Socionics Personals | | Female Straight 16-25 Oceania Libra ENFj |
| | Male Straight 16-25 Middle East Sagittarius INTj |
| | Male Straight 26-35 North America Pisces INXj |
| Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
The Strength in Relationships
by I/O
The four strongest inter-type relations are Dual, Super-ego, Semi-Dual and Illusionary pairs with Super-Ego being the easiest to start. This article assigns strength factors to Socionics' inter-type relations based on Maslov's hierarchy of needs. Successful relationships provide a sense of security and mutual ... understanding for both partners. These needs underpin communication, trust, friendship, intimacy, and or a sense of belonging or family. A strong relationship would also have to promote the esteem and actualization of both partners. Although Socionics inter-type descriptions are fairly accurate, the relative strengths of relationships do not appear all that well delineated. Note that you should first read about Maslov as well as my articles entitled My Take on Temperament and The Functioning of Type, which differ from traditional Socionics' explanations.
Security is a sense by both partners that they are stronger in a relationship than they would be alone; they both sense that some of their weaknesses are covered off by the other partner. This complementing occurs between Types when one partner primarily operates in closed-loop mode and the other open-loop, and when the preferences of one partner complement rather than compete with those of the other (thinking, T complementing feeling, F, and sensing, S complementing intuitive, N).
Understanding occurs when the root processing (habitual, problem solving and communication styles) of one partner is understood by or familiar to the other, and both instinctively know that the other really does understand. Note that understanding does not imply agreement. Therefore, understanding is better supported when the temperament of both partners operate in similar modes (either open or closed-loop) and or both share preferences (T or F and S or N).
Esteem is promoted when both partners think and feel they contribute equally to the relationship. This implies that a partner will not normally think or feel that he or she can better fulfil the other's role. Note that role does not refer to specific tasks. Both partners need to sense that they are best suited for their particular roles and should instinctively know that their partner benefits from their efforts. Esteem is better supported when preferences are not shared so partners do not trample each other's turf.
Actualization is promoted when both partners feel they are able to freely function outside the relationship as individuals. This state is better supported when both partners are travelling the same path or sharing a life philosophy. Therefore, both partners tend to be more comfortable stepping out when both temperaments are either input or output oriented (p or j).
Now, let's assign values to the above paragraphs based on Maslov's hierarchy: security a value of 4, understanding 3, esteem 2 and actualization 1. The numbers themselves are not significant other than indicating the level in the hierarchy, 4 being the greater need or higher value. Based upon the above, the mix of temperament in a relationship supports some of the above needs so hence can be assigned values:
-one partner primarily operates in open-loop mode, the other closed-loop
(covers each other's weaknesses creating a more secure environment) | 4 |
-both partners primarily operate in open-loop or closed-loop mode
(there's inherent understanding between partners) | 3 |
-both having either input (p) or output (j) leading temperament
(similar understanding of needs for achieving goals plus actualization potential) | 5 (4+1) |
-input leads the temperament of one, output leads the other
(divisive vision of how life should proceed such as how to set or achieve goals) | 0 |
The mix of preferences in a relationship can also be assigned values:
-one partner has a dominant or secondary T preference, the other F
(covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) | 6 (4+2) |
-both partners have a dominant or secondary T or F preference
(inherent understanding of rationalization preferences between partners) | 3 |
-one partner has a dominant or secondary S preference, the other N
(covering each other's weaknesses creates security plus esteem potential) | 6 (4+2) |
-both partners have a dominant or secondary S or N preference
(inherent understanding of perception preferences between partners) | 3 |
One can estimate a relative strength for each inter-type pair by multiplying the sum of the applicable temperament values to the sum of the applicable preference values, which gives the following results:
Duality | (4+5)*(6+6) = 108 |
Super ego | (3+5)*(6+6) = 96 |
Semi-dual | (4+5)*(6+3) = 81 |
Illusionary | (4+5)*(3+6) = 81 |
Comparative | (3+5)*(3+6) = 72 |
Look-alike | (3+5)*(6+3) = 72 |
Contrary | (4+5)*(3+3) = 54 |
Identical | (3+5)*(3+3) = 48 |
Activity | (4+0)*(6+6) = 48 |
Conflicting | (3+0)*(6+6) = 36 |
Benefit | (4+0)*(6+3) = 36 |
Supervision | (3+0)*(6+3) = 27 |
Quasi-identical | (4+0)*(3+3) = 24 |
Mirror | (3+0)*(3+3) = 18 |
Note that it is assumed that preferences are superimposed on temperament; hence, multiplication (*) of temperament and preference totals is necessary. These calculations also assume that the separations among Maslov's levels of need are equidistant. A higher total indicates a greater potential for success in a relationship, but this by itself is no guarantee of success.
Let's now digress to when we first meet someone who could be a potential partner or mate; the perception of needs would be different from those described above, and visceral gratification would become a common goal whether it be of a sexual, curiosity or alliance nature. Both would be somewhat guarded so security would no longer be a discriminating factor. The temperament values would therefore change to:
-one partner primarily operates open-loop, the other closed-loop
(partners' primary temperament processes out of sync, unfamiliar) | 0 |
-both partners primarily operate open-loop or closed-loop
(partners' primary temperament processes in sync, familiar) | 3 |
-both partners having either input or output leading temperament
(one has an inherent understanding how the other operates) | 3 |
-input leads one partner called the receiver, output leads in the sender
(output feeds input - symbiosis promotes esteem plus actualization) | 3 (2+1) |
The preference values would also change to:
-one partner has a dominant or secondary T preference, the other F
(bringing different strengths feed esteem plus actualization of both) | 3 (2+1) |
-both partners have a dominant or secondary T or F preference
(inherent understanding of rationalization preferences between partners) | 3 |
-one partner has a dominant or secondary S preference, the other N
(bringing different strengths feed esteem plus actualization of both) | 3 (2+1) |
-both partners have a dominant or secondary S or N preference
(inherent understanding of perception preferences between partners) | 3 |
The above values indicate that people who share either open-loop or closed-loop temperaments would initially gravitate toward one another because all other contributing factors would cancel each other. Note that Dual pairs do not have this initial attraction. There is also an implication that super-ego, long-term relationships may be the more common - an 80% solution that can be kindled by a visceral attraction. Other easy-to-start, relatively strong relationships would be Comparative and Look-a-like pairs. However, as one may initially have very strong attraction to a particular type, long-term coexistence may develop unforeseen complications as temperaments and preferences emerge and interact.
|
|
C1 Interesting hypothesis. It would be nice if you explicitly mentioned the differences between this and standard Socionics intertype relationships (that being really the main point), although to anyone very familiar with Socionics it would be clear. There seems to be very little explanation for why the various dichotomies you mention are ranked as they are, or why the ones usually discussed don't count here. For example, why would open loop + closed loop be so important for security or complementarity? In standard Socionics, being strong in the other's dual block functions would lead to security and complementarity, but that's not even rated here. The result of your analysis is that activity and super-ego basically trade places, making me wonder if the way you type individuals would tend to switch these compared to the way other Socionists type people (i.e., someone that others would think is INTp you might see INTj, so then ISFj is super-ego in their model, whereas to them it would be activity). Anyhow, without empirical data on which intertype relationship system is more accurate, I guess it's all just pure speculation. -- Anonymous |
C2 C1, I appreciate your comments. I was not trying to discount anyone's speculation with my own because I think Socionics observations and descriptions are reasonably accurate. However, I needed to clarify for myself the roots of I/E and p/j; both Socionics and MB seem to describe behaviour more from the T/F and S/N perspectives, but a temperament perspective made more sense to me. I think that open-loop would complement closed-loop in the sense of a planner/experimenter complementing a leader/observer; two leaders or two planners would likely understand one another but would likely want to do things differently or fail to communicate. Also, open-loop can work in background and with broad focus while closed loop works more focused and needs the floor. Isn't security essentially a cover-my-back-but-don't-step-on-my-turf arrangement? I seem to have gravitated more toward superego partners and have been really at odds with mirror partners, with whom I should not have had that much division according to Socionics. Empirically, I would be interested to know from readers whether the rankings in my article reflect their experiences, or not. -- I/O |
C3 I/O, I haven't had time to read your article, but I notice your high ranking of super-ego and your comment in C2, "I seem to have gravitated more toward superego partners and have been really at odds with mirror partners, with whom I should not have had that much division according to Socionics." I also have super-ego as a very easy relation to start, and this by chance is tying in with something i've been looking into of late, and that's Gulenkos forms of thinking. According to Gulenko, super ego people have the same form of thinking - in your case and the ESI the term he uses is holographic thinking (from latin/greek holo meaning whole). Personally I believe that greatly facilitates this relationship, certainly in its early stages, along with inherent introverted properties leading both being on a similar level in terms of communication focus. Incidentally I believe that this form of thinking leads many ISFjs to think they're INFjs. -- Cyclops |
C4 When I began dating my ISFj (I'm an INTj) I was worried about us being superego mates. But are relationship is exactly how you worded it in your article. I feel more at ease because I kept wondering if things would go sour. We were friends for 8 months before dating. We have dated for 13 months, and therefore have known each other for almost 2 years. He is everything (and more)that I have always desired in a relationship. So thanks for the positive spin that validates what I have been experiencing. -- Anonymous |
C5 I also think that super ego relations can be better than "Classical Socionics" would predict & and am interested in theories on that, but I'm not sure a few anecdotal examples or subjective weightings of proposed relationship positives and negatives will resolve that. Looking deeper into the numbers, I see that the primary reason that Super Ego ends up way higher than Activation in this theory is that being both rationals or both irrationals gets 5 points, whereas having one j and another p type gets 0 points (whereas one being static vs. the other dynamic only gets a 1-point advantage; I believe static vs. dynamic is what you mean by "open" and "closed" loop). Obviously, how many points we assign to each thing is quite subjective, and we can make the results come out however we want by changing the weighting system. I do agree though that there's a certain "connection" that people of the same temperament have, which is not recognized in the more traditional weighting which values being "in quadra" more than anything else. Because the weightings of what's "important" are somewhat arbitrary, descriptive analysis of each intertype relationship may be more useful than rankings, unless one is dealing with rankings from a decent sample of empirical data. -- Anonymous |
C6 C5, I understand your perspective. I racked my brain to put something other than a zero in that slot because the result went against what I expected. I had proposed to myself that input might feed output thus feeding esteem and perhaps actualization; it is one reason why I inserted the initial-contact tables. However, I saw this one-way flow as being too unstable – good in the short-term but not in the long-term. My weightings are indeed a best guess, like so many others related to Socionics theory. I do sense that Socionics could easily dovetail into modern control theory and artificial intelligence; if so, a tie between a hard and soft science would be something really special. Descriptive analysis is far too soft for an engineer -- I/O |
C7 Good article. Good discussion. My personal experience is that my super-ego pair is very easy to start a relationship with but not sure about long term compatibility. I see issues there. My friend also seems very attracted to his super ego but has had problems with long term compatibility with them. You say this "The four strongest inter-type relations are Dual, Super-ego, Semi-Dual and Illusionary pairs with Super-Ego being the easiest to start." This site, under intertype relations page, says Dual, Identical, Activity, Mirror (in that order) are the "Top 4 Socionics Intertype Relations by degree of comfort(best compatibility for long-term interactions." Please explain the difference. I am interested. -- Anonymous |
C8 C7, Socionics theory seems to indicate that compatibility is better when partners share the exact same functions/ preferences such as INTj (TiNeFeSi) and ESFj (FeSiTiNe). I propose that relationships are stronger when they fulfil basic needs, which implies that optimally, functions/ preferences should complement one another. The only shared aspect between partners should be direction, a common vision of the way ahead. My philosophy still has duals as the most compatible but for slightly different reasons. I would also suggest that relationships can change because needs change. I have had dual and super-ego relationships that have failed but the failures have been more a function of personality(baggage) than type. -- I/O |
|
Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|