# Need better ITR descriptions



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Hey So a Fi-lead would be ideal, right?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

I agree that we need better ITR descriptions. From most of the ones I've seen, it would seem I'm Supervised by a solid 20% of people, that I Supervise another 20% of people, about 20% of people are my Conflictor, another 20% are my Superego, and the rest are a mix of the more mediocre relations (Mirage, Look Alike, Benefit, Kindred, Extinguishment, etc.). It would seem I've never met anyone of my quadra, certainly not any Duals or Activators.

In reality this is *highly* unlikely; I've probably met a more even distribution of other types. (Note, I'm not sure of my type, but regardless of my type, the above distribution of ITRs just cannot be correct in reality.)

Basically, yes, I'd need better ITR descriptions or to better understand the defining criteria of each ITR to really figure out what the ITR is between me and another person.

:laughing:


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

counterintuitive said:


> I agree that we need better ITR descriptions. From most of the ones I've seen, it would seem I'm Supervised by a solid 20% of people, that I Supervise another 20% of people, about 20% of people are my Conflictor, another 20% are my Superego, and the rest are a mix of the more mediocre relations (Mirage, Look Alike, Benefit, Kindred, Extinguishment, etc.). It would seem I've never met anyone of my quadra, certainly not any Duals or Activators.
> 
> In reality this is *highly* unlikely; I've probably met a more even distribution of other types. (Note, I'm not sure of my type, but regardless of my type, the above distribution of ITRs just cannot be correct in reality.)
> 
> ...


So you are annoyed that most people you type are supervisor, conflicor or superego?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> Hey So a Fi-lead would be ideal, right?


Why Fi lead lol? They'd THRASH either Se or Ne types...

If you ask me, Ti or Te types are the best for this kind of thing.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Why Fi lead lol? They'd THRASH either Se or Ne types...
> 
> If you ask me, Ti or Te types are the best for this kind of thing.


Because cording to Socionics Fi is about Relations. Also I agree with that description.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> Because cording to Socionics Fi is about Relations. Also I agree with that description.


But how'd they systemise it? Are they supposed to speak of this to a T dom?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Ixim said:


> But how'd they systemise it? Are they supposed to speak of this to a T dom?


It is pretty much already systemized.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> It is pretty much already systemized.


Ah, you are talking about asking a Fi dom to correct the current descriptions! Magnifique!


----------



## Graveyard (Oct 23, 2015)

I think he asked for an Fi lead because they are masters at describing their relationship with people, given the nature of Fi. But I'd say that, as you ask for definitions, your way to go is Ti.

However, I'd encourage you to instead experiment with people and see how it turns out.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Graveyard said:


> I think he asked for an Fi lead because they are masters at describing their relationship with people, given the nature of Fi. But I'd say that, as you ask for definitions, your way to go is Ti.
> 
> However, I'd encourage you to instead experiment with people and see how it turns out.


In the core of Fi is the relations of things. I believe Fi have been forgotten some. But honestly, just some fresh perspective on the ITR would do. For example, I want new descriptions for Supervision.


----------

