# Most Psychologically Compatible Intertype Relations?



## Batgirl (Jan 30, 2014)

Dedication said:


> I'm probably going to come across as a jerk but I think that you or your friends are mistyped. If you notice that you are strongly drawn to your semi duals then they might actually be your true duals.


Nope, you don't come across as a jerk to me. I've definitely considered this but in the end I always come back to the same type.

And to just give a quick illustration of the whole dual experience:

With my conflictors it's like: This could never happen.
With my duals it's like: Hey this could be something great if you weren't such a manipulative, immature, a$$hole. LOL. Not that I think all of my duals are like that. I know that's not the case. And I did have one dual friend a long time ago. He was a pretty fantastic person. It's unfortunate that most of my duals that I come across have the maturity level of a six year old.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Batgirl said:


> Nope, you don't come across as a jerk to me. I've definitely considered this but in the end I always come back to the same type.
> 
> And to just give a quick illustration of the whole dual experience:
> 
> ...


Haha, that's also possible.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Dedication said:


> My understanding from Socionics is that the ENTJ is strong at it, but it just causes boredom and if and ENTj uses it (which they rarely do) then they would do so on term own terms; as in: being aware of Ti but prevering Te over it.
> 
> I also read the article but it doesn't say anything about passing on information from one quadra to another, It's more from one type helping out another because they have the means necessary to do so.


From reading Socionics theory I was led to think the same, but my actual experiences dealing with Gamma NTs have shown it to be otherwise. Ti is rejected and suppressed by Gamma quadra values, hence none of the Gammas ever accept it, value it and develop it in themselves. INTps treat Ti as something unimportant, ridicule it, try to argue against it and shut it down (demonstrative Ti). ENTjs ignore it like background noise (ignoring Ti).

Think about this logically for a second: how can your "unvalued", rejected information element ever be as strong as your valued ones? How can you be strong in something that you don't value and reject? This is the inherent illogicality of the claims of those who say that Ignoring and Demonstrative functions are just as strong as EGO functions (and that Gamma NTs should be thus "strong" in Ti).


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> From reading Socionics theory I was led to think the same, but my actual experiences dealing with Gamma NTs have shown it to be otherwise. Ti is rejected and suppressed by Gamma quadra values, hence none of the Gammas ever accept it, value it and develop it in themselves. INTps treat Ti as something unimportant, ridicule it, try to argue against it and shut it down (demonstrative Ti). ENTjs ignore it like background noise (ignoring Ti).
> 
> Think about this logically for a second: how can your "unvalued", rejected information element ever be as strong as your valued ones? How can you be strong in something that you don't value and reject? This is the inherent illogicality of the claims of those who say that Ignoring and Demonstrative functions are just as strong as EGO functions (and that Gamma NTs should be thus "strong" in Ti).


Yeah, but still, it somehow doesn't make sense for transfer Ti to the type who would be the weakest at its use. I mean, saying that the role of the Supervisor would be to transfer function information from one quadra to another would be like saying that the SEE is going to teach the ILI, LIE and ESI about Ti because s/he learned it from the LSI. I don't get how the SEE would be the qualified type to bring Ti into the Gamma quadra, it doesn't make sense to me.

I also thought about that for a while a couple of months ago. It doesn't make sense for it to be 'valued: Strong - Weak' and 'unvalued: Strong - Weak'. Taking it logically it would be much more like 'Valued: Strong - Weak' and 'Unvalued: Mediocre at best - terrible.'

But really, I think that INTJ's use Ni-Te-Fi-Se and don't use Ne-Ti-Fe-Si at all, it makes more sense that way, but it would depend on how you define each function. Socionics seems to define the functions in such a way that every type is capable of using every function, but I'm of the opinion that this is not the case.

I've seen some ENTP's debate at lightning speed with high energy for hours on end while getting a ton of enjoyment out of it, I don't think I could every do that. I could mimick them for a couple of minutes at best, but my internal energy flow would be vastly different and it would exhaust me very quickly.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Dedication said:


> Yeah, but still, it somehow doesn't make sense for transfer Ti to the type who would be the weakest at its use.


"Weakest" at its use means completely dependent on external supply of information on this aspect, so it's not that insensible. The exact mechanics of supervision relations haven't been analyzed and explained in detail in any socionics resources that I've seen. Perhaps it's still under research and investigation. I also think it's misleading to think of functions in simplistic terms like strong/weak. They all have their own properties under Model A, which are far more complicated than such black-n-white dichotomous notation.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> "Weakest" at its use means completely dependent on external supply of information on this aspect, so it's not that insensible. The exact mechanics of supervision relations haven't been analyzed and explained in detail in any socionics resources that I've seen. Perhaps it's still under research and investigation. I also think it's misleading to think of functions in simplistic terms like strong/weak. They all have their own properties under Model A, which are far more complicated than such black-n-white dichotomous notation.


Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. I'm still trying to figure out why the Supervision relationship shouldn't be avoided like the Superego and Conflicting relationship. Your reason was because the Supervisor would pass on information from one quadra to another. Suggesting that there is also an information exhange from the supervisee to each type that shares the same quadra, I'd like to know if you thought this was the case and if so, how does that happen?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Dedication said:


> Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. I'm still trying to figure out why the Supervision relationship shouldn't be avoided like the Superego and Conflicting relationship. Your reason was because the Supervisor would pass on information from one quadra to another. Suggesting that there is also an information exhange from the supervisee to each type that shares the same quadra, I'd like to know if you thought this was the case and if so, how does that happen?


Supervision has a "special" purpose unlike Superego and Conflicting relations. That purpose seems to be learning. The details of how it happens haven't been explained very well. I guess nobody knows the internal dynamics of functions and elements within Model A. But from observing Supervision in social interaction, I'd say that it does look like Supervisor is trading some valuable information to the Supervisee. Here's what happens:

- Supervisee is almost glued to what Supervisor has to say. He or she will listen to that specific person with heightened attention and try catching their rhetoric even if the room is full of people loudly chattering to each other. Some kind of special link is formed, where Supervisor speaks and Supervisee listens.

- Supervisee is inclined to perceive Supervisor's insights and advice as valuable and adjust their own reasoning and actions accordingly. Gulenko says that there is some kind of "re-education" in effect, and once Supervisor completes this mission of re-educating the Supervisee and altering Supervisee's inner values, these relations dissolve having fulfilled their educator purpose.

- Supervisor can save the Supervisee from making mistakes and show them ways to be more effective. When I interact with ESFjs, I can see how they could be more time-efficient, which is a big deal for them because they often have too many things to do, and also how to flexibly readjust in some situations, which they also have trouble with being rational type. If this advice saves them time, money, and lots of personal anguish, I can't see how our Supervision relations are "only bad" and should be only avoided.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Supervision has a "special" purpose unlike Superego and Conflicting relations. That purpose seems to be learning. The details of how it happens haven't been explained very well. I guess nobody knows the internal dynamics of functions and elements within Model A. But from observing Supervision in social interaction, I'd say that it does look like Supervisor is trading some valuable information to the Supervisee. Here's what happens:
> 
> - Supervisee is almost glued to what Supervisor has to say. He or she will listen to that specific person with heightened attention and try catching their rhetoric even if the room is full of people loudly chattering to each other. Some kind of special link is formed, where Supervisor speaks and Supervisee listens.
> 
> ...


I agree, but I'm currently only responding to you because I'm looking for a specific answer, going back to an earlier statement you made:


cyamitide said:


> The use of supervision relations is to pass on information from one quadra to another.


In this scenario: If A, B, C and D are part of the Delta quadrant and E is D's supervisor, how would D bring the information to A, B and C?

When you say 'from one quadra to another' I take it as if the supervisor > supervisee information exchange goes beyond a one on one interaction and actually extents to all the other members of the supervisee's quadra.

Do you understand what I'm trying to figure out? I'm just trying to figure out the implications of your earlier statement on page one.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Dedication said:


> In this scenario: If A, B, C and D are part of the Delta quadrant and E is D's supervisor, how would D bring the information to A, B and C?
> 
> When you say 'from one quadra to another' I take it as if the supervisor > supervisee information exchange goes beyond a one on one interaction and actually extents to all the other members of the supervisee's quadra.
> 
> Do you understand what I'm trying to figure out? I'm just trying to figure out the implications of your earlier statement on page one.


It's because quadra values are shared, and information is passed fluidly between types within the same quadra. The Supervisor tries to re-shape or re-form some element of the Supervisee's methodology or vision, and the Supervisee is innately impressionable to his/her vantage. The Supervisee will pass along (albeit forever inadequate) viewpoints of the Supervisor to types within the quadra who value the _Supervisee's _view. I'll give you a real example:


[HR][/HR] 

Consider a working environment where you have an EIE and an LSI as the established leaders. Basically, the LSI works through all of the nitty gritty technical details, forming a paradigm that works precisely well within the bounds of what it is supposed to do. He periodically asks the EIE about specific ways something should work, warns her of what could happen if something was done a certain way, etc. The EIE expediently contacts the right people, quickly gets the "jist" of the problems based on how she reads the pain points of the people she talks to, prioritizes based on input from others, and gives the LSI the right external knowledge to continue. And so they carry on, essentially constructing a perfect Beta hierarchical system of operations. 

Bring an ILI into the picture. The ILI can be pedantic like the LSI, but they aren't nearly as aligned to maintain structures as they are to wreck and reform them, as a Gamma. The ILI deviates from the accepted hierarchy, initially doing things his own way, with his own process - a way the ILI perceives to lead to more obvious, quick payouts with little to no awareness of how it is perceived by others. The EIE notices the ILI's lack of awareness and tries to correct - can you change X to say ___, Mary will get confused; can you update Y; can you inform Bob of Z? All of these corrections are related to the ILI's deviation from the accepted Beta structure. These are things that come naturally for the EIE and as stated above would help the LSI, but they're uncomfortable for the ILI because they point to a lack of understanding what other people may need later on, or what's being discussed externally, out and about the ILI's world of abstract impersonal ideas. 

Nevertheless, these requests are put in a way that partially makes sense to the ILI, because they relate to an unfolding process (Ni), so the ILI slowly adopts the EIE's practices - emailing people at certain points, using certain phrases to describe things emotively, etc. When an ESI comes along to join the group, these influences from the EIE will be the ILI's main devices in interacting with the ESI. He thereby "passes along" the EIE's influence to the Gamma quadra. ILI and ESI are Activity, so the ILI in part stirs the ESI to work. And so on.



As you can see it isn't so much a global progression as it is a chain of impressionability that runs through different quadra types as they interact and pass information and worldviews onto others within the Supervisee's quadra who will take the information seriously.

I'm not sure if this has been posted or discussed, but here is an interesting read on _*Quadra Progression*_.


----------



## Choice (May 19, 2012)

My type: SLE
Based on limited exp so far:

*Best:*

1) Business (superficial my ass, I end up learning so much about them I require multiple doses of brain bleach), Mirror
2) Semi-Duality(able to feel on the same wavelength, but requires a lot of translation.), Supervision
3) Illusionary (can be easygoing at best, translation problems can be nigh impossible to get through, but relatable.)
*Meh:*
4) Beneficiary, Activity (while they can easily draw me in, it also leads to some of the worst clashes)
5) Everything else unlisted
*
Worst:*
6) Conflicting relations - easygoing, but fundamental disconnect. *Not much actual conflict, just hardest to relate to. *Can understand on an intellectual level if I try hard enough.
5) Benefactor, Quasi-Identical Relations (this is what genuinely feels like a business relation to me) Admire from a distance, Dual (at best so far) [*drawn out, prolonged fights start here*]
4) Contrary Relations - less conflict, more stagnation. Admire from a greater distance____+Business relations [cold war]
3) Beneficiary
2) Activity 
1) Illusionary (value clash + passive aggression = sulkily fuck you at all times), Dual


----------



## Choice (May 19, 2012)

@Schweeeeks 



> *Duals*
> 
> Could you tell me more about your dual experience? It's unusual for someone to rate it as lowest compatibility.
> 
> ...


amendment: Whoops, I think I just momentarily forgot about individuals who I think are ok, like @Halcyon

As to my exp, it's been down to me raising my expectations way too high due to initial pleasant smooth sailing, until I realised the stark differences and felt all betrayed about not being understood and shit.

In general, my code of ethics, lack of empathy, lack of focus on emotions, lack of propriety when being silly was...not well received.

I got annoyed when people failed to be upfront with me on various issues. 
I got frustrated when people were slow on the uptake with facts and details all at once (I can be absurdly bad at communication at times). 
I got annoyed when people failed to be specific. I needed things to be explained in lists of examples that some found hard to generate on the spot. 
I was expected to imagine the future(further than a few mere months ahead), the things I could expect in it - it was hard, I gave up. 

When I sought advice it felt like I was given an overview, rather than any tools that could address the situation at hand.

I was annoyed whenever I judged someone's politeness to be redundant.

I was highly impatient throughout long repetitions of the question "do you mean x when you say ____" as it bounced back and forth. I got tired of explaining myself.

At my worst, I paranoidly interpreting miscellaneous signals as emotional manipulation or passive aggression.

Maybe I'm slightly better now, but I doubt I met the right people at the time.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Dedication said:


> I agree, but I'm currently only responding to you because I'm looking for a specific answer, going back to an earlier statement you made:
> 
> In this scenario: If A, B, C and D are part of the Delta quadrant and E is D's supervisor, how would D bring the information to A, B and C?
> 
> ...


For the other two types in your quadra their analogous cognitive style isn't analogous to yours. You have same values due to shared elements, but explaining anything to them and getting on the same page gets progressively more difficult due to a mis-match in how you're thinking. To answer your question: the information that you get from your supervisor gets passed on to your dual for the most part.

Talking to LSIs and EIEs I usually feel like my manner of explaining things is too chaotic and coarse for them to understand anything. They get even more confused from my explanations. While their way of thinking is too detailed, specific, and linear to me to be able to follow it. Even though we share quadra values, being able to explain anything to each other gets complicated. It's easier in some way to get on the same page with supervisees/supervisors/beneficiaries/benefactors due to having analogous thinking styles.


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)

Choice said:


> amendment: Whoops, I think I just momentarily forgot about individuals who I think are ok, like @_Halcyon_


I approve this message. :tongue:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I got along really well with my dad, a look-a-like relation, but it was fairly superficial and never below the surface cheer. It's either that, or he was an activity relation. I couldn't really tell you which. 

My mom's supervisor, and we often didn't see eye-to-eye. I felt she was too strict and controlling. She's seemed to have mellowed out.

My sister's probably my mirror. We had little spats that never lasted long, and we're probably closer than anyone I've been close to.

Super-ego relation goes to a childhood friend. Like my dad, it was very superficial, but it didn't really have much positive feeling associated with the relationship as it did with my dad. We see things very differently, but there was a kind of distant admiration that neither of us would admit.

My husfiend seems to be quasi-identical. He's fascinating to me, and I think that goes both ways. It's not always easy, but it's challenging in the right way. We balance each other out. We're basically opposites in a lot of ways, despite the term "quasi-identical".


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

I think the most compatible, hands down, are dual and semi-dual. Kindred and mirror relations would feel too incestuous. Activity and benefit can be excellent for friendship but I feel like XLIs require far too much effort and usually don't meet me halfway emotionally. Role Fe suits me much better.

I would say mirage has potential as well but only when partners share the same interests. Same with extinguishment/contrary. Similar interests are like glue in these relations and will enable the people involved to reach a level of comfort they probably wouldn't achieve otherwise due to contrary accepting functions.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

....talking to an ExTP about movies and interpretations...is disappointing and draining. Nothing in common and he doesn't see the point in a lot of Fi related things...similarly how I don't see the point in Ti related ones. All I got was frustration and he the same, we just each argued for the point the other one seemed care the least about, not that objectively speaking either had more merit then the other.

Superego relations can be a pain if there is no common ground an there often is none.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

I quite like Relations of Activity. I think I prefer it to Duality. Though I don't really have much experience with Duality, I love the ease of communication that Activity brings.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

absyrd2 said:


> I quite like Relations of Activity. I think I prefer it to Duality. Though I don't really have much experience with Duality, I love the ease of communication that Activity brings.


I sort of wonder if this is more common for extroverts? They usually feel a bit meh to me. Like we're both stagnating, pleasantly or unpleasantly.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm iee my husband SLi - he complement me in every way and we really are opposite attract - been married for 3 and together for 9, so Dualities for me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

