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.
|
|
C9 The most glaring problem is the supervision relationship being so difficult. Consider ESTj and INTp, this is an ideal relationship. INTps tend to be sloppy looking, unmotivated overachievers (oxymoron but if you know or are an INTp you'll understand) but this only if the ESTj is female. There is a layer missing: Tradition. ESTj are as traditional as women get; the ancient housewife ideologue. INTp husbands have a tendency to be able to make money but are unable to spend it well. This lines up with bringing the paycheck home to the wife who then takes care of it. I have an ESTj mother (This brings up another sitcom situation of "Looking for a woman like mom") for whom I work. She's a supervisor (obviously) at her workplace and decided that one day that she didn't have enough reliable, quick witted types at her work and dragged me there. I was able to pick up the entire workplace system by day 1, outperformed my peers by day 2, and began overhauling their utterly redundant systems by week 3. I continue to output top quality work, get scorned for blatantly disregarding their traditional methods, get praised for introducing blatantly obvious efficient methods, and have yet to lose my "j" functionality at work. While she is my physical supervisor, she takes comfort in my advice and presence; considering that I am her socionics supervisor. What do I get from this relationship? A traditional mother who loves housework, raising the kids, loyalty to her husband. For a long time I though that I probably shouldn't bother looking for this type of woman because such women would be extinct with feminist movement etc. An additional problem is the benefactor relationship. I met an ISTj in college, loved him, in an older-brotherly kind of manner. Probably learned more from him in 8 semesters than all of my teachers combined in 20+ years. I imagine that a female-beneficiary, male-benefactor would also make a decent relationship. As long as one of them is a traditionalist. Perhaps I'm missing a parameter such as stability. An ESTj would create stability for an INTp, but apparently INTps love to travel or find new exciting things, thus the resulting stability could potentially stifle a relationship. I imagine however, that such a union would provide adequate new developments. For instance children. INTps love children, ESTjs need to be traditional and have children. Mommy is serious about children learning, daddy is more laid back, super smart in his study, cold to strangers, warm to family, wants to see kids be independent. I myself would not mind a traditional, cliche, goes-against-everything-female-rights-movement-from-last-century, woman the oil in the machine, man brings home bacon, wife the disciplinarian, husband the joker, mommy always there, daddy always at work or in study etc, etc. Really though, I'm probably just scared to need to do my own bills, taxes, insurance, rote daily paperwork, cooking, cleaning, diapers, childrens' homework. -- Anonymous |
C10 C9, perhaps I misunderstand but you seem talk of the ESTj as if they were servants, broodmares/studs or wise investments. I guess any relationship can be made to work. However, someday the cup may overflow unless it's broken. -- I/O |
C11 @C10 This may extend to a more historical layer. The problem is that any ESTj in the current baby-boomer generation act like "servants". They know what they are, what they are seen as and it suits them just fine. Modern day ESTj females may have a more "tainted" (though perhaps a better word would be influenced) view of the woman's role in family/society. This is however, a very classical relationship that has been existing for centuries. As an additional disclaimer, I have nothing but utter respect for modern day ESTjs. Perhaps it stems from my supervisor relationship, or a longing for a society state of yesteryear. My attempt in C9 is to question the Supervisor/Benefactor relationships being ranked so low. For the sake of empirical data: I am an INTp. ENFj(my sup) teacher was great while ISFj(act) teacher not so much. Did however, "love" an ISFp(superego) teacher, got 8 As in my 8 semesters with him. ISTj(my benf) project leader was ideal to complete final team project, an information system which for which I was the systems architect (my title even before discovering socionics.) This is where the awkward semi-sexist parts come up. The ISTj's tendency to continually blurt on about X subject was the ideal way for me to learn about it. Whenever I couldn't conceptualize a subject he was my go to guy. This would not work if he were female, neither would an ISTj wife be likable, imagine being lectured by your wife all the time. On the other hand, the same ISTj might like a female INTp even though a little outlandish in his sight. Consider again the ESTj INTp relationship. ESTjs are traditionalists, but tradition is not defined by socionics, it's defined by the history of society. So an ESTj female being traditional would have no problem with my exposition in C9. As a counter argument to the servant point, the INTp would need to be the provider financially, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually etc. In exchange the ESTjs would get to stay at home and do what they love. From my personal experience all the ESTj women I know (turns out almost an entire generation of mothers in proximity to me are ESTj) all want to retire sooner so they can stay at home, tend the garden, clean out the mess in X room, sow everything up etc, etc. INTp babble; if you're offended its because I'm ethically bankrupt, nostalgic and an INTp. Hmm, maybe I should stay single for the rest of my life and hire a lifetime maid/butler. -- Anonymous |
C12 I find being around my supervisor quite infuriating and frustrating, whilst being a supervisor to another makes me behave unnaturally and argue. I don't know how anyone could marry their supervisor/supervisee! SUrely you'd get tired of them soon enough to break it off even before marriage? -- Th |
C13 C9/11 Might be onto something but not exactly the outcome hoped for. The real issue with this article's take on relationships is the weighting. Consider that a very small percentage of the population ever reaches actualization: something like <5%. Different scenarios would create different weightings in the system. The original scenario most likely assumes a perfectly functioning (Not perfect, just functioning) society in which actualization is the norm; the first three needs are met 90%+ of the time. Thus a weighting of 4 for actualization. However, most of us are not living in such a society. With recent economic/political crises, compounded with increases natural disasters, the weightings would be more like: Basic(3.5) Safety(3.5) Esteem(2) Actualization(1). Basic and Safety would be about equal in an economic depression because what you eat tomorrow is dependent on your job security, and it wouldn't matter that you're cleaning toilets(esteem) if it puts bread on the table. Regardless of the scenario/weightings your Duality would always place really high, but some of your other relationships would fluctuate wildly. As for my empirical data input: I once knew a younger female ISTj who (no conscious fault of her own, being my benefactor) upset me with her attempt to lecture me. Some KID, lecturing ME? A teen genius exchanging quips with the adults? BLASPHEMY! Then I ran into a military type, older male, and was in a trance state at his expositions. I myself was always taught to respect elders and so it came naturally for me to listen. Furthermore I noticed that a lot of girls were given a very ESTj like upbringing; don't bother the boys, boys will hold the door for you, give you the seat, scare away the scary animal, are responsible for your physical safety, providers for the family, learn to cook/clean, children are your greatest joy, lots of children makes strong nation. This was in the USSR and we can all make the obvious Soviet Russia joke connection about backwards thinking (or forwards depending on your preference). Incidentally, if INTps are known for their ability to provide (socionics.org) being heads of large business not uncommon, then they can fulfill the role of a sole provider for a family quite easily. This would in a sense cause them to be seen as stud/investments in the eyes of an ESFp duality, as per C10s comment. ESFps Imagine being able to host all the parties you want on your mate's dime, having useful criticism about X decor or Y choice of flowers, a "sleep easy" money provider, sense of humor, intellectual partner in exchange for... doing the paperwork? Spending time with your children? Shouldn't be so hard, their names are alphabetical or else the initials spell out some phrase, a small price to pay. ESTjs would be fulfilled in a physical way where the psychological channels fail. Maybe I'm just being the typical INTp, arguing for the sake of arguing, nibbling away at socionics. -- Mythikh |
C14 @c13 are you INTp? -- Anonymous |
|
Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|