSI-Se, but the LSI-Ti, which isn't as good at problem solving in the physical and interpersonal realms as the LSI-Se, needs the more socially skilled and cautious and laid back EIE-Fe more.
I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.
I prefer rational subtype, being a rational type myself. My polr is Fi so anybody with strong, as possible, Fi demo is attractive to me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
