$> man42.net Blog written by a human

Post updated: 2017-05-26

This page is just for fun, don't take it too seriously.

Data source: CSV - Survey - Original Reddit post

# Content

  1. Introduction
  2. Sample Size
  3. Friendship Statistics
  4. Relationship Statistics
  5. Socionics Intertype Relations

# Socionics Intertype Relations

We've collected data about 903 relationships and 2053 friendships so far.

Take the survey!

# Intertype Relations Statistics - Relationships

Here we render the survey relationship statistics based on the Socionics Intertype relations theory (Wikipedia, Wikisocion) to see if there is a correlation between the theory and our data.

A wide score range means that there are not enough data points to draw a tendency.

Intertype Relation Ratings
Score Range
"Made Happier"
Score Range
Duration
Score Range
"Is Continuing?"
Score Range
Samples
Identity
65.94
undefined
79.81
undefined
39.47
undefined
34.88
undefined
60
Mirror
65.86
undefined
72.42
undefined
34.10
undefined
34.89
undefined
65
Kindred
65.20
undefined
78.28
undefined
31.51
undefined
38.01
undefined
67
Benefactor
64.10
undefined
68.35
undefined
41.76
undefined
47.95
undefined
56
Supervision (both ways)
63.60
undefined
78.87
undefined
35.19
undefined
31.19
undefined
92
Illusionary
63.22
undefined
72.59
undefined
38.44
undefined
36.35
undefined
87
Benefit (both ways)
63.06
undefined
69.89
undefined
40.20
undefined
36.79
undefined
113
Super-ego
63.06
undefined
75.14
undefined
38.09
undefined
38.09
undefined
53
Quasi-Identity
62.20
undefined
79.81
undefined
37.74
undefined
30.25
undefined
60
Contrary
62.10
undefined
79.45
undefined
30.21
undefined
34.89
undefined
65
Supervisee
61.33
undefined
74.24
undefined
32.03
undefined
30.57
undefined
51
Look-a-like
60.69
undefined
72.31
undefined
34.06
undefined
32.56
undefined
56
Supervisor
58.31
undefined
76.99
undefined
32.13
undefined
25.40
undefined
41
Semi-duality
56.03
undefined
71.31
undefined
32.13
undefined
34.16
undefined
41
Beneficiary
55.67
undefined
65.05
undefined
32.83
undefined
20.96
undefined
57
Duality
54.07
undefined
60.73
undefined
41.23
undefined
30.79
undefined
59
Activation
53.85
undefined
56.27
undefined
39.73
undefined
34.88
undefined
55
Conflict
52.33
undefined
58.54
undefined
33.96
undefined
29.62
undefined
30

Detailed statistics:

The bars mean a range of possibilities. The wider the bar is, the less data we have to draw a conclusion. The narrower the bar is, the more accuracy we have in the results.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Global Score ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Identity:
38.96
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Benefactor:
38.55
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Benefit (both ways):
36.65
undefined
(Samples: 113)
Illusionary:
36.18
undefined
(Samples: 87)
Kindred:
36.06
undefined
(Samples: 67)
Super-ego:
35.85
undefined
(Samples: 53)
Mirror:
35.80
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Supervision (both ways):
35.62
undefined
(Samples: 92)
Quasi-Identity:
34.79
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Contrary:
33.04
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Look-a-like:
31.52
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Supervisee:
31.09
undefined
(Samples: 51)
Supervisor:
28.34
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Duality:
27.37
undefined
(Samples: 59)
Semi-duality:
27.37
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Activation:
26.62
undefined
(Samples: 55)
Beneficiary:
25.03
undefined
(Samples: 57)
Conflict:
22.54
undefined
(Samples: 30)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ratings ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Identity:
65.94
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Mirror:
65.86
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Kindred:
65.20
undefined
(Samples: 67)
Benefactor:
64.10
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Supervision (both ways):
63.60
undefined
(Samples: 92)
Illusionary:
63.22
undefined
(Samples: 87)
Benefit (both ways):
63.06
undefined
(Samples: 113)
Super-ego:
63.06
undefined
(Samples: 53)
Quasi-Identity:
62.20
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Contrary:
62.10
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Supervisee:
61.33
undefined
(Samples: 51)
Look-a-like:
60.69
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Supervisor:
58.31
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Semi-duality:
56.03
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Beneficiary:
55.67
undefined
(Samples: 57)
Duality:
54.07
undefined
(Samples: 59)
Activation:
53.85
undefined
(Samples: 55)
Conflict:
52.33
undefined
(Samples: 30)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Did it make you happier? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Identity:
79.81
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Quasi-Identity:
79.81
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Contrary:
79.45
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Supervision (both ways):
78.87
undefined
(Samples: 92)
Kindred:
78.28
undefined
(Samples: 67)
Supervisor:
76.99
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Super-ego:
75.14
undefined
(Samples: 53)
Supervisee:
74.24
undefined
(Samples: 51)
Illusionary:
72.59
undefined
(Samples: 87)
Mirror:
72.42
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Look-a-like:
72.31
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Semi-duality:
71.31
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Benefit (both ways):
69.89
undefined
(Samples: 113)
Benefactor:
68.35
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Beneficiary:
65.05
undefined
(Samples: 57)
Duality:
60.73
undefined
(Samples: 59)
Conflict:
58.54
undefined
(Samples: 30)
Activation:
56.27
undefined
(Samples: 55)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Duration ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Benefactor:
41.76
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Duality:
41.23
undefined
(Samples: 59)
Benefit (both ways):
40.20
undefined
(Samples: 113)
Activation:
39.73
undefined
(Samples: 55)
Identity:
39.47
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Illusionary:
38.44
undefined
(Samples: 87)
Super-ego:
38.09
undefined
(Samples: 53)
Quasi-Identity:
37.74
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Supervision (both ways):
35.19
undefined
(Samples: 92)
Mirror:
34.10
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Look-a-like:
34.06
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Conflict:
33.96
undefined
(Samples: 30)
Beneficiary:
32.83
undefined
(Samples: 57)
Supervisor:
32.13
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Semi-duality:
32.13
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Supervisee:
32.03
undefined
(Samples: 51)
Kindred:
31.51
undefined
(Samples: 67)
Contrary:
30.21
undefined
(Samples: 65)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Is it still continuing? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Benefactor:
47.95
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Super-ego:
38.09
undefined
(Samples: 53)
Kindred:
38.01
undefined
(Samples: 67)
Benefit (both ways):
36.79
undefined
(Samples: 113)
Illusionary:
36.35
undefined
(Samples: 87)
Contrary:
34.89
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Mirror:
34.89
undefined
(Samples: 65)
Activation:
34.88
undefined
(Samples: 55)
Identity:
34.88
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Semi-duality:
34.16
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Look-a-like:
32.56
undefined
(Samples: 56)
Supervision (both ways):
31.19
undefined
(Samples: 92)
Duality:
30.79
undefined
(Samples: 59)
Supervisee:
30.57
undefined
(Samples: 51)
Quasi-Identity:
30.25
undefined
(Samples: 60)
Conflict:
29.62
undefined
(Samples: 30)
Supervisor:
25.40
undefined
(Samples: 41)
Beneficiary:
20.96
undefined
(Samples: 57)

# Intertype Relations Statistics - Friendships

Here we render the survey friendship statistics based on the Socionics Intertype relations theory (Wikipedia, Wikisocion) to see if there is a correlation between the theory and our data.

The bars mean a range of possibilities. The wider the bar is, the less data we have to draw a conclusion. The narrower the bar is, the more accuracy we have in the results.


Mirror:
78.64
undefined
(Samples: 208)
Contrary:
75.60
undefined
(Samples: 153)
Identity:
75.11
undefined
(Samples: 195)
Kindred:
74.56
undefined
(Samples: 188)
Benefit (both ways):
74.48
undefined
(Samples: 236)
Quasi-Identity:
74.41
undefined
(Samples: 199)
Supervision (both ways):
74.29
undefined
(Samples: 214)
Supervisee:
73.69
undefined
(Samples: 112)
Look-a-like:
73.34
undefined
(Samples: 134)
Beneficiary:
72.64
undefined
(Samples: 120)
Benefactor:
72.12
undefined
(Samples: 116)
Super-ego:
70.78
undefined
(Samples: 90)
Supervisor:
70.30
undefined
(Samples: 102)
Illusionary:
70.15
undefined
(Samples: 111)
Semi-duality:
69.05
undefined
(Samples: 88)
Duality:
65.89
undefined
(Samples: 86)
Activation:
64.22
undefined
(Samples: 82)
Conflict:
63.57
undefined
(Samples: 65)

# Intertype Relations Descriptions

More information on the Socionics Intertype relations theory: Wikipedia, Wikisocion

# ENTP Intertype Relations

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

# ISFJ Intertype Relations

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

# ESFJ Intertype Relations

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

# INTP Intertype Relations

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

# ENFJ Intertype Relations

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

# ISTP Intertype Relations

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

# ESTP Intertype Relations

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

# INFJ Intertype Relations

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

# ESFP Intertype Relations

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

# INTJ Intertype Relations

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisee) - INFP (Supervisor)
  • ISFJ (Supervisee) - ESTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFJ (Supervisee) - INFJ (Supervisor)
  • INTP (Supervisee) - ESTP (Supervisor)
  • ENFJ (Supervisee) - ISFJ (Supervisor)
  • ISTP (Supervisee) - ENTP (Supervisor)
  • ESTP (Supervisee) - ISFP (Supervisor)
  • INFJ (Supervisee) - ENTJ (Supervisor)
  • ESFP (Supervisee) - ISTP (Supervisor)
  • INTJ (Supervisee) - ENFJ (Supervisor)
  • ENTJ (Supervisee) - ISTJ (Supervisor)
  • ISFP (Supervisee) - ENFP (Supervisor)
  • ESTJ (Supervisee) - INTJ (Supervisor)
  • INFP (Supervisee) - ESFP (Supervisor)
  • ENFP (Supervisee) - INTP (Supervisor)
  • ISTJ (Supervisee) - ESFJ (Supervisor)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Beneficiary) - ESTJ (Benefactor)
  • ISFJ (Beneficiary) - INFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFJ (Beneficiary) - ESTP (Benefactor)
  • INTP (Beneficiary) - INFJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFJ (Beneficiary) - ENTP (Benefactor)
  • ISTP (Beneficiary) - ISFJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTP (Beneficiary) - ENTJ (Benefactor)
  • INFJ (Beneficiary) - ISFP (Benefactor)
  • ESFP (Beneficiary) - ENFJ (Benefactor)
  • INTJ (Beneficiary) - ISTP (Benefactor)
  • ENTJ (Beneficiary) - ENFP (Benefactor)
  • ISFP (Beneficiary) - ISTJ (Benefactor)
  • ESTJ (Beneficiary) - ESFP (Benefactor)
  • INFP (Beneficiary) - INTJ (Benefactor)
  • ENFP (Beneficiary) - ESFJ (Benefactor)
  • ISTJ (Beneficiary) - INTP (Benefactor)

Relations of semi-duality are one of incomplete or "deficient" duality, when both parties are usually in agreement and on friendly terms. Semi-duals, can show great interest in each other, which is multiplied if they also find each other attractive. Unfortunately, harmony can dissolve quickly when one of the pair makes a blunder of some sort, be it socially or etiquette related. Fortunately, semi-dual partners often have much to talk about in their conversations and these conversations do not seem boring to the participants. There is the added benefit of the inability of the pair to stay angry with each other for long.

Some leading socionists have quipped relationships of semi-duality "the moth and the flame". The couple is invariably attracted to each other, but repeatedly "burned" by each other. To some onlookers these relations may seem especially passionate and loving.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Semi-duality) - ISTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISFJ (Semi-duality) - ENFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFJ (Semi-duality) - ISTP (Semi-duality)
  • INTP (Semi-duality) - ENFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFJ (Semi-duality) - INTP (Semi-duality)
  • ISTP (Semi-duality) - ESFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTP (Semi-duality) - INTJ (Semi-duality)
  • INFJ (Semi-duality) - ESFP (Semi-duality)
  • ESFP (Semi-duality) - INFJ (Semi-duality)
  • INTJ (Semi-duality) - ESTP (Semi-duality)
  • ENTJ (Semi-duality) - INFP (Semi-duality)
  • ISFP (Semi-duality) - ESTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ESTJ (Semi-duality) - ISFP (Semi-duality)
  • INFP (Semi-duality) - ENTJ (Semi-duality)
  • ENFP (Semi-duality) - ISFJ (Semi-duality)
  • ISTJ (Semi-duality) - ENTP (Semi-duality)

In kindred, or comparative, relations, partners have the same leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time together intensifies partners' leading function behavior, which is enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long. Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading Si or Ni types). Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in many respects and respect the other person's basic attitudes, which are quite like their own, even if the details differ.

Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated "dual-seeking" expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading Si types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading Ni types - for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of business, leading Ti types - for being a control freak, or leading Se types - for being on a power trip. This applies equally to identity relations.

Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also arise; for instance, an LSI (ISTP) and LII (INTP) may have similar views, but the LSI (ISTP) might want to "impose his views on others," while the LII (INTP) is "unwilling to do anything." Or, an ILE (ENTP) and IEE (ENFP) might be interested in the same activity and want to build some kind of community, but the ILE (ENTP) might want to formally establish an organization or administrative center, while the IEE (ENFP) insists on keeping the community movement informal. Or, an SLE (ESTP) might insist on increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor, while an SEE (ESFP) insists on exercising personal influence to get things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.

In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding fondness through the suggestive function and even help the other out a little using their demonstrative function. However, they eventually tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Kindred) - ENFP (Kindred)
  • ISFJ (Kindred) - ISTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFJ (Kindred) - ENFJ (Kindred)
  • INTP (Kindred) - ISTP (Kindred)
  • ENFJ (Kindred) - ESFJ (Kindred)
  • ISTP (Kindred) - INTP (Kindred)
  • ESTP (Kindred) - ESFP (Kindred)
  • INFJ (Kindred) - INTJ (Kindred)
  • ESFP (Kindred) - ESTP (Kindred)
  • INTJ (Kindred) - INFJ (Kindred)
  • ENTJ (Kindred) - ESTJ (Kindred)
  • ISFP (Kindred) - INFP (Kindred)
  • ESTJ (Kindred) - ENTJ (Kindred)
  • INFP (Kindred) - ISFP (Kindred)
  • ENFP (Kindred) - ENTP (Kindred)
  • ISTJ (Kindred) - ISFJ (Kindred)

Duality is the intertype relation between the two types that fit each other ideally according to Model A. Along with the similar concept of complementarity, it is a fundamental part of socionics, and was introduced by Aushra Augusta.

Duals are on opposite poles of the extraverted/introverted, logic/ethics, and intuition/sensing dichotomies, but on the same pole of the rational/irrational dichotomy. This accounts for duals' common rhythm while taking responsibility for opposite aspects of reality. Duals can interact on many levels and in a variety of ways, which creates a sense of fullness and variety in the relationship. Duals almost always bring something unexpected to the relationship for the other person and end up affecting them in ways they did not expect. This is because duals see certain abilities, problems, and traits in each other person that the other person is not fully aware of. However, duals must remove psychological barriers in order for expectations to be met completely. Otherwise, they will be unsatisfied.

In dual relations one partner's ego functions (1 and 2) fill the expectations of the other person's Super-Id functions (5 and 6). Likewise, duals' Super-Ego and Id blocks, though less important to the individuals' lives, interact with each other in complementary ways. Duals help each other to face their super-ego troubles in a healthy way, usually indirectly. Descriptions of duality often assume that the relationship is romantic and between people of the opposite sex. But it should be noted that dual relations occur between same-sex partners, in non-romantic friendship, in various settings, (e.g. at work,) and between people with different backgrounds.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Duality) - ISFJ (Duality)
  • ISFJ (Duality) - ENTP (Duality)
  • ESFJ (Duality) - INTP (Duality)
  • INTP (Duality) - ESFJ (Duality)
  • ENFJ (Duality) - ISTP (Duality)
  • ISTP (Duality) - ENFJ (Duality)
  • ESTP (Duality) - INFJ (Duality)
  • INFJ (Duality) - ESTP (Duality)
  • ESFP (Duality) - INTJ (Duality)
  • INTJ (Duality) - ESFP (Duality)
  • ENTJ (Duality) - ISFP (Duality)
  • ISFP (Duality) - ENTJ (Duality)
  • ESTJ (Duality) - INFP (Duality)
  • INFP (Duality) - ESTJ (Duality)
  • ENFP (Duality) - ISTJ (Duality)
  • ISTJ (Duality) - ENFP (Duality)

Identity is one of the 14 intertype relations. The two partners of such relation have exactly the same IM type. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and another ILE (ENTP) would produce an identical relation. Identity is an intertype relation between two people of the same type. Members of such relationship are called "Identicals".

Relations of identity are characterized by a very rapid "getting to know you" process and the ease of communicating information to each other. Identity partners can easily relate to each other and offer sympathy and understanding, but rarely solutions. When interacting together on a daily basis, both people tend to want to take responsibility for the same areas, making cooperation difficult. Often one partner is left to idle, which makes the relationship less cohesive than others. However, since identical partners share the same quadra values (in the same ways), they will take a similar aspect on life and how to approach it. Such similarities tend to take the focus off of a competitive mindset between the two (more than, say, kindred relations), since they can reflect on their identical strengths & problematic aspects of their lives.

If identicals have shared interests, they can provide a great deal of stimulation to the other's activity. Identicals also make perhaps the best role models, since they represent how one can realistically develop one's strengths and thus gain personal fulfillment and societal recognition. In contrast, complementary relations gravitate towards direct interaction, where their benefits are the most profound. In contrast to other symmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 8 pairs, and asymmetrical relations, which divide the socion into 4 rings of 4 types, 16 identical pairs are possible. See Mathematics of socionics for a more comprehensive explanation.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Identity) - ENTP (Identity)
  • ISFJ (Identity) - ISFJ (Identity)
  • ESFJ (Identity) - ESFJ (Identity)
  • INTP (Identity) - INTP (Identity)
  • ENFJ (Identity) - ENFJ (Identity)
  • ISTP (Identity) - ISTP (Identity)
  • ESTP (Identity) - ESTP (Identity)
  • INFJ (Identity) - INFJ (Identity)
  • ESFP (Identity) - ESFP (Identity)
  • INTJ (Identity) - INTJ (Identity)
  • ENTJ (Identity) - ENTJ (Identity)
  • ISFP (Identity) - ISFP (Identity)
  • ESTJ (Identity) - ESTJ (Identity)
  • INFP (Identity) - INFP (Identity)
  • ENFP (Identity) - ENFP (Identity)
  • ISTJ (Identity) - ISTJ (Identity)

Mirror is an intertype relation of intellectual stimulation and mutual correction. The pair shares common interests, but differ slightly in thought process and methodology. Initially, Mirrors find plenty of things to talk about. They easily understand each other's philosophies (and usually find that they agree) on basically all issues. They are surprised to find that the other can provide a subtly different outlook and recognize valuable things they themselves would tend to overlook. As the relationship gets closer, their differences become more of an obstacle. When everything is apparently all said and done, one Mirror will point out something they consider to be a loose end. This perplexes the other, because the point appears to them inconsequential and a distraction from the main point of the process. They may even think the other is intentionally derailing their efforts, because of their otherwise understanding attitude. This perpetual sense of almost understanding leads to some frustration between mirrors, despite it being a generally positive relationship. Any tension is easily resolved by creating some distance; confrontation is almost never necessary, and if it happens is quickly forgotten.

Perhaps more than any other relation, Mirrors can stimulate each other's creativity and work in tandem on the same project, but this interaction is primarily intellectual (i.e. work-related) and does not result in a feeling of closeness or needing the other on a more instinctive level. While they may find the discussion interesting at first, too much of it can lead Mirrors to have a sense of emptiness and disappointment about the relationship. They complement each other within their shared strengths, leaving an entire half of the informational world essentially neglected. They reinforce each other's attempts to engage the Super-id, but these usually remain half-hearted, continually returning to the comfort zone of the Ego. The intellectual stimulation and surprise involved in Mirror relations make it quite durable and friendly even over a long period of time. Thus, Mirror is a common relationship among friends.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Mirror) - INTP (Mirror)
  • ISFJ (Mirror) - ESFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFJ (Mirror) - ISFJ (Mirror)
  • INTP (Mirror) - ENTP (Mirror)
  • ENFJ (Mirror) - INFJ (Mirror)
  • ISTP (Mirror) - ESTP (Mirror)
  • ESTP (Mirror) - ISTP (Mirror)
  • INFJ (Mirror) - ENFJ (Mirror)
  • ESFP (Mirror) - ISFP (Mirror)
  • INTJ (Mirror) - ENTJ (Mirror)
  • ENTJ (Mirror) - INTJ (Mirror)
  • ISFP (Mirror) - ESFP (Mirror)
  • ESTJ (Mirror) - ISTJ (Mirror)
  • INFP (Mirror) - ENFP (Mirror)
  • ENFP (Mirror) - INFP (Mirror)
  • ISTJ (Mirror) - ESTJ (Mirror)

Activation, or activity, is an intertype relation between two people that belong to opposite poles of all basic dichotomies except for extraversion and introversion (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is introverted, sensing, logical, and irrational, and EII (INFP), which is introverted, intuitive, ethical, and rational.) Activation partners belong to the same quadra and thus find it comfortable to let down their guard around each other, making this relationship very easy to start.

Activation is a very common relationship for friendship. Activation is similar to duality in that each person provides those kinds of information that the other most expects, however, the emphasis is always somewhat different than subconsciously expected. Partners are able to provide each other with an abundance of useful information and assistance, but lead separate lives and make decisions based on criteria that don't seem too important to the other.

Activation partners who become close and discuss their strivings and personal worldviews often are struck by how radically different they are, despite the relative ease and benefit of communication. As opposed to duals, who tend to strive for the same things but from differing, though compatible angles, activation partners' approaches to achieving their goals tend to be fundamentally incompatible, due largely to the difference in rationality and irrationality. This means that while activation partners can talk and share their common hobbies with ease, they tend to view each other as separate entities with separate lifestyles and plans.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Activation) - ESFJ (Activation)
  • ISFJ (Activation) - INTP (Activation)
  • ESFJ (Activation) - ENTP (Activation)
  • INTP (Activation) - ISFJ (Activation)
  • ENFJ (Activation) - ESTP (Activation)
  • ISTP (Activation) - INFJ (Activation)
  • ESTP (Activation) - ENFJ (Activation)
  • INFJ (Activation) - ISTP (Activation)
  • ESFP (Activation) - ENTJ (Activation)
  • INTJ (Activation) - ISFP (Activation)
  • ENTJ (Activation) - ESFP (Activation)
  • ISFP (Activation) - INTJ (Activation)
  • ESTJ (Activation) - ENFP (Activation)
  • INFP (Activation) - ISTJ (Activation)
  • ENFP (Activation) - ESTJ (Activation)
  • ISTJ (Activation) - INFP (Activation)

Supervision is an asymmetric relation (like relations of benefit) in which one partner, the supervisor, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the other, the supervisee. This is due to the correlation of partners' functions, which allows the supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor. This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision "syndrome" if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the relationship.

Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing them together.

The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of modification or reformulation from the point of view of his leading function. Because this reframing of issues corresponds to their vulnerable function, the supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor's statements. If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points out perceived 'flaws' in the supervisee's thinking style or way of doing things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism from the supervisor's point of view, but may well be interpreted as such by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never live up to the supervisor's expectations or achieve his genuine appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the supervisee's weak points as he sees them.

Though the supervisee's discomfort can become quite intense, it is often not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often finds the supervisee's use of his demonstrative function alluring, but will ultimately be unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Supervisor) - ISTP (Supervisee)
  • ISFJ (Supervisor) - ENFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFJ (Supervisor) - ISTJ (Supervisee)
  • INTP (Supervisor) - ENFP (Supervisee)
  • ENFJ (Supervisor) - INTJ (Supervisee)
  • ISTP (Supervisor) - ESFP (Supervisee)
  • ESTP (Supervisor) - INTP (Supervisee)
  • INFJ (Supervisor) - ESFJ (Supervisee)
  • ESFP (Supervisor) - INFP (Supervisee)
  • INTJ (Supervisor) - ESTJ (Supervisee)
  • ENTJ (Supervisor) - INFJ (Supervisee)
  • ISFP (Supervisor) - ESTP (Supervisee)
  • ESTJ (Supervisor) - ISFJ (Supervisee)
  • INFP (Supervisor) - ENTP (Supervisee)
  • ENFP (Supervisor) - ISFP (Supervisee)
  • ISTJ (Supervisor) - ENTJ (Supervisee)

Benefit, or request, is an asymmetric relation in which the type with the higher status is called the benefactor (or request transmitter) and the type with the lower status is called the beneficiary (or request recipient). There is usually some kind of initial attraction going on, though not always mutual (the beneficiary will usually admire the benefactor's abilities from a distance), but after a while the benefactor realizes that he is supporting the beneficiary without receiving anything in return, and starts to criticize the beneficiary for not holding up his end of the relationship (and so issues a "request"). Meanwhile the beneficiary is irritated that the benefactor feels he has the right to interfere in and try to mold the beneficiary's behavior. If too close a distance is maintained both parties will ultimately feel unfulfilled.

If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the benefactor doesn't offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts, the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the supervisee in a supervision relationship. However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted. The complementation between the beneficiary's first function and the benefactor's second function also makes for a more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision (in fact all relations of repulsion have a greater element of competition in them).

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Benefactor) - ENFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISFJ (Benefactor) - ISTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFJ (Benefactor) - ENFP (Beneficiary)
  • INTP (Benefactor) - ISTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFJ (Benefactor) - ESFP (Beneficiary)
  • ISTP (Benefactor) - INTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTP (Benefactor) - ESFJ (Beneficiary)
  • INFJ (Benefactor) - INTP (Beneficiary)
  • ESFP (Benefactor) - ESTJ (Beneficiary)
  • INTJ (Benefactor) - INFP (Beneficiary)
  • ENTJ (Benefactor) - ESTP (Beneficiary)
  • ISFP (Benefactor) - INFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ESTJ (Benefactor) - ENTP (Beneficiary)
  • INFP (Benefactor) - ISFJ (Beneficiary)
  • ENFP (Benefactor) - ENTJ (Beneficiary)
  • ISTJ (Benefactor) - ISFP (Beneficiary)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTP (Illusionary) - ISFJ (Illusionary)
  • INFJ (Illusionary) - ENTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFP (Illusionary) - ISTJ (Illusionary)
  • INTJ (Illusionary) - ENFP (Illusionary)
  • ENTJ (Illusionary) - ISTP (Illusionary)
  • ISFP (Illusionary) - ENFJ (Illusionary)
  • ESTJ (Illusionary) - INTP (Illusionary)
  • INFP (Illusionary) - ESFJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFP (Illusionary) - INTJ (Illusionary)
  • ISTJ (Illusionary) - ESFP (Illusionary)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

# ENTJ Intertype Relations

Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.

In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.

While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations, if any. Furthermore, the solutions to their emotional or personal problems are always radically different. For instance, an EIE (ENFJ) must "get himself together" and stop being idle or hesitant, while an IEE (ENFP) needs a change of pace and some new diversion. If each tries to implement the other's recipe, nothing comes of it.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Quasi-Identity) - ENTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTP (Quasi-Identity) - INTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTP (Quasi-Identity) - ISTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTP (Quasi-Identity) - ESTJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFJ (Quasi-Identity) - INFP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESFP (Quasi-Identity) - ESFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • INTJ (Quasi-Identity) - INTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ENTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISFP (Quasi-Identity) - ISFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ESTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ESTP (Quasi-Identity)
  • INFP (Quasi-Identity) - INFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ENFP (Quasi-Identity) - ENFJ (Quasi-Identity)
  • ISTJ (Quasi-Identity) - ISTP (Quasi-Identity)

Conflict is the intertype relation considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically. One's conflictor is the quasi-identical of one's dual, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.

In relations of conflict, partners' Ego functions correspond to the Super-ego functions of the other. This is similar to Super-ego relations except that partners' 1st and 2nd functions correspond to the other's 4th and 3rd, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person's thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in rationality also makes this relationship develop much more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations. In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all four basic dichotomies (e.g. SLI (ISTJ), which is irrational, introverted, sensing, and logical, and EIE (ENFJ), which is rational, extroverted, intuitive, and ethical).

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place. Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support. Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Conflict) - ISFP (Conflict)
  • ISFJ (Conflict) - ENTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFJ (Conflict) - INTJ (Conflict)
  • INTP (Conflict) - ESFP (Conflict)
  • ENFJ (Conflict) - ISTJ (Conflict)
  • ISTP (Conflict) - ENFP (Conflict)
  • ESTP (Conflict) - INFP (Conflict)
  • INFJ (Conflict) - ESTJ (Conflict)
  • ESFP (Conflict) - INTP (Conflict)
  • INTJ (Conflict) - ESFJ (Conflict)
  • ENTJ (Conflict) - ISFJ (Conflict)
  • ISFP (Conflict) - ENTP (Conflict)
  • ESTJ (Conflict) - INFJ (Conflict)
  • INFP (Conflict) - ESTP (Conflict)
  • ENFP (Conflict) - ISTP (Conflict)
  • ISTJ (Conflict) - ENFJ (Conflict)

Super-Ego partners usually think of each other as mysterious and curious individuals. They are usually intrigued by each other's manners, behavior and thoughts. Both partners might experience interest in each other, but to an outsider spectator, these relations may look cold for some inexplicable reason.

In Day-to-Day Behavior:

  • If Super-Ego partners cannot find a common interest to discuss and ponder, their interaction can quickly descend into strife. The partners would rather express their own points of view than listen to the other partner's point of view. The latter tries to defend himself by projecting his own confident points in return. This can easily devolve into a vicious cycle. Partners normally show interest and respect to each other if they do not know each other well enough. When partners begin to close their psychological distance, they start to experience many problems understanding each other.
  • Super-Ego partners may think that they have each other figured out. However, when it comes to the two collaborating on a group project, they can easily begin to believe that the other is trying to ruin the project. Super-Ego partners do not make each other aware of their intentions. Therefore their actions may look exactly opposite to what was expected. Although the hope of better collaboration between partners remains as before, it does not prevent conflict penetrating their relationship.
  • It is said that when both partners are extraverts, one of them usually feels more unsatisfied with their position as partners. The explanation for this is that they believe that the other partner deliberately does not pay as much attention to their point of view as they should and are too occupied with their own matters. Between two introvert partners, one partner is preoccupied that the other as being too obtrusive and clingy. In any case, friction begins when partners shift to a relationship of a closer psychological distance.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Super-ego) - ESFP (Super-ego)
  • ISFJ (Super-ego) - INTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFJ (Super-ego) - ENTJ (Super-ego)
  • INTP (Super-ego) - ISFP (Super-ego)
  • ENFJ (Super-ego) - ESTJ (Super-ego)
  • ISTP (Super-ego) - INFP (Super-ego)
  • ESTP (Super-ego) - ENFP (Super-ego)
  • INFJ (Super-ego) - ISTJ (Super-ego)
  • ESFP (Super-ego) - ENTP (Super-ego)
  • INTJ (Super-ego) - ISFJ (Super-ego)
  • ENTJ (Super-ego) - ESFJ (Super-ego)
  • ISFP (Super-ego) - INTP (Super-ego)
  • ESTJ (Super-ego) - ENFJ (Super-ego)
  • INFP (Super-ego) - ISTP (Super-ego)
  • ENFP (Super-ego) - ESTP (Super-ego)
  • ISTJ (Super-ego) - INFJ (Super-ego)

Contrary relations are also known as relations of extinguishment. The two partners of such relation have the same strong traits and the same weak traits, with the same accepting/producing order, but with opposite introvert/extrovert values. For example, an ILE (ENTP) and an ILI (INTJ) would produce an extinguishment relation. As a non-identical symmetrical relation, it produces 8 pairs each on the socion, in comparison to non-symmetrical relations, which produce 4 rings of 4 IM types on the socion. The 8 pairings are bi-directional, so they can be expanded conceptually to make 16 total.

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. This possibly occurs because at first contact individuals are likely to act through their Super-Ego functions, which is received positively by the other person. 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. Partners in these relations find it very hard to maintain an organized and stable relationship, due to the promising, yet 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, whereas the extrovert 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.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Contrary) - INTJ (Contrary)
  • ISFJ (Contrary) - ESFP (Contrary)
  • ESFJ (Contrary) - ISFP (Contrary)
  • INTP (Contrary) - ENTJ (Contrary)
  • ENFJ (Contrary) - INFP (Contrary)
  • ISTP (Contrary) - ESTJ (Contrary)
  • ESTP (Contrary) - ISTJ (Contrary)
  • INFJ (Contrary) - ENFP (Contrary)
  • ESFP (Contrary) - ISFJ (Contrary)
  • INTJ (Contrary) - ENTP (Contrary)
  • ENTJ (Contrary) - INTP (Contrary)
  • ISFP (Contrary) - ESFJ (Contrary)
  • ESTJ (Contrary) - ISTP (Contrary)
  • INFP (Contrary) - ENFJ (Contrary)
  • ENFP (Contrary) - INFJ (Contrary)
  • ISTJ (Contrary) - ESTP (Contrary)

Business relations (also known as look-alike relations) are similar to identity and kindred in that partners have half their functions in common - in this case, all the even-numbered ones. This provides a certain commonality of methods and approaches and somewhat similar communication styles. Business partners rarely have serious problems understanding each other and don't need much time to get to know each other and find common ground (or define their differences). The psychological distance is naturally large enough that partners do not generally seek to know each other deeply. Rather, they are content to pal around with the other on a relatively superficial basis. A change in location or life circumstances is usually enough to interrupt the friendship.

Business partners do not tend to view each other as serious threats or competitors. Their preferred spheres of influence, their basic attitudes and purposes - defined primarily through the leading function - are very different, diminishing potential competition. Furthermore, neither partner can easily stimulate the other's vulnerable function, meaning that partners can loosen up around each other. However, the fact that the first function of each corresponds to the third of the other can make time spent together feel like a challenge and an effort. Each becomes a bit more like the other and a bit less like his usual self.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Look-a-like) - ESTP (Look-a-like)
  • ISFJ (Look-a-like) - INFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFJ (Look-a-like) - ESTJ (Look-a-like)
  • INTP (Look-a-like) - INFP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFJ (Look-a-like) - ENTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISTP (Look-a-like) - ISFP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTP (Look-a-like) - ENTP (Look-a-like)
  • INFJ (Look-a-like) - ISFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ESFP (Look-a-like) - ENFP (Look-a-like)
  • INTJ (Look-a-like) - ISTJ (Look-a-like)
  • ENTJ (Look-a-like) - ENFJ (Look-a-like)
  • ISFP (Look-a-like) - ISTP (Look-a-like)
  • ESTJ (Look-a-like) - ESFJ (Look-a-like)
  • INFP (Look-a-like) - INTP (Look-a-like)
  • ENFP (Look-a-like) - ESFP (Look-a-like)
  • ISTJ (Look-a-like) - INTJ (Look-a-like)

Illusionary, or mirage, relations, like semi-duality, are similar to duality in that many of each partners' functions directly correspond to the unconscious expectations of the other. In relations of semi-duality partners' odd-numbered functions match those of the other person's dual, while in illusionary relations it is the even-numbered functions. That is, partners' use of their 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th functions more or less meets the other's expectations, while the rest are the opposite of what is expected for comfortable interaction. In practice this translates to a perception that the other person can be useful in solving practical issues that arise, but partners do not find each other fascinating - as they do duals or semi-duals - due to an absence of suggestion through their 5th function.

At a distance, illusionary partners may experience a wide range of attitudes to each other - from like to mutual mockery - but this is generally true of most intertype relations. In closer contact, partners find they can be of practical assistance to each other in a variety of ways, even if they are not driven to become close emotionally. Leadership duties are divided naturally between partners, one of which is extraverted and the other introverted, and who both share a common rational or irrational approach to living. Despite this significant underlying compatibility, prolonged interaction leads to a dissatisfaction with everything about the relationship that is related to the other's leading function. Partners unconsciously expect the other person to accept their general sentiments about things and build upon them, but illusionary partners inevitably present their own completely independent worldviews that are somewhat at odds with the other's. This is because if one partner's leading function is Si, the other's is Se; or, if one's is Fe, the other's is Fi, and so on. Partners' worldviews, central values, and general approaches are similar in that they focus on similar kinds of things, but they are hardly compatible in practice. Where one sees opportunities that must be developed immediately, the other wants to wait and do nothing for the time being. Then, the tables turn and the other person suddenly feels it is time to do something, while the other believes that there is nothing to be done at the moment.

Illusionary relations occur between two types, each of which has the others' "hidden agenda" (6th) function as their creative (2nd) function. However, one's leading (1st) function is the others' ignoring (7th) function. This means that the two are like a dual couple on how they interact with the world, but not on how they view the world. Illusionary relations tend to appear close or compatible from an outside perspective, but the partners themselves may not get along. The closer the relationship becomes, the more strained it gets. A parent-child illusionary relationship may be turbulent at home, but will be more natural, relaxed, and mutually beneficial when on vacation together.

Illusionary relations range from apparent compatibility, offset by the occasional small, short argument to mutual understanding and tolerance of the other's quirks to complete aversion and disregard for the other's lifestyle. The relationship usually progresses smoothly, but it depends on how close the partners are, what terms the relationship started on, and which of the two leads the relationship (usually the older, more experienced partner.) A lack of understanding of the other's lifestyle seems to be the biggest cause for upheaval. According to Filatova, the one in charge is important - if it is the more positive of the two, or the one more that is more of a natural psychologist, then the relation will run smoothly. Out of the four illusionary cases Filatova offers, two have the same types, but the one in charge is reversed. In the more successful relationships, the only dichotomy shared by the three types in charge is static. IEEs, which she says are life-loving optimists, are negativists.

License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 from SocioType and Wikisocion

More: SocioType, Wikisocion and Wikipedia

Similar matchings:

  • ENTP (Illusionary) - INFJ (Illusionary)
  • ISFJ (Illusionary) - ESTP (Illusionary)
  • ESFJ (Illusionary) - INFP (Illusionary)
  • INTP (Illusionary) - ESTJ (Illusionary)
  • ENFJ (Illusionary) - ISFP (Illusionary)
  • ISTP (Illusionary) - ENTJ (Ill