# Socionics "Result" Type Dual Pairs: LII-ESE, ESI-LIE, SLI-IEE, IEI-SLE



## cyamitide

What do you think about this article? 
It is short enough that I will post it up here: On Dual Relationships of Result Types by Tsypin - Wikisocion



*Introduction*

This phenomenon has been noticed for a while, that Process type dual pairs are more frequently encountered, while Result type dual pairs are much rarer in comparison. In addition, Process (right) dual couples tend to coexist together for a long time, while Result (left) couples often quickly fall apart.

Why does this happen?

The hypothesis is as follows: Process (right) dual pairs have a "plus" sign in their program (leading function) aspects. This indicates the possibility of a gradual acceptance of a partner. Process types are ready to accept any manifestations on their "plus" program aspects. For the Result types the situation is completely different. The "minus" sign in leading functions inclines them to immediately reject the person (as "bad") or accept them right after acquaintance. However, there are no ideal people, thus Result types frequently make negative verdicts on their dual candidacies. The way they describe and justify it is different: "unappealing", "mean", "unpleasant", "untidy", "unattractive", etc. Result types seem to be always trying to shield themselves from unpleasant perceptions and feelings, which also happens to shield them from potential partners on grounds that they seemed unsuitable at a first glance. Getting into details and understanding a partner better seems uninteresting to Result types – people of these types prefer to make quick, far-reaching assessments.

The specificity of dual relations is such that initially there is an absence of mental resonance that would allow the people to find common themes and become captivated with each other through conversation. Here, what happens is an assessment of energy compatibility, which is verbalized with much difficulty. A reliable assessment of the degree of energy compatibility requires time, while Result type style of communication is based on quick assessments.
Thus, Process types are oriented at making dual relationships work. How do Result type fare?

*Examination by type*

*ESE, ESFj (Hugo)*
Often characterizes his dual as: "boring", "too indecisive", "helpless", "wimp", "unkempt", "dull person", "too quiet and monotonous". ESE usually gets attracted to bright, responsive, and practical partners. Often builds relationships with SEI, LSE, LSI, and EII as partners.

*LII, INTj (Robespierre)*
Often characterizes his dual as: "completely unpredictable", "chaotic", "utterly confused", "emotional dictator", "aggressive", "too straightforward", "too stupid", "has no knowledge himself, but continues to argue", "not interested in anything serious", "doesn't leave anyone alone". LII gravitates towards more calm and predictable (in his view) relations and often picks SEI, LSE, EIE, LIE as his romantic partners.

*SLE, ESTp (Zhukov)*
Typical descriptions of his dual: "wimp", "useless", "worthless", "failure at life", "inexperienced in life", "deadend", "too effeminate", "crybaby". The SLE is more interested in partners with whom he can, more or less on equal footing, discuss and resolve important "sensory" issues to himself – earning money, accumulation of material prosperity, arrangement of his "territory", building his career. Thus, he often chooses SEI and SLI as his partners from strategic considerations, and also gets interested in ESI, ILI, EIE, and LSI.

*IEI, INFp (Yesenin)*
In his eyes, his dual usually appears as: "too shallow", "too materialistic", "too appearance oriented", "uncultured boor", "vulgar dork", "a dictator", "a man in a skirt (about female duals)", "a martinet". Very often IEI doesn't feel comfortable meeting his dual and strives towards relationships that seem more soulful and intellectually resonant to him. Often his "partners in life" are types LII, LSI, ESI, SLI, and ILE.

*LIE, ENTj (Jack)*
The most common descriptions of his dual: "strict doll", "not a woman, but a kindergarden teacher", "petty bourgeois", "pathologically jealous", "total monotony", "dull and boring", "too gloomy", "can't say a word to him/her". LIE seeks partners that won't limit his freedom, who have a lenient outlook on his "adventures", and who won't teach him how to live and control his every step. He often chooses EII, LSI, ILI, SEE, and LII as his partners.

*ESI, ISFj (Dreiser)*
The perception of his dual can be characterized as following: "the inconstancy itself", "windbag", "womanizer", "lover of extreme situations", "consummate extremalist". ESI often prioritizes partners who are more promising of stability and calm way of life, as well as those who dedicate more consideration to questions of ethics and moral behavior. Often ESI ends up pairing up with LSI, ESE, EIE, and LII.

*IEE, ENFp (Huxley)*
Their issues with perception of their dual are characterized by the following adjectives: "nature's mystery", "lazybones", "ice queen", "bore", "incorrigible egoist", "too quiet", "has his own agenda". Far more attractive partners to the IEE are often sociable, open, and emotional people. It is difficult for the IEE to reconcile with the fact that for SLI everything soon gets boring. This is a typical misunderstanding between a static type, who is somewhat inert in own interests and tastes, and a dynamic type, who does not wish to get stuck and fixated on anything for too long. Thus, IEE, desiring to create a strong relationship, gravitates towards types ILI, SEI, SLE, and IEI.

*SLI, ISTp (Gabin)*
In his eyes, his dual often appears as: "superficial", "intrusive", "taking everything too close to heart", "chaotic", "noisy", "chatterbox", "neurotic". The SLI does not aspire to relationships where parameters are fixed once and for always; he needs certain freedom in behavior. Any restrictions and bans, even if they are expressed in a very mild form, he perceives rather painfully. Attempting to ensure emotional comfort and privacy of personal space, the SLI is inclined to pick EII, ESI, SLE, and IEI for life together.

*Concluding remarks*

1. Of course, the dual pairs of Result types are found in practice. But, firstly, they rarely make it together to an old age; and secondly, statistically in comparison with Right dual pairs they are relatively rare. In any case, this article should not be interpreted in a sense that Result dual pairs are impossible to form.

2. When two people are typed as a couple, often one of them is typed wrong because the typer falls under the influence of "the myth of duality" and convinces himself or herself that if one partner is LIE then other has to be ESI. Many couples thus continue living together under the impression that they duals, while in actuality their pair is characterized by another intertype relationship.

3. The article lists the most common pairings for Result TIMs, but this is not to be understood rigidly. In reality, there may be the most "exotic" pairings of types, and moreover these unions may be harmonious to a certain extent. There are, for example, supervision and conflict couples who live together for a very long time. They seem to come out of the difficult, stressful situations due to the richness of their personal qualities. A person choosing their marriage partner focuses mainly not on their TIM, but on their personal qualities, and therefore is able to get along with a representative of almost any TIM if the personal qualities of the selected partner are close and dear to him.


----------



## Tellus

Yes, SSS has confirmed this based on their consultations/observations. I hypothesized one reason in this thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/709570-4-good-duals-4-mediocre-duals.html#post23236609


----------



## karmachameleon

can someone to a tldr for me. How can 2 ppl of the same be one process and one result?

nvm im dumb i didnt read it all.


----------



## Tellus

It should be noted that Trehov and Tsypin claim that the duals' +/- signs match:

socio nika-tim.ru/index.php/theory/24-znaki-v-socionike-tri-tochki-zreniya

SLI: -Si, +Te, -Ni, +Fe // -Ne, +Fi, -Se, +Ti
IEE: -Ne, +Fi, -Se, +Ti // -Si, +Te, -Ni, +Fe

This is incorrect. Yermak (and Gulenko?) is right!


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> It should be noted that Trehov and Tsypin claim that the duals' +/- signs match:
> 
> socio nika-tim.ru/index.php/theory/24-znaki-v-socionike-tri-tochki-zreniya
> 
> SLI: -Si, +Te, -Ni, +Fe // -Ne, +Fi, -Se, +Ti
> IEE: -Ne, +Fi, -Se, +Ti // -Si, +Te, -Ni, +Fe
> 
> This is incorrect. Yermak (and Gulenko?) is right!


How do we even prove these signs exist? Or are we supposed to blindly trust the teachers?

Furthermore, how would you prove which one is right and which one wrong?


----------



## soseductive

I think statistic is LIEing and ESI doesn't end up with anybody.


----------



## Tellus

Ixim said:


> How do we even prove these signs exist? Or are we supposed to blindly trust the teachers?
> 
> Furthermore, how would you prove which one is right and which one wrong?


Irina Eglit:

"5. Signs in the vital and mental blocks 

In practice, identification of sign of vital functions by method of interview does not differ from establishing the signs of mental functions. However, it may be complicated by the fact that in general information pertaining to vital functions is always recalled from memory. The answers may sound vague, approximate, difficult to verbalize. But, at the same, a person is able to adequately assess himself or herself on multidimensional functions of Id block. Therefore, in determining the signs of vital functions, it is better to rely on information coming from person's multidimensional functions.

*Observations of the people in the process of typing, as well as analysis of responses to different aspects in terms of signs show that functions of same E/I orientation carry the same sign throughout the TIM model."

*This corresponds to my own observations. Have you observed anything that contradicts Yermak's/Eglit's placements of the +/- signs in Model A, or Yermak's definitions?


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> Irina Eglit:
> 
> "5. Signs in the vital and mental blocks
> 
> In practice, identification of sign of vital functions by method of interview does not differ from establishing the signs of mental functions. However, it may be complicated by the fact that in general information pertaining to vital functions is always recalled from memory. The answers may sound vague, approximate, difficult to verbalize. But, at the same, a person is able to adequately assess himself or herself on multidimensional functions of Id block. Therefore, in determining the signs of vital functions, it is better to rely on information coming from person's multidimensional functions.
> 
> *Observations of the people in the process of typing, as well as analysis of responses to different aspects in terms of signs show that functions of same E/I orientation carry the same sign throughout the TIM model."
> 
> *This corresponds to my own observations. Have you observed anything that contradicts Yermak's/Eglit's placements of the +/- signs in Model A, or Yermak's definitions?


Just a question if I may:

-Se = minimisation of weakness
+Se = maximisation of strength
-Te = minimisation of waste
+Te = maximisation of efficiency(products? surplus?)

Right? If so, then yes, I've seen this.


----------



## Captain Mclain

So sad.  Result first notice weakness in duals you say? 



Ixim said:


> Just a question if I may:
> 
> -Se = minimisation of weakness
> +Se = maximisation of strength
> -Te = minimisation of waste
> +Te = maximisation of efficiency(products? surplus?)
> 
> Right? If so, then yes, I've seen this.


Wait, would it mean that the dual with a + spin see the positive in the dual and the one with - the negative, right


----------



## Ixim

Captain Mclain said:


> So sad.  Result first notice weakness in duals you say?
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, would it mean that the dual with a + spin see the positive in the dual and the one with - the negative, right


Honestly, I don't know. Ask Tellus.

All I know is what I wrote.


----------



## counterintuitive

> *ESE, ESFj (Hugo)*
> Often characterizes his dual as: "boring", "too indecisive", "helpless", "wimp", "unkempt", "dull person", "too quiet and monotonous". ESE usually gets attracted to bright, responsive, and practical partners. Often builds relationships with SEI, LSE, LSI, and EII as partners.
> 
> *LII, INTj (Robespierre)*
> Often characterizes his dual as: "completely unpredictable", "chaotic", "utterly confused", "emotional dictator", "aggressive", "too straightforward", "too stupid", "has no knowledge himself, but continues to argue", "not interested in anything serious", "doesn't leave anyone alone". LII gravitates towards more calm and predictable (in his view) relations and often picks SEI, LSE, EIE, LIE as his romantic partners.


Confusingly, I relate to both of these in that I characterize my duals with all of these descriptors. Lol.

*"ESE usually gets attracted to bright, responsive, and practical partners"* - that's exactly right for me. I myself am bright, responsive, and practical. I value those things in myself and so I want those things in others as well. I do not value impracticality, dullness, unresponsiveness, daydreaminess, etc. I have no interest in basically making someone else's decisions for them, grounding someone, making someone behave practically, etc. I want someone who can already do all of those things. i.e. I want a grown adult, not a child.

Also, I find the LII's descriptors of me (ESE) very ironic, let's put it like that, heh.


----------



## Tellus

Ixim said:


> Just a question if I may:
> 
> -Se = minimisation of weakness
> +Se = maximisation of strength
> -Te = minimisation of waste
> +Te = maximisation of efficiency(products? surplus?)
> 
> Right? If so, then yes, I've seen this.


First of all, Jungian Se is about more than "force"/strength, F. And Jungian Te is about more than "profit", P. Socionics' definitions of the functions are fundamentally flawed (see my other thread).

Nonetheless, this is accurate:

Signs of functions | School of System Socionics

*The “Minus” sign* denotes quality of information processing when an IM function is biased as follows:
- in terms of scale — globally, generally; 
- in terms of direction — outwards;
- in terms of distance — both at close anfar ranges; at any psychological distance;
- in terms of quality — both in the positive and negative areas.

*The **“Plus” sign* denotes quality of information processing when an IM function is biased as follows:
- in terms of scale — locally, specifically, in detail;
- in terms of direction — inwards;
- in terms of distance — at close range, at near psychological distance;
- in terms of quality — within the positive area only;


----------



## Tellus

All TIMs with correct +/- IM elements:

Model of the Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) | School of System Socionics


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> First of all, Jungian Se is about more than "force"/strength, F. And Jungian Te is about more than "profit", P. Socionics' definitions of the functions are fundamentally flawed (see my other thread).
> 
> Nonetheless, this is accurate:
> 
> Signs of functions | School of System Socionics
> 
> *The “Minus” sign* denotes quality of information processing when an IM function is biased as follows:
> - in terms of scale — globally, generally;
> - in terms of direction — outwards;
> - in terms of distance — both at close anfar ranges; at any psychological distance;
> - in terms of quality — both in the positive and negative areas.
> 
> *The **“Plus” sign* denotes quality of information processing when an IM function is biased as follows:
> - in terms of scale — locally, specifically, in detail;
> - in terms of direction — inwards;
> - in terms of distance — at close range, at near psychological distance;
> - in terms of quality — within the positive area only;
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 514970


How can the - IEs be applied at all distances and in all qualities? I'd have expected that - is Far and Negative. The more you know...

Anyhow, I'll agree that F is about more than Force and that P is about more than greed / profit.


----------



## Tellus

Ixim said:


> How can the - IEs be applied at all distances and in all qualities? I'd have expected that - is Far and Negative. The more you know...


Can you explain this part a bit further?


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> Can you explain this part a bit further?


You said that the Minus IEs are applied at all distances and in all qualities.

My thoughts about this were that the Minus IEs actually focused on far ranges, end of the line results and on the prevention of negative outcomes / sensations. Such as -Se being used to minimise weakness for example.

I didn't think that Minus IEs were kinda all around like that...


----------



## counterintuitive

counterintuitive said:


> Confusingly, I relate to both of these in that I characterize my duals with all of these descriptors. Lol.
> 
> *"ESE usually gets attracted to bright, responsive, and practical partners"* - that's exactly right for me. I myself am bright, responsive, and practical. I value those things in myself and so I want those things in others as well. I do not value impracticality, dullness, unresponsiveness, daydreaminess, etc. I have no interest in basically making someone else's decisions for them, grounding someone, making someone behave practically, etc. I want someone who can already do all of those things. i.e. I want a grown adult, not a child.
> 
> Also, I find the LII's descriptors of me (ESE) very ironic, let's put it like that, heh.


TBH I do think LIIs are cute as fuck tho. The only type I could see myself with long-term, really. LII

Although TBH I see their weak Se and Fe as weaknesses to exploit. Look out, LIIs, here I come. EIIs too, they are also cute and exploitable, the ethician + Se PoLR combination is so weak and easy to exploit.


----------



## inabox

counterintuitive said:


> TBH I do think LIIs are cute as fuck tho. The only type I could see myself with long-term, really. LII
> 
> Although TBH I see their weak Se and Fe as weaknesses to exploit. Look out, LIIs, here I come. EIIs too, they are also cute and exploitable, the ethician + Se PoLR combination is so weak and easy to exploit.


You sure you're ESE and not SEE?


----------



## counterintuitive

inabox said:


> You sure you're ESE and not SEE?


No, not sure at all. I'm pretty sure I'm some kind of Alpha tho.


----------



## Tellus

Tellus said:


> It should be noted that Trehov and Tsypin claim that the duals' +/- signs match:
> 
> socio nika-tim.ru/index.php/theory/24-znaki-v-socionike-tri-tochki-zreniya
> 
> SLI: -Si, +Te, -Ni, +Fe // -Ne, +Fi, -Se, +Ti
> IEE: -Ne, +Fi, -Se, +Ti // -Si, +Te, -Ni, +Fe
> 
> This is incorrect. Yermak (and Gulenko?) is right!


I retract this statement.


----------

