# Top Three Most Difficult Intertype Relations



## Figure

This is long. Don't read the whole thing at once/at all if you don't want to. 

Earlier, I made a thread on the "best three" intertype relationships, in my experience, for a relationship. I thought it would only be fitting to include a "worst three" set as well. This is not to put words into your mouth as to the "worst" ITR, or to encourage you to break up with/avoid someone else if you know your type forms any of these relationships with them. The best way to use the ITRs, in my experience, is to observe the people around you, pay close attention to your own mental state while interacting with them over a prolonged period, and manage the psychological distance you keep from them to maintain an optimal relationship, given innate cognitive differences. In short, don't judge others with this stuff - use it judiciously. 

*Poor

Superego
*Named after their IE namesake block, these relationships actually can be somewhat warm when the partners aren't too close to each other. One partner's ego block is the other's superego, and visa versa. The two seem mysterious to each other, because they are strong in the aspects that the other partner is weak in. Unlike duality, however, these "weak" parts are not areas in which you actively seek improvement - if you want to improve your superego block, you must disable or mute your ego, which is difficult given our innate dependence on the ego block. As a general rule, the ego block (for example, Ne Ti for an ILE) is much stronger than the superego block (Se Fi for an ILE). Criticism of the ego block is swatted away or dealt with, criticism of the superego block is taken personally, and stings badly. 

Typically, superego fights occur when both partners attempt to pressure the other into considering their own ego, and hence their partner's weak superego, into more consideration. The two will argue in favor of their own strong points while entirely misinterpreting the point of their partner. Confrontations can be very stubborn, and mine usually start out as misunderstandings, that become more misunderstood and spiral into nasty, demeaning language and frustration. 

When the partners are not operating at a close psychological distance and things are more casual and superficial, these relationships can be okay. My mom (SEI) and I (ILI) are superego, and we're _generally _okay - problems occur somewhat infrequently, but they are devastating when they pop up. Example: as a kid, I never really paid attention to my physical surroundings, let alone their cleanliness (poor Si) and left clothes or dishes laying around a lot, because I knew (Te) she would pick them up eventually. I had more important things to think about than _clothes_ (Ni). My mom would pick things up for awhile, but hold them inside for peace until exploding on me for being "inconsiderate" (Fe), to which my reaction was usually "why does it matter anyway?" (Ni). 

Typically, superego relationships are okay until provocation or unexpected action, and as you might see in the above example, both partners can benefit from each others' ways. The fact that peace only comes at distance and superficiality, however, may offset some with these relationships. They can work, but they take significant time, willingness to develop things you think are pointless, and sacrifice of one's own defaults. 


*Pretty Bad

Conflict
*The name says it all. These are frequently described as relationships where conflict is "brewing under the surface." Unlike in Superego, where both partners are judgers or perceivers, in conflict one is a judger and the other a perceiver, leading to different life rhythms. In superego, the role function, which is seen as "okay but unnecessary" is the dominant of both, and the weaker creative function is the PoLR. In Conflict, this is reversed - the role function is the weaker creative function and the stronger leading function is the painful PoLR of the other partner. Your conflict partner can hurt you in your weakest point just by being themselves, and you can do the same to them. And because their way of dealing with the world is your role function/i.e. seems irrelevant, their actions will also seem silly and mindless.

The partners will at first find the other person intriguing, since they are your absolute opposite and can do easily what you can't. You may remember times, subconsciously, that you failed at something they are good at. Over time, however, you will likely find flaws in your conflictor's perspectives - and bringing them up causes terrible misunderstandings since they will be expressed in an entirely foreign way. Both partners may ave good interests, but helping even in the slightest can seem to be malicious to the other partner. The only way out is - away. 

I don't have many personal enemies, but two of the three or so are ESE. They hate me and I hate them. They dislike my rigidness, weird language, criticism, and "coldness," and I dislike their showoff bullcrap, attention seeking, and inability to give others independence. 

Fortunately, these relationships can stay friendly for awhile if the two people are very, very casual in interaction and keep things positive. It can help to cooperate from a distance on common causes, if for example your sibling is your conflictor. Otherwise, the best solution is extreme distance. 




*Dangerous

Supervision
*Unlike a conflict relationship where the partners are repelled, in a supervisory relationship, the partners are actually drawn together. The problem is that unlike conflict, it isn't ego vs. superego both ways - instead, the leading function/main motivation of the supervisor is the painful PoLR of the supervisee, and the creative function of the supervisor is the leading function/main motivation of the supervisee. This means that the supervisor's ways of dealing with the world will make sense to the supervisee, possibly leading to a connection between them - but they will inevitably burn you _badly _in the process of making sense. They may even have mutual interests or shared activities. The problem is that in the supervisor merely being him/herself, he/she hits the weakest part of the supervisee in a way the supervisee respects. In conflict, the critique isn't even understood, and the conflict involves literal misunderstanding. In supervisory, there often isn't as intense of fighting - but things are much more dangerous since the supervisee will feel inadequate, and the supervisor will keep piling on.

The supervisor usually either likes the supervisee and wants to help, or doesn't respect them at all and tries to correct them often. Either way, the supervisor finds self-worth in correcting the supervisee because he/she will get a chance to demonstrate their skills to a weaker pupil. The supervisee wither admires and respects the supervisor and seeks them for advice, or dislikes them and thinks their way of doing things is better - despite seeing the value of their supervisor's ways. In any case, the supervisor always has the psychological power, even when the circumstances put them in a lesser position. Even when they're flat out wrong about something, their very _way _can run over the supervisee, who will try to fight back but simply can't make the supervisor respect him/her. 

I have a long history with supervision, as both the supervisor and the supervisee. My best friend in college is an LSE, my supervisee. He would ask me for help in writing papers, and I would correct him frequently on the basis of Ni - his writing was too sequential, not elegant enough, not seeing the important inner nuances of the work. Lacking novelty, lacking creative logical fluidness. Pulling from convention (all poor Ni). My way of _saying _this was through Te - so he understood my criticism to some extent, but no matter how many times I explained something, it never seemed good enough to me. Always something missing. I started to think he wouldn't make it in classes if I didn't correct his papers, and felt compelled to give him advice in other areas as well.* I actually really hurt his esteem, and our friendship, by saying his goal of going to law school was foolish, while trying to help by getting him to see the big picture (PoLR Ni), given his low LSAT scores and poor lawyer hiring trends. *

I also have EIE friends, who do the exact same thing to me. A coworker of mine won't let me submit anything before looking at it and finding the most minute of corrections that "might confuse someone if they're not fixed" (Fe). I can see that happening (shared Ni), but lose extreme amounts of self-esteem because no matter how many things I fix, it's never good enough - there are always ones we missed earlier. More painful, I have an EIE friend from college who CONSTANTLY pressures me, EVERY WEEKEND, to come back to school to visit - it's a 6 hour drive, which is long to me. If I don't, he texts and calls constantly because he needs to feel that kind of closeness. I feel enormously pressured by Fe, to express commitment I _can't feel_. If I don't respond as a way of establishing distance, he tries even harder. I have no clue what to do. I do respect both EIE though, because they take an interest in me. It's just that I feel inadequate applying Fe to both work and relationships. 


In short, supervision is dangerous because one partner can hurt the other without realizing it by just being who they are, yet they can be attracted to each other. This, in my mind, is worse than conflict unless the conflictor is, say, a boss at work or a mother/father, because there is a higher chance of actually feeling the blunt end of the relationship full force. It's worse feeling inferior than it is feeling simply pissed off.


----------



## Boolean11

I had the same problem you have with your mom, with mine, lack of appreciation but since she is an INFJ communication is easier though really bad at times. However, with the deal with "conflictors" and "super ego", I was able to find a perfect remmendy through developing my "super id".In a way I'm am able to understand Fe and Si, with what appears to be a little weird now but it works. In a way they are able to tolerate my Fi and Se though at they same time they can tell my poor grasp (+ the alien id vibe for them) with it but appear to respect that I'm not good. On cases where SF(SiFe) is called I respect that they are boss and shun my NT(NiTe) which I learnt to accept that it isn't appropriate early on in life. And equally I am able to lecture in cases where abstract logic is permitted and they is mutual recognition of that fact. 

Anyways like any relationship, they'll only work with civil considerate people, else its a train wreck. And the whole "civil considerate people" also applies to types that provide the best possible communication "identity" and "kindred". With hostility involved ISFp & ESFj, the discussions end in insults, SFs call NTs social cripples and who then reply with stupid as an insult; in other words pointing out obvious "super id" flaws in each other. However generally wrecking a relationship is easy regardless of the types involved, obvious weaknesses are pointed with radically different types.
*
Bottom line: consult your "Super ID" when taking to your "Super Ego" types when the situation calls it in their favour with their Ego ruling, else reverse procedure if your Ego dominates the situation. In the case of fights, mutual ego competition, avoid communication as well as cases where someone has an undeveloped Super ID.*


----------



## Kanerou

I agree with Conflict and Supervision. Dunno about Super-Ego, but it makes sense.


----------



## Kanerou

LXPilot said:


> I also have EIE friends, who do the exact same thing to me. A coworker of mine won't let me submit anything before looking at it and finding the most minute of corrections that "might confuse someone if they're not fixed" (Fe).


Why would that be Fe?


----------



## Figure

Kanerou said:


> Why would that be Fe?


Because it is an evaluation (J) of a current situation that was judged by the person as being immediately and objectively apparent (e), involving a concern that was centered around the ethics, or in this case specifically, wellbeing, of other people (Fe). 

Fe - particularly leading Fe - is often about judgment from the perspective of someone else, what would make things easier, better, or right given a current situation.


----------



## Kanerou

LXPilot said:


> Because it is an evaluation (J) of a current situation that was judged by the person as being immediately and objectively apparent (e), involving a concern that was centered around the ethics, or in this case specifically, wellbeing, of other people (Fe).
> 
> Fe - particularly leading Fe - is often about judgment from the perspective of someone else, what would make things easier, better, or right given a current situation.


Fe in Socionics focuses on the emotions of a given person or group and what those emotions might entail about the person's/group's current internal state, as well as affecting that internal state for their own goals and purposes. So... how is what you quoted Socionics Fe?


----------



## Figure

Kanerou said:


> Fe in Socionics focuses on the emotions of a given person or group and what those emotions might entail about the person's/group's current internal state, as well as affecting that internal state for their own goals and purposes. So... how is what you quoted Socionics Fe?


It's quite simple. If someone makes mistakes on the job, there is a possibility, to an Fe user, that someone else's work could be compromised later on down the ladder, and/or that the Fe's image could be considered in a less-positive, caring way. Taking action ensures that the Fe user has some level of control (ego) over the "inner states" of everyone. Because Fe is directed outward, Fe users typically know, or find out what others like and will behave in a way that accommodates what they know about others. 

My coworker believes she understands what our clients and other co-workers want better than I do, so she tries to control the situation to in turn control how others feel about their work.


----------



## Kanerou

LXPilot said:


> It's quite simple. If someone makes mistakes on the job, there is a possibility, to an Fe user, that someone else's work could be compromised later on down the ladder, and/or that the Fe's image could be considered in a less-positive, caring way. Taking action ensures that the Fe user has some level of control (ego) over the "inner states" of everyone. Because Fe is directed outward, Fe users typically know, or find out what others like and will behave in a way that accommodates what they know about others.
> 
> My coworker believes she understands what our clients and other co-workers want better than I do, so she tries to control the situation to in turn control how others feel about their work.


To be honest, this doesn't really mesh with what I understand of Fe or EIEs. I'd be willing to reconsider my position with EIE input. 

Also, I suspect Fi types are also plenty capable of determining what others like and trying to accommodate that, given that their focus lies in such sentiments to begin with. The 'vertedness of IM elements isn't about inward/outward. It's about focusing on the object versus the interaction between objects. All IM elements can be turned inward on the self or outward to help/hurt others.


----------



## Figure

Kanerou said:


> To be honest, this doesn't really mesh with what I understand of Fe or EIEs.


I get a very strong feeling that you're simply reading the informational elements at face value, for what is literally said by the website texts. And real-life existence of the theory is much beyond that. 



> Also, I suspect Fi types are also plenty capable of determining what others like and trying to accommodate that, given that their focus lies in such sentiments to begin with. The 'vertedness of IM elements isn't about inward/outward. It's about focusing on the object versus the interaction between objects. All IM elements can be turned inward on the self or outward to help/hurt others.


That is independent to whether or not an Fe person does what I said they do, since you're describing the output of the function, not the process itself. Any two functions can come to an identical endpoint in any given situation, it's the routes that matter. And since socionics is built around informational exchange - not merely reactions to what ends up being the result - it is important to draw out the subtleties of the functions as they exist beyond all theories. 



> The 'vertedness of IM elements isn't about inward/outward. It's about focusing on the object versus the interaction between objects. All IM elements can be turned inward on the self or outward to help/hurt others.


Yes they are. This comes from Jung. The way you describe "inward" and "outward" is neither the way Jung meant the term, nor the way I described it.


----------



## Entropic

LXPilot said:


> I get a very strong feeling that you're simply reading the informational elements at face value, for what is literally said by the website texts. And real-life existence of the theory is much beyond that.


Although I get what she's trying to say and I get the impression you're just seeing it very differently. How do you know it was truly Fe if all you can judge is the output? You cannot know to an exact certainty what the true motivation or reasoning was so how can you know it was Fe over Fi or any other function?


----------



## Kanerou

LXPilot said:


> I get a very strong feeling that you're simply reading the informational elements at face value, for what is literally said by the website texts. And real-life existence of the theory is much beyond that.


Perhaps, but that doesn't mean I should automatically trust your interpretation when it looks off, especially if I'm not yet convinced that you know what you're talking about. And I did say I'd reconsider if I could hear from an EIE on the subject.



> That is independent to whether or not an Fe person does what I said they do, since you're describing the output of the function, not the process itself. Any two functions can come to an identical endpoint in any given situation, it's the routes that matter. And since socionics is built around informational exchange - not merely reactions to what ends up being the result - it is important to draw out the subtleties of the functions as they exist beyond all theories.


It is possible that I misunderstood your statement. I do still take issue with the "Fe does this because it's directed outward", which doesn't mesh with the theory as I know it. See below.



> Yes they are. This comes from Jung. The way you describe "inward" and "outward" is neither the way Jung meant the term, nor the way I described it.


Within Socionic theory, the focus is on Object/Field. However, I would be interested to see your interpretation of the inward/outward dichotomy. It sounds like what is used in MBTI.


----------



## Figure

LeaT said:


> How do you know it was truly Fe if all you can judge is the output? You cannot know to an exact certainty what the true motivation or reasoning was so how can you know it was Fe over Fi or any other function?


Why must one have exact certainty of something for it to be true?


----------



## Entropic

LXPilot said:


> Why must one have exact certainty of something for it to be true?


In the light of the argument going on here I do think it's relevant since you're arguing what F that was the motivation behind it. Not because I feel all this overly concerns me but I do think she has a point that you're dismissing because she doesn't understand socionics enough which I think is an unfair assessment to make considering that the argument you've presented (unless taken at as true and at face value, it is your boss/friend/something after all) doesn't necessarily prove with outmost certainty which F function was at play. I can see where Kanerou is coming from and how it could also be justified as Fi or something entirely different for the matter. 

Yes, you are entirely right it is about the reasoning behind the output, but the reasoning you stated doesn't necessarily prove Fe or Fi, at least not in socionics. In MBTI though, yes, probably.


----------



## Zero11

LeaT said:


> In the light of the argument going on here I do think it's relevant since you're arguing what F that was the motivation behind it. Not because I feel all this overly concerns me but *I do think she has a point that you're dismissing because she doesn't understand socionics enough* which I think is an unfair assessment to make considering that the argument you've presented (unless taken at as true and at face value, it is your boss/friend/something after all) doesn't necessarily prove with outmost certainty which F function was at play. I can see where Kanerou is coming from and how it could also be justified as Fi or something entirely different for the matter.
> 
> Yes, you are entirely right it is about the reasoning behind the output, but the reasoning you stated doesn't necessarily prove Fe or Fi, at least not in socionics. In MBTI though, yes, probably.


*It´s not about understanding the Theory. The Theory is just a framework for the types and the inherent jungian cognitive functions with different interpretations of their output and their internal workings.*

To assume that a Fe-PoLR can´t see the difference between a Fi and Fe-dom is pretty funny. Which F function was at play personal values or group values? If personal values would be considered the EIE hadn´t pushed his PoLR this way. You can see Fi in this if you want but thats just an F without orientation.


----------



## Entropic

Zero11 said:


> *It´s not about understanding the Theory. The Theory is just a framework for the types and the inherent jungian cognitive functions with different interpretations of their output and their internal workings.*
> 
> To assume that a Fe-PoLR can´t see the difference between a Fi and Fe-dom is pretty funny. Which F function was at play personal values or group values? If personal values would be considered the EIE hadn´t pushed his PoLR this way. You can see Fi in this if you want but thats just an F without orientation.


Again, you missed the entire point I was making. There are more reasons why a person might annoy you than socionics can describe. Enneagram being one such example.


----------



## Boolean11

Zero11 said:


> *It´s not about understanding the Theory. The Theory is just a framework for the types and the inherent jungian cognitive functions with different interpretations of their output and their internal workings.*
> 
> To assume that a Fe-PoLR can´t see the difference between a Fi and Fe-dom is pretty funny. Which F function was at play personal values or group values? If personal values would be considered the EIE hadn´t pushed his PoLR this way. You can see Fi in this if you want but thats just an F without orientation.


When using "dynamic reasoning" where you look for the similarities in dynamic models of various situations, it becomes easy to identify Jung's abstraction. That with regards to 4 kinds of information, logic, ethics, intuition and sensing, there are different thought processes that people can engage in. Such thought processes allow people to intuitively tell whether information, ie ethics, are subjective or objective, Fi or Fe. As a result when judging whether somebody is an "Fe" or "Fi" reasoner, looking at the outcome is inconsistent since through analysis people will note that there are no consistent dichotomies that separate Fe or Fi behavior. However through dynamic analysis, the different thought processes that separate Fi or Fe users can be noted.

People can recognize/rationalize the PoLR concept through recognizing that the "dynamic" thought process, the other person is engaged in is intuitively out of sync with theirs.


----------



## cyamitide

You don't even need to recognize different dichotomies but can go by visceral sense. If someone is deploying your activating function they will pique your interest and it will be easier to understand them. They will provoke more of a response from you. Someone relaying information to your PoLR will seem dry and more boring in comparison, like they are not telling you some crucial information that you've been aching to hear.

The most strained relationships for me from point of view of understanding are Kindred, Quasi-Identical, and Conflict. The ones where exchange of ideas and information runs smoother and quicker are Duality, Benefit, Contrary, and Supervision (one way).


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> You don't even need to recognize different dichotomies but can go by visceral sense. If someone is deploying your activating function they will pique your interest and it will be easier to understand them. They will provoke more of a response from you. Someone relaying information to your PoLR will seem dry and more boring in comparison, like they are not telling you some crucial information that you've been aching to hear.
> 
> The most strained relationships for me from point of view of understanding are Kindred, Quasi-Identical, and Conflict. The ones where exchange of ideas and information runs smoother and quicker are Duality, Benefit, Contrary, and Supervision (one way).


But couldn't that be because of many things? I can easily imagine a person who piqued my interest one moment and then the person could be extremely boring another when I realize there was nothing interesting to be found.


----------



## cyamitide

LeaT said:


> But couldn't that be because of many things? I can easily imagine a person who piqued my interest one moment and then the person could be extremely boring another when I realize there was nothing interesting to be found.


It's based on frequency. You take all these moments and average them together. Then you will find that someone has been repeatedly spiking your interest and someone else most often has been deactivating you (that's the person with your PoLR function).

If you want to type people going by intertype relations, you have to keep track of your interactions with them over long periods of time (months-years) which some people can do mentally. Else you'll have to make use of other tools like Reinin dichotomies, temperaments, VI, and so on to type someone.


----------



## Figure

LeaT said:


> In the light of the argument going on here I do think it's relevant since you're arguing what F that was the motivation behind it.


You didn't answer my question - _why_ is this important? All you've basically said is that you think it's important. I get that, you think it's important, that's quite obvious. But you have hardly explained why, on a universal level, one must have precise knowledge when typing someone. You have implied, across several "debates" (which you've run away from before fully explaining yourself, BTW), that one must be 100% certain of someone's type before "applying" anything in regards to the theory. My question remains - why must one be so conservative?



> I do think she has a point that you're dismissing because she doesn't understand socionics enough which I think is an unfair assessment to make considering that the argument you've presented


I'm not arguing this point with you until you're willing to see the theory beyond a set of assumptions. 



Kanerou said:


> Within Socionic theory, the focus is on Object/Field. However, I would be interested to see your interpretation of the inward/outward dichotomy. It sounds like what is used in MBTI.


The difference in perspective here is probably that I return to Jung instead of employing whatever socionics itself says. If you take a look back at the history of socionics, you'll see that Augusta's essential idea was to tie Jung with Kepinsky's informational metabolism theory, then test it experimentally. The goal was not really to re-invent Jung, or even modify his functions. So while Augusta's function descriptions are not literally/verbally the same as Jung's, they are also describing different parts of the same thing. Jung's work describes the actual process in the head, Augusta's describes what she saw as a _result _of the processes in practice. 

An additional difference that is preventing me from providing an answer to your query is that I don't look at the theory and make scenarios fit inside - I look at the scenario and adjust the theory to fit. So the whole "inward outward" thing doesn't really need to be partitioned to MBTI or socionics, or whatever. The theories fit real life, and if you truly believe in the functions, you must realize that they exist, in some form or another, in an inherent form beyond (though possibly exactly like/partially like) what is described by the theoretical literature. So, I don't really see it as relevant to compare an "i or e" dichotomy between systems, since they're both seeking to describe the same thing that is ultimately non-verbal in real life.


----------



## Entropic

Zero11 said:


> Because only other Fe-doms showed the same pattern to this extent. Fe auxiliaries had the same characteristics but weren´t this heavy on showing it. How did he know that they are using Fe? He recognized connections between their behaviour and such and his understanding of Fe out of the descriptions. Thats called experience, the phenomenon makes the most sense through this specific understanding inside the dynamics of this system. It is lesser accurate with another descriptions so it was caused by Fe.


You're making up excuses for him and all this is quite irrelevant when I was curious to hear his reasoning behind it. I wanted to know his _experiences_ and his impression of the _patterns_. You don't need to tell me any of this. All I asked was a little bit more certainty than "But I am fairly certain this is true". This is not a strong argument.


----------



## Entropic

aestrivex said:


> i totally agree and i wish more people understood the point you are making. my point is, let us not be ridiculous people and say it is 100% efficient when it cannot and does not need to be.


No one has made any claim it has to work 100% here. If anything, I think at least I among some others recognize it won't work 100% and this is exactly the reason why we should be certain when we judge things or it will at least according to me become too wishy-washy when everything can fit and everything goes and this seems contrary to the entire purpose of the model itself.

There is nothing wrong to demand evidence and proof when people make a claim. The burden of proof is always on the claim-maker.


----------



## Zero11

LeaT said:


> You're making up excuses for him and all this is quite irrelevant when I was curious to hear his reasoning behind it. I wanted to know his _experiences_ and his impression of the _patterns_. You don't need to tell me any of this. All I asked was a little bit more certainty than "But I am fairly certain this is true". This is not a strong argument.


The whole system is based on this if you can´t work with this why are you using it then in the first place? I don´t make excuse I was trying to explain it to you.


----------



## Entropic

Zero11 said:


> The whole system is based on this if you can´t work with this why are you using it then in the first place? I don´t make excuse I was trying to explain it to you.


Again, a perfect example that you don't understand what I'm saying at all. This is pointless trying to explain what I get at when you don't even understand the problem I have even when I say it straight into your face. All I said was that I wanted to hear LXPilot's reasoning behind why he thought it was Fe over any other potential cause in a way that I would find more convincing than "but I think there is room for flexibility when it comes to function interpretation".


----------



## Zero11

@LeaT

I´m out you don´t get it and I can´t see this as a Ti/Fe - Fi/Te conflict when other Ti/Fe users are able to understand it clearly.


----------



## Entropic

Zero11 said:


> @_LeaT_
> 
> I´m out you don´t get it and I can´t see this as a Ti/Fe - Fi/Te conflict when other Ti/Fe users are able to understand it clearly.


And I never said it had to be a Ti-Fe and Fi-Te difference. I actually think it is an Ne-Se difference, personally.


----------



## cyamitide

aestrivex said:


> i still disagree that they exist. IM elements (which you are incorrectly referring to as functions), even if different types of information are provided than those in socionics, are models. specifically, IM elements are modeling a psychological process of how things are perceived. this process might be a great deal more complicated than simply variation in attention to different types of information -- the fact is, we have no biological/neuroscientific insight into anything even vaguely resembling this process. to say that the idea of IM is the "right one" as implemented in the brain or in "reality" is completely getting the ontology wrong, in my view.


Models model objective reality that surrounds us, so the IM model is based on something that is real and IMs reflect that. So I do not think it is accurate to say that they do not exist.



aestrivex said:


> ... the fact is, we have no biological/neuroscientific insight into anything even vaguely resembling this process. to say that the idea of IM is the "right one" as implemented in the brain or in "reality" is completely getting the ontology wrong, in my view.


I doubt you have the necessary background in neuroscience and biology to make such a claim. There may have already been similar processes described but nobody linked them to jungian functions yet.


----------



## aestrivex

cyamitide said:


> Models model objective reality that surrounds us, so the IM model is based on something that is real and IMs reflect that.


no.



> I doubt you have the necessary background in neuroscience and biology to make such a claim. There may have already been similar processes described but nobody linked them to jungian functions yet.


Not that it matters in any way with respect to my comments about the ontology of personality or goes to show for anything but your hot air, but I am a neuroscientist by trade, and so, yes, my "professional" opinion is that your comment is full of shit.


----------



## cyamitide

aestrivex said:


> no.
> 
> Not that it matters in any way with respect to my comments about the ontology of personality or goes to show for anything but your hot air, but I am a neuroscientist by trade, and so, yes, my "professional" opinion is that your comment is full of shit.


Aestivex, the famous "neuroscientist".

No need to devolve to personal insults every time your opinion is countered. It only discredits you further. No professional circle would tolerate anything of this kind.


----------



## Figure

aestrivex said:


> i still disagree that they exist. IM elements (which you are incorrectly referring to as functions), even if different types of information are provided than those in socionics, are models.


_Call _them what you will. That's my main point. I know what an IE is, what a function is, and the difference between them. Rather ironically, *both *are part of the reality I'm arguing for. If you do not believe they exist in a concrete sense, then there is no point in using a model to depict them. Models that depict nothing are worthless - but you aren't arguing that socionics is a pointless model. 



> the fact is, we have no biological/neuroscientific insight into anything even vaguely resembling this process.


Why does one need biological/neuroscientific insight to believe it is factual?



> in my view.


Right, and you're clearly a static type, probably LII. Funny, how things prove themselves. 



> by no means are separate models describing the same thing in close but nonidentical ways mutually exclusive in their concepts.


You still don't get it. Look, there are two interpretations of the word "describe" - one: you read something, and it says something. If two theories describe "the same thing,"they use the same, or similar words to say what it says. Obviously, this is not the case here. Two: you read something, it says something, and something else says something different about the same thing, whether there's your kind of evidence for it or not. There is no perceivable reason that Se in MBTI and Se in socionics are not different descriptions of the same process, unless you simply take them exactly as literally stated in their respective works, which is precisely what you're doing, and it's overlooking far too much to be accurate. 



> warped by subjective interpretation


The theory isn't about being precise to begin with. 



> what you are inferring from this multiplicity of models, however, is that they all stem from essentially the same set of concepts -- at least i think this is what you are inferring -- and i think that is wrong; there are some real differences in the guiding concepts that are used to generate these different models, even if those differences are just differences in emphasis.


They all come from CARL JUNG. Not different parts of Jung, Jung's cognitive functions. Each function has an essence to what it is, and that essence was not altered when it went through to socionics, since the theory is based on empirical research. But you evidently don't believe the functions, IE's, or personality models in general exist in the real world, so that, I understand, would be impossible to justify.


----------



## aestrivex

LXPilot said:


> _Call _them what you will. That's my main point. I know what an IE is, what a function is, and the difference between them.


It seems to me that you do not understand the difference between them (edit: typo). An IM element is a psychological processor for a certain type of information, and a function is a number between 1-8 corresponding to a position in model A (or is somehow else defined in some other model). If I speak of a function in socionics I am NOT speaking of a JCF function.



> Rather ironically, *both *are part of the reality I'm arguing for. If you do not believe they exist in a concrete sense, then there is no point in using a model to depict them. Models that depict nothing are worthless - but you aren't arguing that socionics is a pointless model.


No, I am arguing that the very idea of IM elements do not necessarily translate into "reality" about which we should not draw conclusions based on the putative success of the model.



> Why does one need biological/neuroscientific insight to believe it is factual?


Good question; by all means you don't, but it is an example of something you might provide in order to motivate taking a more specific ontological stance.



> Right, and you're clearly a static type, probably LII. Funny, how things prove themselves.


?



> Two: you read something, it says something, and something else says something different about the same thing, whether there's your kind of evidence for it or not. There is no perceivable reason that Se in MBTI and Se in socionics are not different descriptions of the same process, unless you simply take them exactly as literally stated in their respective works, which is precisely what you're doing, and it's overlooking far too much to be accurate.
> 
> They all come from CARL JUNG. Not different parts of Jung, Jung's cognitive functions. Each function has an essence to what it is, and that essence was not altered when it went through to socionics, since the theory is based on empirical research. But you evidently don't believe the functions, IE's, or personality models in general exist in the real world, so that, I understand, would be impossible to justify.


I see where you are coming from, and I think it is backwards and twisted. Your ontology clearly makes more assumptions than mine about how the world works. All that I need to do is say "I don't know if these are the same thing, I will treat them as if they are not but they might be the same, also I have no idea if there is something more complex going on behind the scenes" and you are saying "No obviously they are the same thing because I can tell you exactly -- or roughly -- what is going on behind the scenes" with no evidence whatsoever to back it up (and this is a "strong" claim).

Also, what empirical research is this that you speak of? Jung's word?


----------



## Figure

> No, I am arguing that the very idea of IM elements do not necessarily translate into "reality" about which we should not draw conclusions based on the putative success of the model.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something - you must, then, live in some sort of wacky bubble where nothing that is "real" unless you can find direct evidence to support it in a way that tickles your fancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is so obviously Ti vs. Te, in case you didn't already know your functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see where you are coming from, and I think it is backwards and twisted. Your ontology clearly makes more assumptions than mine about how the world works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is so conservatively nihilistic that it does absolutely nothing in regards to pragmatic output. It's "correct," but so paralyzed by fear of "making a wrong assumption" that it really doesn't matter how "correct" it is. Ni is not an assumption - it's a perception. And therefore, not "wrong" by the mere state of lacking "factual" support that one can twist however he/she chooses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what empirical research is this that you speak of? Jung's word?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Jung nor Augusta simply made a theory and wrote about it. They both performed work with a fairly wide body of clients and recorded their observations before doing so. If one assumes that mental processes such as the functions and IE's do not change by some random occurence across decades, it is of no value to entirely diregard the conceptual similarities of such processes, as defined however chosen by the creator of the model.
> 
> See, you're arguing that the model overrides what exists - functions and IE's only exist because a model says so. I think it's significantly more practical to say that processes exist to begin with, and can be mode_led_.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## aestrivex

LXPilot said:


> Yours is so conservatively nihilistic that it does absolutely nothing in regards to pragmatic output. It's "correct," but so paralyzed by fear of "making a wrong assumption" that it really doesn't matter how "correct" it is.


I think you are wrong. My worldview accounts for some real world data; namely, the large amount of confusion and misinterpretation that ensues if MBTI and socionics are not assumed to be different -- or if you assume things like the J/P switch which you appear to actually believe in. I do agree that overall the ontological points have relatively little to do with practical strategies in typing, but on another level they are really important in applying the theory because in applying the theory it is really helpful to have a grounding of what the assessments you are actively making might *mean.*



> Neither Jung nor Augusta simply made a theory and wrote about it. They both performed work with a fairly wide body of clients and recorded their observations before doing so. If one assumes that mental processes such as the functions and IE's do not change by some random occurence across decades, it is of no value to entirely diregard the conceptual similarities of such processes, as defined however chosen by the creator of the model.


Yes, Jung in particular had accumulated a lot of unstructured clinical observations. These are not worth disregarding entirely; I think Jung had an important glimmer of insight but that his version of the truth is hardly "the truth" -- it certainly isn't the same as the observations I've made about how socionics works which are my opinions and not necessarily "the truth" either. Essentially, though what your "empirical research" amounts to is Jung's word (and Augusta's word). This is not all that interesting, particularly in the context of our debate about the finer points of model ontology. What would be interesting is some peer-reviewed research about the predictions made by the system itself -- for instance, systemic and standardized work investigating the relational compatibility of a bunch of typed people at a close psychological distance over a long period of time -- then perhaps we could usefully say that we have some "empirical research." Until then, let us not fool ourselves by saying that we do.



> See, you're arguing that the model overrides what exists - functions and IE's only exist because a model says so. I think it's significantly more practical to say that processes exist to begin with, and can be mode_led_.


No, I am actually arguing that the model specifies what the processes look like (e.g. the most basic model here is kepinsky's model of information metabolism), and that the processes that are interesting in personality may have a form that is much different than "elements of information metabolism." It is actually by definition that functions and IM elements are model constructs. Maybe they are also the precise form of personality processes in "reality," but that's quite a leap of faith. For instance, the enneagram models this "reality" as well with no clear picture as to its ontology or how it pertains to this concept of information metabolism -- is the enneagram also a cognitive filter, or is it a set of fixations, or is it a set of motivations, or is it (as many enneagramists believe, quite seriously) something more deeply spiritual and more essential to our being? I think this is a deeper question than you are giving it credit for.


----------



## Buffy

LXPilot said:


> Earlier, I made a thread on the "best three" intertype relationships, in my experience, for a relationship. I thought it would only be fitting to include a "worst three" set as well.


I am interested in reading the "best three intertype relationships" thread. Would you know how I would be able to do that? Thanks.


----------



## Zero11

aestrivex said:


> No, I am actually arguing that the model specifies what the processes look like (e.g. the most basic model here is kepinsky's model of information metabolism), and that the processes that are interesting in personality may have a form that is much different than "elements of information metabolism." It is actually by definition that functions and IM elements are model constructs. Maybe they are also the precise form of personality processes in "reality," but that's quite a leap of faith. For instance, the enneagram models this "reality" as well with no clear picture as to its ontology or how it pertains to this concept of information metabolism -- is the enneagram also a cognitive filter, or is it a set of fixations, or is it a set of motivations, or is it (as many enneagramists believe, quite seriously) something more deeply spiritual and more essential to our being?


What is it? You need to put it into a logical framework and we don´t. I´m not here to disagree with you but as an ILI my view and approach is totally different. I can´t give you answers to such related stuff because I don´t think this way. Good luck in explaining how all this works logical perfect  thats your part "the deepness". 
And why does this explains that the mbti/socio -types are different? Because you can´t see its ground of the lake? What would be a clear picture? Is there a perfect theory we could compare? 



> I think this is a deeper question than you are giving it credit for.


Of course it is but your way of doing this looks more like brute force to me. 

I honestly doubt there is a way of a middle point to reach :crazy: are we really viewing things that entirely different? Wouldn´t this prove the theory already itself okay they can´t explain everything but why is that a requirement. Ti Ne is ever going to find away around without caring about Ni Te and Ni Te isn´t able to put itself completly over it without a reference point on which both could agree on.


----------



## aestrivex

Zero11 said:


> What is it? You need to put it into a logical framework and we don´t. I´m not here to disagree with you but as an ILI my view and approach is totally different. I can´t give you answers to such related stuff because I don´t think this way. Good luck in explaining how all this works logical perfect  thats your part "the deepness".
> And why does this explains that the mbti/socio -types are different? Because you can´t see its ground of the lake? What would be a clear picture? Is there a perfect theory we could compare?
> 
> 
> Of course it is but your way of doing this looks more like brute force to me.
> 
> I honestly doubt there is a way of a middle point to reach :crazy: are we really viewing things that entirely different? Wouldn´t this prove the theory already itself okay they can´t explain everything but why is that a requirement. Ti Ne is ever going to find away around without caring about Ni Te and Ni Te isn´t able to put itself completly over it without a reference point on which both could agree on.


maybe if you could make your point without referring vaguely to terminology in every sentence that the reader is expected to read your mind and understand, i could comment on it meaningfully.


----------



## esq

Hey, so I don't feel like reading Carl Jung, but I have a question about him. So I understand that Jung describes eight psychological types, right? Do these eight types necessarily correlate to the eight cognitive functions: Fe, Ti, Se, Ni, etc? Or is Jung actually describing introverted thinkers in general, like IxTx? Or extraverted feelers in general, like ExFx? 

So like in his writings on introverted thinkers, does anything suggest that he is describing either a dominant judger or a dominant perceiver? Or is it ambiguous? 

Is he actually describing cognitive processes inside a person's mind? Or is it just a group of people labeled "introverted thinkers"?

And also unrelated, but just to piss everyone off: I accuse @_LXPilot_ and @_Zero11_ and @_cyamitide_ all of being LII, and all mistyped in the same way and for the same reasons. 

And @_aestrivex_ is like a long confirmed ILI, right?

How do we tell apart INTJ and INTP? LII and ILI? What are the differences and do they apply to you? Is there anything we can agree on?


----------



## Zero11

esq said:


> So like in his writings on introverted thinkers, does anything suggest that he is describing either a dominant judger or a dominant perceiver? Or is it ambiguous?


he describes an introverted judger



> Is he actually describing cognitive processes inside a person's mind? Or is it just a group of people labeled "introverted thinkers"?


Jung is not MBTI and therefore he described cognitive processes.


----------



## cyamitide

esq said:


> And also unrelated, but just to piss everyone off: I accuse @_LXPilot_ and @_Zero11_ and @_cyamitide_ all of being LII, and all mistyped in the same way and for the same reasons.


This is amusing. Why do you think typing the three of us as LIIs would piss us off? Is LII some kind of offensive type to you? 



esq said:


> And @_aestrivex_ is like a long confirmed ILI, right?


He is known as one of the odd ILIs in the English-speaking socionics community, mostly because his typings don't coincide with greatest majority of other socionics practitioners making others question his understanding of the subject matter. Though he is no longer an active member of that community he continues to type and comment on the members there, which is rather weird.


----------



## Boolean11

esq said:


> How do we tell apart INTJ and INTP? LII and ILI? What are the differences and do they apply to you? Is there anything we can agree on?


With the thought process typing, dynamically a person reasoning has to be analysed were through the various observations. The dynamic pattern that indicate whether someone is "rational" or "irrational" can be noted and from there the question as to whether their thinking feeling sensing and intuition is driven by the "object" or "subject". The stated function dichotomies largely don't work yet after studying people for quite some time you'd be able to tell whether the type of information they process is driven by the "subject" or "object".


----------



## Figure

I'm not wasting any further time on this thread, nor with impractical summaries of a theory made to be more pragmatic than its predecessors. 

May it be announced that any further questioning of socionics on the basis of "not enough evidence" gets you on my ignore list. It's a shitty way of looking at the theory, and leaves absolutely no value for its users - and, contrary to the thought of those who endorse it, is equally if not more problematic in its self-depleting conservatism and refusal of truth in favor of convoluted, bizarre rationales that make no attempt to conform to what is obviously observable across many samples of people. 


@_Buffy_ 

The other half to this thread, most ironically without much debate, can be found here: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/122605-top-three-intertype-relationships.html


----------



## Kanerou

LXPilot said:


> I'm not wasting any further time on this thread, nor with impractical summaries of a theory made to be more pragmatic than its predecessors.
> 
> May it be announced that any further questioning of socionics on the basis of "not enough evidence" gets you on my ignore list. It's a shitty way of looking at the theory, and leaves absolutely no value for its users - and, contrary to the thought of those who endorse it, is equally if not more problematic in its self-depleting conservatism and refusal of truth in favor of convoluted, bizarre rationals that make no attempt to conform to what is obviously observable across many samples of people.
> 
> 
> @_Buffy_
> 
> The other half to this thread, most ironically without much debate, can be found here: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/122605-top-three-intertype-relationships.html


I don't recall seeing people question socionics based on lack of evidence here, just how you interpret the theory. Or were you referring to a different thread?


----------



## tanstaafl28

I really hate these sorts of threads. Maybe I am being too idealistic, or skeptical, or both, but I have found it possible to get along with just about anyone. 
I especially try to get along with people others shun, because I have been shunned. I know what that's like. I do not always succeed. 
Maybe it is because I married an SJ and I am an NT. I like the challenge of trying to see the world through an unfamiliar lens.
I was interacting with all sorts of different people when personality types were something I looked at, but had not invested much thought in. 
The point is, yes, some types have a harder time relating than others, but the key is that our traits are PREFERENCES. Human beings have an innate ability to ADAPT. If a relationship is important enough, we can find a way to make it work.


----------



## cyamitide

tanstaafl28 said:


> I really hate these sorts of threads. Maybe I am being too idealistic, or skeptical, or both, but I have found it possible to get along with just about anyone.
> I especially try to get along with people others shun, because I have been shunned. I know what that's like. I do not always succeed.


You can get along with everyone, but you probably find some individuals easier to understand than others. Think about going to school or attending classes at college. There were certainly some teachers and professors that you understood better than others. This is what socionics is about, communication and understanding. Poor understanding doesn't always lead to negative emotions but usually it creates more of a rift between people and leads to more frequent arguments between people who have incompatible types of IM.


----------



## Zero11

esq said:


> How do we tell apart INTJ and INTP? LII and ILI? What are the differences and do they apply to you? Is there anything we can agree on?


The Laws of P-Types: Fi & Ti Laws | Personality Junkie

and Abraxas has written some good stuff


----------



## Kanerou

Zero11 said:


> The Laws of P-Types: Fi & Ti Laws | Personality Junkie
> 
> and Abraxas has written some good stuff


*clicks* 

Is that even Socionics?

Edit: My bad. He/she was asking about the types from both MBTI and Socionics.
@esq For socionics, I recommend checking out Alpha quadra vs Gamma quadra. Also, ILI's PoLR (Fe) is LII's suggestive function, and LII's PoLR (Se) is ILI's suggestive function. They respond well to quite different kinds of input and behavior.


----------



## tanstaafl28

cyamitide said:


> You can get along with everyone, but you probably find some individuals easier to understand than others. Think about going to school or attending classes at college. There were certainly some teachers and professors that you understood better than others. This is what socionics is about, communication and understanding. Poor understanding doesn't always lead to negative emotions but usually it creates more of a rift between people and leads to more frequent arguments between people who have incompatible types of IM.



Well, when you put it that way. I can go with the notion that we're trying to facilitate better communication. I just find stereotyping people by their types difficult.


----------



## Entropic

Zero11 said:


> The Laws of P-Types: Fi & Ti Laws | Personality Junkie
> 
> and Abraxas has written some good stuff


Why is even the use of art used as an example when you can logically say why a piece of art is good or bad to begin with, based on what you think its objective qualitives are -___________-


----------



## Buffy

LXPilot said:


> @_Buffy_
> 
> The other half to this thread, most ironically without much debate, can be found here: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/122605-top-three-intertype-relationships.html


Thank you for linking it for me.:happy:


----------



## cyamitide

tanstaafl28 said:


> Well, when you put it that way. I can go with the notion that we're trying to facilitate better communication. I just find stereotyping people by their types difficult.


Stereotyping is done only by those who don't really understand what socionics types are about 
Socionics types are types of perception and communication. They are not what type of person you are, what types of people you friends are, or personality trait types. When someone erroneously thinks that socionics is about personality characteristics then they start to stereotype others.


----------



## tanstaafl28

cyamitide said:


> Stereotyping is done only by those who don't really understand what socionics types are about
> Socionics types are types of perception and communication. They are not what type of person you are, what types of people you friends are, or personality trait types. When someone erroneously thinks that socionics is about personality characteristics then they start to stereotype others.


I do not know as much about Socionics as I do MBTI.


----------



## Random Ness

That explains why I can't seem to like my SEE friend like my other friends. She feels very comfortable around me, but not vice versa, I feel like I have to hold myself up under her will. She's also the only one of my close friends whom I would flat-out reject for a date if she swung my way.


----------



## Lady Lullaby

@_aestrivex_ and @_LXPilot_

I'm really grateful you both are having this argument because I have been trying to untangle my view of MBTI vs Socionics for a while. I am enjoying the contrast with how I relate to LXPilot thanks to his Ni perceptions and I also relate to @_aestrivex_ thanks to his Ti analysis! Keep it going! 



> Originally Posted by *aestrivex*
> _No, I am actually arguing that the model specifies what the processes look like (e.g. the most basic model here is kepinsky's model of information metabolism), and that the processes that are interesting in personality may have a form that is much different than "elements of information metabolism." It is actually by definition that functions and IM elements are model constructs. Maybe they are also the precise form of personality processes in "reality," but that's quite a leap of faith. For instance, the enneagram models this "reality" as well with no clear picture as to its ontology or how it pertains to this concept of information metabolism -- is the enneagram also a cognitive filter, or is it a set of fixations, or is it a set of motivations, or is it (as many enneagramists believe, quite seriously) something more deeply spiritual and more essential to our being?
> _


_
I totally followed this! *does a jig This is a big deal because I often fall off the edge 1/2 way through when reading NT explanations! I really love the questions you asked. I think it is a set of motivations as well as deeply spiritual...but back on topic...




Zero11 said:



What is it? You need to put it into a logical framework and we don´t. I´m not here to disagree with you but as an ILI my view and approach is totally different. I can´t give you answers to such related stuff because I don´t think this way. Good luck in explaining how all this works logical perfect  thats your part "the deepness". 
And why does this explains that the mbti/socio -types are different? Because you can´t see its ground of the lake? What would be a clear picture? Is there a perfect theory we could compare? 


Of course it is but your way of doing this looks more like brute force to me. 

I honestly doubt there is a way of a middle point to reach :crazy: are we really viewing things that entirely different? Wouldn´t this prove the theory already itself okay they can´t explain everything but why is that a requirement. Ti Ne is ever going to find away around without caring about Ni Te and Ni Te isn´t able to put itself completly over it without a reference point on which both could agree on.

Click to expand...

Man I wish my Ti was stronger! I could try to bridge this Gaaap! Aagghhh! I relate to @aestrivex's desire to put things in a logical framework but I sort of want it to be in a nice Te chart LOL. I was discussing MBTI vs Socionics with @Jack Oliver Aaron and when he said:




if you walk into the MBTI subforum, you might never leave
because you'll never know what you actually are
because of this I think MBTI is unworkable and that Socionics is a much needed upgrade

Click to expand...

_I laughed because that is precisely what has brought me to Socionics. But I'm only 4-5 months in after swimming in MBTI waters for 2 years.

Jack prefers to keep MBTI and Socionics separate too. Basically, when we compared my understanding of MBTI functions to the descriptions of Socionics' IMs it was pretty darn muddled....I have decided to leave the jury out on what is similar between the two theories for now and just focus on Socionics as if it were completely different so I can be sure I've understood it first to then make the comparisons. But MAN is that going to be hard for my Ni!!!!!


----------



## Kanerou

@Lady Lullaby Aestrivex is ILI.


----------



## Lady Lullaby

cyamitide said:


> Stereotyping is done only by those who don't really understand what socionics types are about
> Socionics types are types of perception and communication. They are not what type of person you are, what types of people you friends are, or personality trait types. When someone erroneously thinks that socionics is about personality characteristics then they start to stereotype others.


I just thought this post deserved a second read/a bump. :kitteh:


----------



## Lady Lullaby

Kanerou said:


> @_Lady Lullaby_ Aestrivex is ILI.



Interesting - - I wonder what is creating the cross-fire between him and LXPilont then - - or maybe what would better explain why I can understand both points of view.....hmmm....wanders away thinking....


----------



## Kanerou

Lady Lullaby said:


> Interesting - - I wonder what is creating the cross-fire between him and LXPilont then - -


I have an opinion on that, but I won't give it here.



> or maybe what would better explain why I can understand both points of view.....hmmm....wanders away thinking....


*shrugs* On one hand, ILIs do use Ti to some degree; it's their demonstrative function. On the other, I can't guarantee that what you're seeing is Ti, as I don't yet understand it well enough to recognize it in others (and I don't trust the person who's pointing it out).


----------



## Kanerou

@_Lady Lullaby_ By the way, I'm not sure Te is related to making charts in Socionics. Actually, I'm not sure if it's related to any given element; the motivation for making it and the information conveyed may be more important than the fact that someone's organizing the info into something neat and orderly. For example, I can make a chart that displays my relations with people via distance (did this once, actually). 

*one mental tangent later* ...Oh hell, I may be ISTJ after all. (/)_(\ )


----------



## Lady Lullaby

Kanerou said:


> @_Lady Lullaby_ By the way, I'm not sure Te is related to making charts in Socionics. Actually, I'm not sure if it's related to any given element; the motivation for making it and the information conveyed may be more important than the fact that someone's organizing the info into something neat and orderly. For example, I can make a chart that displays my relations with people via distance (did this once, actually).
> 
> *one mental tangent later* ...Oh hell, I may be ISTJ after all. (/)_(\ )


Yeah - I'm finding it difficult to try and clarify things between my understanding of JCs and Socionics IMs when they are so muddled and I guess I should stop making posts about that LOL. But it is still fun for me to hear others opinions to compare and contrast! Sigh...keep swinging back and forth, sorry for all reading! But I do appreciate your input.


----------



## Lady Lullaby

LXPilot said:


> This is long. Don't read the whole thing at once/at all if you don't want to.
> 
> Earlier, I made a thread on the "best three" intertype relationships, in my experience, for a relationship. I thought it would only be fitting to include a "worst three" set as well. This is not to put words into your mouth as to the "worst" ITR, or to encourage you to break up with/avoid someone else if you know your type forms any of these relationships with them. The best way to use the ITRs, in my experience, is to observe the people around you, pay close attention to your own mental state while interacting with them over a prolonged period, and manage the psychological distance you keep from them to maintain an optimal relationship, given innate cognitive differences. In short, don't judge others with this stuff - use it judiciously.
> 
> *Poor
> 
> Superego
> *Typically, superego fights occur when both partners attempt to pressure the other into considering their own ego, and hence their partner's weak superego, into more consideration. The two will argue in favor of their own strong points while entirely misinterpreting the point of their partner. Confrontations can be very stubborn, and mine usually start out as misunderstandings, that become more misunderstood and spiral into nasty, demeaning language and frustration.
> 
> When the partners are not operating at a close psychological distance and things are more casual and superficial, these relationships can be okay.
> 
> The fact that peace only comes at distance and superficiality, however, may offset some with these relationships. They can work, but they take significant time, willingness to develop things you think are pointless, and sacrifice of one's own defaults.


I'm IEI and my brother-in-law is SLI and I have one neighbor/friend that is also SLI.

I'd agree with the description for Super-Ego Relations here as plausible. My BIL and I live 4 hours away from one another so we only see each other on Holidays. I like him and care about him and realize I don't really know how to relate to him.



> *Pretty Bad
> 
> Conflict
> *The name says it all. These are frequently described as relationships where conflict is "brewing under the surface."..........In Conflict, this is reversed - the role function is the weaker creative function and the stronger leading function is the painful PoLR of the other partner. Your conflict partner can hurt you in your weakest point just by being themselves, and you can do the same to them. And because their way of dealing with the world is your role function/i.e. seems irrelevant, their actions will also seem silly and mindless.


Sigh... my mother-in-law is LSE and is my Conflicting relation. But again, she lives 4 hours away and I only see her on Holidays. I really admire her ability to get things done, keep things clean and organized, round people up to do things and speak her mind. But she can be 'scary' in the way that she seems to care far more about her tasks than others and so I mostly try to stay out of her way. I've had more positive interactions and conversations over the years as we focus on discussing her grandchildren but we couldn't have an hour-long heart-to-heart chat that's for sure!




> *Dangerous
> 
> Supervision
> *Unlike a conflict relationship where the partners are repelled, in a supervisory relationship, the partners are actually drawn together. The problem is that unlike conflict, it isn't ego vs. superego both ways - instead, the leading function/main motivation of the supervisor is the painful PoLR of the supervisee, and the creative function of the supervisor is the leading function/main motivation of the supervisee. This means that the supervisor's ways of dealing with the world will make sense to the supervisee, possibly leading to a connection between them - but they will inevitably burn you _badly _in the process of making sense. They may even have mutual interests or shared activities. The problem is that in the supervisor merely being him/herself, he/she hits the weakest part of the supervisee in a way the supervisee respects. In conflict, the critique isn't even understood, and the conflict involves literal misunderstanding. In supervisory, there often isn't as intense of fighting - but things are much more dangerous since the supervisee will feel inadequate, and the supervisor will keep piling on.


Sigh. . . .my dad is LIE and is my Supervisor. As a child I found that I loved listening to him talk when he was excited and expressing his vision of something (usually a new business plan or a gospel insight from our faith). But the way he would try and boss people around, lose his temper, and hold opinions of people as forever 'one way' really rubbed me the wrong way and I don't talk to him much at all these days. We see each other when I visit my mom or at family gatherings, but I basically feel like he'll 'never get me'. I know he loves me, he knows I love him - we usually greet and say farewell with a hug, we can share music together or discuss shared values, but I basically don't feel emotionally safe around him and have probably too much 'baggage' from my childhood for that to change anytime soon.


----------



## XZ9

Superego relations are really poor. I've seen them interact my with my dad and my sister. Conversations never go deep. They were talking about mundane topics like soccer teams. I cannot bear listening to the conversation. They use to fight with each other all the time and verbally abuse each other. It can get really ugly. They don't do this anymore or it rarely happens. In superego relations, it looks like horrible and strange on to the observer, but they really get a long with each other. Superego relations can get a long as friends but it's different when you actually live with one.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

I can't answer this about romantic relationships because I haven't been in enough of them, so I'll answer it for friendships:

1. Superego
2. Superego
3. Superego 

Kidding
1. Superego
2. Illusionary
3. Duality / Extinguishment

(Hope I got the terminology right.)

Well... I find duals (ESFp) easy to understand but not interesting. My first acquaintance with a dual gave me huge head-aches because he really annoyed me but at the same time I felt restrained from strangling him for reasons that I couldn't understand back then. But now I'm more comfortable chatting with duals. I just don't find them that interesting.

Illusionary sucks, all the ENFps I know make a huge song and dance about how they like me, but we seldom agree about anything, especially practical matters. I find them selfish and no doubt they think the same about me in the end.

Extinguishment is also difficult. I don't want to be negative about ENTps. I love them to bits and they love me, but the "audience factor" is a huge problem. Also, I hate it when I have to take the initiative all the time. 
Too much emotional can't-be-bothered-ness on both side ruins it in the end. At least it doesn't end in a big drama, but yeah.... I value ENTps far more than ESFps but somehow it starts out easy, then goes back and forth for a while and suddenly turns a lot more complicated than it really is.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Went looking for that other thread, top three intertype relations.

Anyhow, While not dangerous extinguishment is not so good imo. It is like Superego but with the same interests and I become extremely inefficient around them extinguishment. More fun then superego, about the same bad. Constantly ruining for the other person. ;p I would also consider Quasi-Identical to be negative when splitting them intertype relations in half in one negative and one positive side.

Bad; Superego, Conflict, Supervision, Extinguishment, Quasi-Identical and perhaps Comparative Relations. Since there are 14 relations, eg 7*2, the least of bads would be Business.


----------

