Originally Posted by stanprollyright (Post 17958)

I am in a contrary relationship myself right now (ENFp, INFp) and it is working very well. In six months we've had one minor fight that lasted about a day. We spend a lot of time alone together, which is great. We don't truly share many friends, most of our mutual friends are closer to one or the other. When we're with others one of us usually fades into the background. She is the introvert, so she doesn't mind that much, but I make sure to never impede on her spotlight if she wants it. I starkly refuse to compete with her friends for her attention, and rarely will I compete for her time (she does have one friend who I can't stand who tries to goad me into this sort of competition). Instead, I offer to tag along or just do something else with my friends while I wait for her to get back. She is very social and loves her friends, but since she is an introvert she requires some time alone away them, which means I get plenty of time with alone with her. In social situations she can be very uptight about things she deems inappropriate, such as PDA or sexual innuendos. I usually push the boundaries of her social norms and try to get her to loosen up a bit.

Basically I think we would both agree that we are best when left alone together, and when we aren't I use my knowledge of the unstability of our relationship according to socionics to make sure these situations don't become a problem.

Originally Posted by ArielPink (Post 17960)

this was very helpful to me, as I am a ESFP dating a ISFP and feel that when we are alone, there isn't a single thing that I don't absolutely adore about our relationship. However, when we are hanging out all together with friends things do change, but I have been trying to use my knowledge of contrary/extinguishing relations to not let those natural reactions unfold too crazy or I am careful to not bring out my strong side, and yes I have been trying hard to not steal the spotlight from him in company :)

Originally Posted by Marie84 (Post 17957)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not challenging enough to create growth" because I don't view challenging someone to cause anything but conflict.

Originally Posted by noler (Post 17963)

I will explain. The "dual" type is actually my own "shadow" type, and I am their own "shadow". This means under some circumstances (or even by will) we could transform into each other. Thus we are a little too alike, even if we are complete opposites (hope that makes sense). Yes, we get along perfect, but I don't think this is enough to grow, if we are too similar.

By the way, I'm not sure if people here differ between Socionics and MBTI. I assume:
(Socionics) IXXp , IXXj = IXXJ , IXXP (MBTI)

Thus, in MBTI, Contrary relations are:
EXXP - IXXJ , IXXP - EXXJ ------> they go between quadras: Alpha-Gamma, Beta-Delta.

While the EXXX-IXXX relationships stay in the same quadra. The types in one quadra share the same set of cognitive functions, but in different orders. I think, if one wants to grow, there is a strong need for inter-quadra connection, and combining the four cognitive functions with their opposites. Maybe I'm not getting it right? Please help me if you understand it better?

Originally Posted by Wikisocion

Extinguishment is an intertype relation between members of opposing quadras. Extinguishment relations are also known as Contrary relations.

Relations of extinguishment are characterized by an interest in the same kinds of things, but partners approach it in a fundamentally different and often incomprehensible way. Many people note a certain draw in these relations, as if the other person possessed some dual-like qualities, but never materializes into a dual. In trying to close the distance and get to know the other person closely, partners are very often frustrated and thwarted in their attempts by the other person's unexpected and out-of-sync reactions. In these relations it is very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, but continually frustrating interpersonal dynamic.


Where these relations can become especially unstable is in the case of a third person/party being involved in the relation. What happens is both Contrary partners attempt to exude their strong sides, which are in opposition to each others' strengths.


In many cases the Introvert partner becomes cautious and distant in formal interaction; the Extravert partner becomes especially vulnerable, taking careful notice of his/her own actions, and thus becoming highly suspicious about the entire relation. This disoriented sense of communication tends to build more and more as Contrary partners continue to interact together.

Originally Posted by Marie84 (Post 17957)

Duals do contribute to each others self-growth but it's done more naturally and comfortably, rather than trying to change the other into something that they're not, and don't want to be.
Bad intertype relationships just lead to under appreciation and feelings of inadequacy, in this case you're not actually growing but stagnating.

Originally Posted by Kanerou (Post 17962)

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by that phrase?

Originally Posted by noler (Post 17971)

That's very frustrating if Socionics and MBTI cannot be bridged... Everything seems the same, only the Introverted types flip P/J, or don't, in some aspects.

What MBTI lacks is an intertype chart, such as this one:
http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm

Isn't it possible to translate it to MBTI?

What I meant about duality is - it has exactly the same cognitive functions, for example:
Fi-Ne-Si-Te --- INFP-ESTJ --- Te-Si-Ne-Fi -----> It's the same thing, but reversed.

What these types actually need is connection with their functional complementary:
Fe-Ni-Se-Ti --- ENFJ-ISTP --- Ti-Se-Ni-Fe

Which seems to be called Contrary in Socionics (after J/P flip of introverts). If this relation is not Contrary, then what is it? For example, INFP-ENFJ in MBTI? According to some MBTI sites, and the congnitive functions theory, it should be a perfect match, but I can't find its representation in Socionics...

Originally Posted by http://www.socionics.us/intro.shtml (Post 17971)

Socionics and the MBTI

At some point Augusta and her associates learned of Isabel Briggs Myers' and her mother Katharine Cook Briggs' development of Jung's typology across the ocean in the United States. Newcomers to socionics in the West often have to face the difficulty of trying to distinguish between the two typologies. They are fundamentally different and cannot be treated as "the same types, but with different type names." Those who look deeply into socionics and the MBTI recognize that socionics' theoretical apparatus is more systematic and logical in nature — and simply larger. Indeed, socionics was created by a "thinking" type, while the MBTI was created by "feeling" types (a quick review of sites on the two fields will make this clear). That is just the beginning of the differences. I personally, of course, find socionics to be a big improvement on the MBTI, but I'm sure there are ardent followers of the MBTI that hold the opposite opinion.

The four socionic dichotomies appear to be very similar to the dichotomies used by the MBTI system. However, close inquiry reveals that there are many subtle differences. If you assume the dichotomies are the same and equate each socionic type to an MBTI type, some socionic types will overlap to a large degree with their MBTI counterparts, others will partially overlap, and yet others will seem to be completely different. If the types were truly equivalent, a similar theory of intertype relations would have arisen in the MBTI system — but there is none. On the whole, MBTI and socionics types seem to correlate in roughly 30% of cases. That is not nearly enough to consider the two typologies close approximations of each other.

Originally Posted by noler (Post 17971)

That's very frustrating if Socionics and MBTI cannot be bridged... Everything seems the same, only the Introverted types flip P/J, or don't, in some aspects.

Originally Posted by noler

What MBTI lacks is an intertype chart, such as this one:
http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm

Isn't it possible to translate it to MBTI?

Originally Posted by noler

What I meant about duality is - it has exactly the same cognitive functions, for example:
Fi-Ne-Si-Te --- INFP-ESTJ --- Te-Si-Ne-Fi -----> It's the same thing, but reversed.

Originally Posted by stanprollyright (Post 17973)

The dichotomies are not the same, the functions aren't either.

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 17975)

Wrong. The dichotomies are exactly the same. The functions in MBTI are wrong, however (and they don't exist).

Originally Posted by noler (Post 17977)

Wow, thanks a lot. Are you sure?

Originally Posted by noler

I have been living for quite a long time now using MBTI cognitive functions and analyzing people... and I was convinced everything is correct.

Originally Posted by noler (Post 17979)

Which lines are incorrect, should just the cognitive functions of P/J types be interchanged for the Introverts?

Originally Posted by noler

And also, it seems then that according to Socionics dual types are really both Ps or both Js (so called Irrational/Rational).

Originally Posted by noler

I find it hard to accept that, because I think J+P should be necessary for the most complementary combos.

Originally Posted by Marie84 (Post 17957)

As many of the "warning" areas of the duality descriptions state, duality does not equate to a perfect relationship, they're other factors involved such as beliefs, values, goals, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by "not challenging enough to create growth" because I don't view challenging someone to cause anything but conflict.

Duals do contribute to each others self-growth but it's done more naturally and comfortably, rather than trying to change the other into something that they're not, and don't want to be.
Bad intertype relationships just lead to under appreciation and feelings of inadequacy, in this case you're not actually growing but stagnating.

Not to mention that no one will go through life without any bumps in the road, and it's during those times that one most needs their dual

If you feel that the type listed as your dual is not alluring or comforting enough it's more likely that you have either mistyped yourself or/and mistyped those whom you typed as your dual