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.
|
|
|
| C15 C13, you reinforce my statement in C8: "relationships can change because needs change." My article certainly does assume ideal (benign, all things equal) scenarios because if for example, one were starving or in a war zone, all the needs and factors that I discuss would likely be overshadowed or skewed. My point still remains that the strength of a long-term relationship is proportional to fundamental needs. We may have high divorce rates because personality, situation and environment will often skew the perception of need. -- I/O |
| C16 @C14. Well I thought I was, turns out I'm an ENTp. I still think that there's something peculiar about the list though. Turns out I have at least 3 mirrors around me in various states. A sibling, a friend, and a co-worker. The sibling, even though older, has recently "broken" and stopped resisting me. This could be because as an ENTp people around me sort of, trust me, and I'm uh, Ne and psychic, competent and invent solutions to problems that have been plaguing the family/neighborhood for years. The friend keeps wondering why we're still friends; the answer is exceedingly simple: he gets no choice, I decide when our friendship is over, but I don't tell him that. While the co-worker is slow, unmotivated, slow, unapproachable, cannot be "trained" to do the job faster, slow, and generally lacks a certain hot blooded quality causing all of his work style to be perceived as slow. Doing the same task, day in and day out, using the same method. In his position I had doubled the output of the next guy and developed methods to further increase output within my first week on the job. I suppose I've given up on INTjs entirely. They need to stop clogging my ENTp forums with their rationality and logically logical logician's logic. Yes I know my idea is illogical, so is an infinite fire inside of a glass bulb powered by magnets rubbing copper wire. So this further proves I/O with his (his = a male until she points out otherwise) "relationships can change because" et cetera et cetera (ಠ_ಠ). Instead of leaving a single line in the text make up a table that shows just how vastly different a relationship can change. Anyone can include a line like this and hide behind it when trouble shows up. Finally views and opinions can change and what seems correct to people at one time may and probably will change to some degree over time. <==See I can do it too. -- Mythikh |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
