# Intertype Relationship: a kind of Predestination!?!



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Little Cloud said:


> I didn't say that you shouldn't no comment


You said "your comment was not requested". There are relatively few ways to read that. 



> but because you didn't answer to my question and you had made a comment without really knowing if her she know or not both theories, you could at least phrase it better! I mean you could simple write:" Are you sure that all these MTBI types coincide with Socionics types??
> Instead you in that way would only underline an error that you don't nor know if she really made it!


First of all, the exclamation points really aren't necessary. And I did say "_It looks like_ you are doing _x_", indicating that this was my perception of the situation; if she wasn't, she could have said so. Concerning how this started a fight in your opinion, she has not voiced anger over the reasons you're criticizing me for, rather because I'm asking her to mind the separation of the two theories, which she feels is needlessly imposing rules on her. You still haven't addressed the fact that she has primarily been the inflammatory one in this conversation. Surely you aren't giving her a free pass on her behavior.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> You said "your comment was not requested". There are relatively few ways to read that.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the exclamation points really aren't necessary. And I did say "_It looks like_ you are doing _x_", indicating that this was my perception of the situation; if she wasn't, she could have said so. Concerning how this started a fight in your opinion, she has not voiced anger over the reasons you're criticizing me for, rather because I'm asking her to mind the separation of the two theories, which she feels is needlessly imposing rules on her. You still haven't addressed the fact that she has primarily been the inflammatory one in this conversation. Surely you aren't giving her a free pass on her behavior.


With "your comment was not requested" I meant that no one ask you to comment because you didn't answer to my question, nothing more!
I think that I could make all the exclamation points that I want, where's the problem?
Ok, maybe her reaction is a little more exaggerated but, in my opinion, you have been able to explain to her in a different way in order to avoid every negative reaction! I think that having touch could avoid these kind of fights, just that!
*But that's just my opinion*! 
Now, please stop, I don't feel like to continue on this needless debate!


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Little Cloud said:


> With "your comment was not requested" I meant that no one ask you to comment because you didn't answer to my question, nothing more!




_Public_ thread on a _public_ forum. I am allowed to say what I wish so long as it falls within forum rules. Again, your argument is not sensible.




> I think that I could make all the exclamation points that I want, where's the problem?


It feels unnecessarily dramatic and is irritating. And why are you criticizing me for how I spoke if you aren't willing to adjust yourself? 



> Ok, maybe her reaction is a little more exaggerated but, in my opinion, you have been able to explain to her in a different way in order to avoid every negative reaction! I think that having touch could avoid these kind of fights, just that!
> *But that's just my opinion*!


Clearly it _wouldn't _have prevented her reaction, as that's not an offense she confronted me over. Which I said in the previous post. I'm beginning to wonder how closely you read what I type.



> Now, please stop, I don't feel like to continue on this needless debate!


*shrugs* Whatever.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> _Public_ thread on a _public_ forum. I am allowed to say what I wish so long as it falls within forum rules. Again, your argument is not sensible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My argument is not sensible or you don't or don't want get the sense?
As you wouldn't prevented her reaction, I wouldn't prevent your reaction to my exclamation points! 
Since you don't try to meet ours needs, why should I have to yours?
I was only trying to stop this needless debate, but since in a conflict you seem always to think that a person was a little more wrong, if the other person has not your point of view and doesn't try to get it, all is aimless!

However, I ask you, if you please could not reply, or if you will do it, probably, I will not answers you, because the post has an another aim!


----------



## njchick (Apr 8, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> If you type your husband and your friends similarly in Socionics, then it wouldn't be too much trouble for you to refer to their types using Socionics notation rather than MBTI notation and write ESFj or ESE instead of ESFJ. Even if you believe that both systems are the same, in order to avoid confusion it is better to use Socionics terminology when you are discussing Socionics instead of insisting on using MBTI terms.
> 
> When you're on foreign land, respect the local customs.


Hey Cyamitide,

I can do that but honestly I'll probably just stay the hell away. 

So I was using the same terminology and as you said this is a Socionics board which is clearly not accepted here so I will change my post. Honestly it wasn't until her second post where she said my post was irrelevant that I got "pissy." Talk about missing the forest for the trees. I don't think changing ESE, or ESFj to ESFJ negated my post where I was sharing about my 19 years experience married in a relationship of benefit which was the objective.


----------



## njchick (Apr 8, 2010)

Yes, I think IF the Benefactor is aware of the trend, the relationship will improve but I don't think there is ever symmetry because it's more about the way they both think. 
In actions, yes there can be symmetry but the perception of each other does not change. At least not in my experience.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@_njchick_, @Little Cloud

Neah, forget about the debate crap, I thought it was a good answer, and coincides with my experiences with Benefit as well. You can often pick up on the way the relationship is unfolding without using types at all, and go back afterwards to see that the socionics and MBTI types matched/didn't match.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Little Cloud said:


> My argument is not sensible or you don't or don't want get the sense?
> As you wouldn't prevented her reaction, I wouldn't prevent your reaction to my exclamation points!
> Since you don't try to meet ours needs, why should I have to yours?
> I was only trying to stop this needless debate, but since in a conflict you seem always to think that a person was a little more wrong, if the other person has not your point of view and doesn't try to get it, all is aimless!
> ...


If you claim you don't want a reply, don't ask me questions. Seriously. Choose not to answer me if you wish; that's fine. 

Your argument is ridiculous, actually; I was trying to be a bit nicer about it. Your logic is poor, and you seem to ignore what I say in favor of pushing viewpoints that clearly are negated by the points you ignore. You're coming off as both coddling and a hypocrite from the way you treat me, and you're a headache to deal with. Never mind what you think; you've given me no reason in this thread to consider that opinion worthwhile. I'm done.

Edit: For the sake of clarity, yes, I do believe how we speak can affect how our words are taken. However, in this situation, I really wasn't that inflammatory, and the reasons you're throwing at me for why this is clearly all my fault don't match with the reasons the offendee has mentioned for why I deserve to be insulted. Furthermore, you're heaping a ridiculous amount of the blame and censure on me alone, which is frankly horribly unfair. If I had been bitchy from the beginning, you might have a point, but I wasn't. So to recap: you're blaming me for how this situation developed while having to be pushed to admit that the "poor" tantrum-throwing respondee might have been just a _little_ out of line, and you're blaming me for your own reasons, which she hasn't mentioned at all. I brought this up, and you ignored it. Then, when I confronted you on your double standard regarding behavior, you completely deflected it and attempt to pin all the blame on me. _Again_. And this is why I give up attempting to reason with you.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

njchick said:


> Talk about missing the forest for the trees. I don't think changing ESE, or ESFj to ESFJ negated my post where I was sharing about my 19 years experience married in a relationship of benefit which was the objective.


What is "missing the forest for the trees" is your boisterous proclamation that you and your husband are both typed correctly, and that with no information whatsoever we should accept these typings. That the practice of proclaiming typings and expecting others to acknowledge them in the absence of confirmatory tangible evidence is ubiquitous, does not make it any less egregious an error.


----------



## HopeForNow (Jan 18, 2013)

KeEp CaLm AnD eAt A bAnAnA


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> If you claim you don't want a reply, don't ask me questions. Seriously. Choose not to answer me if you wish; that's fine.
> 
> Your argument is ridiculous, actually; I was trying to be a bit nicer about it. Your logic is poor, and you seem to ignore what I say in favor of pushing viewpoints that clearly are negated by the points you ignore. You're coming off as both coddling and a hypocrite from the way you treat me, and you're a headache to deal with. Never mind what you think; you've given me no reason in this thread to consider that opinion worthwhile. I'm done.
> 
> Edit: For the sake of clarity, yes, I do believe how we speak can affect how our words are taken. However, in this situation, I really wasn't that inflammatory, and the reasons you're throwing at me for why this is clearly all my fault don't match with the reasons the offendee has mentioned for why I deserve to be insulted. Furthermore, you're heaping a ridiculous amount of the blame and censure on me alone, which is frankly horribly unfair. If I had been bitchy from the beginning, you might have a point, but I wasn't. So to recap: you're blaming me for how this situation developed while having to be pushed to admit that the "poor" tantrum-throwing respondee might have been just a _little_ out of line, and you're blaming me for your own reasons, which she hasn't mentioned at all. I brought this up, and you ignored it. Then, when I confronted you on your double standard regarding behavior, you completely deflected it and attempt to pin all the blame on me. _Again_. And this is why I give up attempting to reason with you.


Only just because you don't get the sense it doesn't mean that there isn't a sense in what I said!
Since you nor don't try to understand, it's bootless that I have to waste my time with you! At least I don't offend you, because, on the contrary of you, I still try to respect you, so I will keep to myself what I think of a person that judge another illogical only just because he doesn't understand a conception!


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

No other answers for the thread (please no more comments to the aimless debate) ?


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Little Cloud said:


> These intertype relationships are just a tendency that could develop in better?


Types is just one of factors affecting relations. And theory of intertype relations is a hypotheses, it may to have incorrect places.
Plus, rather common when types are identified incorrectly what makes practical using of intertype theory risky.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Sol_ said:


> Types is just one of factors affecting relations. And theory of intertype relations is a hypotheses, it may to have incorrect places.
> Plus, rather common when types are identified incorrectly what makes practical using of intertype theory risky.


Yes, I know it! And I know too that is not simple to find what is the Socionics' type of each person! 
However I find a lot of descriptions true regarding my relationships, even if not all!


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Little Cloud said:


> Do your relationships of Supervision and Benefit are really in the way that are described?


Not exactly as they are described in theory, but there is some overlap.

Intertype relationships is usually what draws people to study socionics -- they notice that there is some truth to these descriptions, which adds validity to socionics in their eyes. But actual relationships are rarely exactly how socionics describes them in theory. If I had to weigh how much they contribute to any given relationship I'd say around 20-30%.




> In your opinion: If two types in socionics have for example the Benefit or the Supervision relationship, they are destined to remain in that kind of relationship? Or thanks to self-awareness they could live better their relationship?


Since I don't believe that types can change, yes, they are destined to remain in same intertype.
No amount of self-awareness is going to change people's TIMs. Their information exchanges are going to continue to be the same.

However, if they know their specific intertype, they can alter their patterns of interaction, readjust emotionally, and come to an understanding that it's their TIMs that are responsible for certain effects so as to not place all the blame on each other.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Not exactly as they are described in theory, but there is some overlap.
> 
> Intertype relationships is usually what draws people to study socionics -- they notice that there is some truth to these descriptions, which adds validity to socionics in their eyes. But actual relationships are rarely exactly how socionics describes them in theory. If I had to weigh how much they contribute to any given relationship I'd say around 20-30%.
> 
> ...


Yes it's definitely in the way you described! Probably the percentages change regarding each person but they are somewhat quite low. And the perception of each type couldn't change but self-awareness could help people to overcome the perception and live with more peace their relationships! =)


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Not exactly as they are described in theory, but there is some overlap.
> 
> Intertype relationships is usually what draws people to study socionics -- they notice that there is some truth to these descriptions, which adds validity to socionics in their eyes. But actual relationships are rarely exactly how socionics describes them in theory. If I had to weigh how much they contribute to any given relationship I'd say around 20-30%.
> 
> ...


But, for example, if two persons have a supervision relationship, or a relationship that have characteristics similar to the description of this kind of relationship described in Socionics, beyond Socionics' theories, the two persons couldn't change the wrong dynamic that there is in their relationship?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Little Cloud said:


> But, for example, if two persons have a supervision relationship, or a relationship that have characteristics similar to the description of this kind of relationship described in Socionics, beyond Socionics' theories, the two persons couldn't change the wrong dynamic that there is in their relationship?


I have a couple of relatives who are in supervision relations, and for as long as I've known them the supervision dynamic hasn't disappeared even though they have lived together for a long time. They can be very nice and friendly to one another, but one person sees the world one way (through Si and Ne) and the other person sees it very differently (through Ni and Se). No matter what they do their differences in perception result in occasional disagreements where the person who is supervisee gets most affected. Which makes me think that socionics types are inborn and conserved -- trying to change your type in adulthood is like trying to change your height or color of your eyes.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> I have a couple of relatives who are in supervision relations, and for as long as I've known them the supervision dynamic hasn't disappeared even though they have lived together for a long time. They can be very nice and friendly to one another, but one person sees the world one way (through Si and Ne) and the other person sees it very differently (through Ni and Se). No matter what they do their differences in perception result in occasional disagreements where the person who is supervisee gets most affected. Which makes me think that socionics types are inborn and conserved -- trying to change your type in adulthood is like trying to change your height or color of your eyes.


Ok, so in your view, if two types have this kind of relationship, since they can't change their kind of relationship, they have to accept that and being aware that they couldn't have a deep and balanced relationship?
I think it's a little sad, don't you? :crying:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Little Cloud said:


> Ok, so in your view, if two types have this kind of relationship, since they can't change their kind of relationship, they have to accept that and being aware that they couldn't have a deep and balanced relationship?


Well if you fall in love with someone who isn't your dual, then yes you'll have to accept that your relationship is imperfect. Which relationship isn't. Many people marry those who aren't their socionics duals even after they learn about socionics. Socionics is better used to understand your relationships with others, and where they are coming from, rather than to build your relationshis according to what the socionics intertype chart shows.



Little Cloud said:


> I think it's a little sad, don't you?


I don't think it's sad that not everyone can get along. It's something contingent on all this diversity of personalities that we have. People would all get along if we were clones of each other, and we all felt and thought the same. That would really be sad. I think all the differences are amazing.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Well if you fall in love with someone who isn't your dual, then yes you'll have to accept that your relationship is imperfect. Which relationship isn't. Many people marry those who aren't their socionics duals even after they learn about socionics. Socionics is better used to understand your relationships with others, and where they are coming from, rather than to build your relationshis according to what the socionics intertype chart shows.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's sad that not everyone can get along. It's something contingent on all this diversity of personalities that we have. People would all get along if we were clones of each other, and we all felt and thought the same. That would really be sad. I think all the differences are amazing.



I don't believe that there persons *perfect * for us. The perfection is only an illusion. The relationship is never perfect, has always his difficulties that must be overcome. If two people love each other even if they are very different, I think, or almost I hope, that they could overcome their differences and at the same time enrich themselves because of them! 
I think that is sad because I hope that if two persons really want to love each other they could try, by self-awareness, to built a strong relationship, even if they are beard to have an asymmetrical or not a "perfect" relationship as for example the dual relationship.
But maybe you have reason, and if you really have I think that all is very sad, but it's a matter of points of view!


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes, I agree that cyamitide's statement about nondual relationships being imperfect seems excessively deterministic in a way that socionics does not measure well.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Little Cloud said:


> I don't believe that there persons *perfect * for us. The perfection is only an illusion. The relationship is never perfect, has always his difficulties that must be overcome.


That's exactly my point, that if your information processing is less than ideal it's just one of these kind of imperfections. You asked me if this makes me feel sad and I really don't see anything to be sad about, since none of the relationships are ideal. There will always be some kind of differences between people and this isn't something doleful to lament about.



> If two people love each other even if they are very different, I think, or almost I hope, that they could overcome their differences and at the same time enrich themselves because of them!


They can, but like I said in the other thread they will have to monitor themselves. There are several threads on 16types regarding the topics of how to improve this or that relationship type, but it always amounts to having to suppress your natural inclinations and natural way of being in order to accommodate your partner.

To overcome differences due to types completely, you'd have to change your types and _become_ each other's duals. The extent to which this is possible is quite questionable. Most people in socionics community will tell you that types don't change.



> I think that is sad because I hope that if two persons really want to love each other they could try, by self-awareness, to built a strong relationship, even if they are beard to have an asymmetrical or not a "perfect" relationship as for example the dual relationship. But maybe you have reason, and if you really have I think that all is very sad, but it's a matter of points of view!


Again I don't see what is so "sad" about this. Some conflict has been known to spice up relationships :wink:


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> That's exactly my point, that if your information processing is less than ideal it's just one of these kind of imperfections. You asked me if this makes me feel sad and I really don't see anything to be sad about, since none of the relationships are ideal. There will always be some kind of differences between people and this isn't something doleful to lament about.
> :wink:


I think that that could be sad if that means that we could have satisfactory relationships only just few types.
I hope that a person could have a balanced and deep relationship with every person if both these two persons try to work on this relationship, give their best because of it and accept the other person if is very different from himself and that causes a lot of difficulties.
I hope that love could overcome all, so even differences, difficulties, inclinations, destines etc!
I think that that could happen if each person person accept the other person and tries to understand him\her and maybe tries to greet the other person. The ways could be different but I think they could exist if two persons really want to.

I don't really understand if you agree narrowly with me.


----------



## RSV3 (Dec 31, 2012)

Little Cloud said:


> I think that that could be sad if that means that we could have satisfactory relationships only just few types.
> I hope that a person could have a balanced and deep relationship with every person if both these two persons try to work on this relationship, give their best because of it and accept the other person if is very different from himself and that causes a lot of difficulties.
> I hope that love could overcome all, so even differences, difficulties, inclinations, destines etc!
> I think that that could happen if each person person accept the other person and tries to understand him\her and maybe tries to greet the other person. The ways could be different but I think they could exist if two persons really want to.
> ...


In my own experience, the majority of my longer term romantic relationships have involved intra-quadra and opposite club types (ESFj or ISFp), with one or two INFp, INFj, and ESTj. Contemplating relationships with other types feels very incongruous and uncomfortable(some more so than others), and I imagine it might be difficult to complement each other.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

RSV3 said:


> In my own experience, the majority of my longer term romantic relationships have involved intra-quadra and opposite club types (ESFj or ISFp), with one or two INFp, INFj, and ESTj. Contemplating relationships with other types feels very incongruous and uncomfortable(some more so than others), and I imagine it might be difficult to complement each other.


Yes, I understand that these could be probably our best types of relationships. But I think that we don't have to be afraid of differences, because thought all the difficulties or just because the differences we could enrich ourselves thanks to others!


----------

