The Strength in Relationships
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 ...
|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.