Relationship Style according to different mbti types

I found this link, and I have been fascinated by it.
Do you agree of the style of the relationship discussed here?
What are your partners' types and do you feel that it fits what it says here?

I'm curious to find out whether the concept is true or not. I do not know if being an unhealthy of any type actually will make the concept work either...

Relations between Psychological ("personality") Types

============================

Relations of Duality
These relations are the most favourable and comfortable of all intertype relations providing complete psychological compatibility. Dual partners are like two halves of a whole unit. They usually understand...

Identical Relations
These are relations of complete understanding between partners but with an inability to help each other. Identical partners see the world with identical eyes, identically work out received information...

Relations of Activity
These relations are the easiest and quickest to start. Activity partners do not experience any visual difficulties when starting relations which can be surprising to them at the beginning. Partners stimulate...

Mirror Relations
These are relations of mutual correction. Mirror partners have similar interests and ideas, but a slightly different understanding of the same problems. Each partner can see only half of one problem...

Relations of Semi-Duality
These are relations of deficient Duality. Semi-Duality partners usually have no problems in understanding each other or each other's objectives, at least when these objectives are only on paper...

Comparative Relations
These are relations of deceptive similarity. Comparative partners talk about similar things, have similar interests, obey the norms of politeness and hospitality towards each other but they never really...

Conflicting Relations
These are relations of constantly developing conflict. Conflicting relations have the worst compatibility between partners among all other relations. However, it does not seem to be so obvious, especially...

Super-Ego Relations
These are relations of mutual respect between partners. Super-Ego partners may think of each other as a distant and slightly mysterious ideal. They often show interest in each other's manners, behaviour...

Quasi-Identical Relations
These are relations of major misunderstanding. Quasi-Identical partners can interact with each other in a more or less peaceful manner if both partners are Thinking types. If they are both Feeling types...

Contrary Relations
These are relations of an unstable psychological distance. Both partners experience difficulties in establishing and keeping a stable psychological distance between them. The only chance Contrary partners...

Illusionary Relations
These are relations of growing laziness. There are no other intertype relations that can deactivate partners so much as Illusionary relations. Illusionary partners find it comfortable being relaxed together...

Look-a-like Relations
These are relations between equal partners which can be called acquaintances rather than friends. There are no visual obstacles in the development of these relations, partners can talk easily almost about...

Relations of Benefit
These relations are asymmetrical. One partner, called the Benefactor, is always in a more favourable position in respect to the other partner who is known as Beneficiary. The Beneficiary thinks of the Benefactor...

Relations of Supervision
These relations are also asymmetrical as are relations of Benefit. One partner, called the Supervisor, is always in a more favourable position in respect to the other partner who is known as Supervisee. Relations of...

did mine based on two ppl I like and compared the types

I got Relations of Duality and Relations of Activity so both r good

This is actually Socionics, which is different in some ways than MBTI.

Here's one done for MBTI, though: MBTI Relationship Matrix | Life as a Project

Here's one done for MBTI, though: MBTI Relationship Matrix | Life as a Project

This one I don't quite agree with because an ENFP and my self, an INTJ, do not have a "parent to child" feel in the slightest.

Hmmm.
INFP + ISTJ = Relations of Activity

I agree for the most part with what this says, though I'm not sure I like the general attitude it has..

I actually was more into Socionics before I joined the PerC forums. It was there where I learned about functions, so I'm kinda biased to agree with it more. As far as I've been able to figure out it's pretty accurate. Even though personality has more to do with relationships, if personalities AND type match up it becomes all the more accurate.

An example is one of my better friends and his brother. I introduced my friend to socionics (His type is ISTj), and since it was accurate with me and his brother (ISTp/ESTj, Mirror Relations), I figured he'd find it really interesting. It describes their relationship as: "A relation of unstable psychological distance", but as they're brothers their closeness hides the fact of their "psychological incompatability".

That being said for the uneducated in typology/socionics it may or may not be less accurate, but as knowledge of functions and other types grow so does understanding of interactions between types. So that's my two cents.

Good to know as a general guide and finding out what needs to be worked on in each relationships , etc.
But, I must say that even within each individual/same types, there are so many different variations within types. Each with their own unique history, parents ( therefore, each with unique possible 'personal unconscious' experience of the anima/animus and complementing expectations or repellant factors of the love interest)... and that isn't counting in what each individual's collective unconscious might contain, if I look at it from the Jungian terms.

It's like saying: " INTPs' best jeans for fit would be Levi's 501s, because they'd cause the least amount of discomfort."
But, I disagree. 501s pinches me in wrong spots. My fave is Levis 518s. They fit me like a glove and looks flattering on me.

Originally Posted by tlc123

This one I don't quite agree with because an ENFP and my self, an INTJ, do not have a "parent to child" feel in the slightest.

With those two types, it should more than others (according to Beebe's model) because each type's Parent function is the other's Child and vice versa (Te/Fi). so you "parent" with Te, and they find childlike relief through it. They parent through Fi, and you should find childish relief through it. That's how it would work with those types. (It would be different for INTP/ENFJ, because the parent/child are in each other's shadow, and it's dom/inferior that they they switch. But this would probably be a similar dynamic, though. More like a hero/damsel in distress, or still a "mentor and student" as it says).

i don't like the miserable outlook (most) of the descriptions predict, but it is accurate in some cases. I know alot of people in "conflicting relations", including my rents. They've made it work for 19 years. If summarizing these people as so were true, the world would be a conflicting place /:. It is just not so. No substance to it at all!

It pretty much says that no relationship will end well except your dual