# Using Socionics Intertype Relations in Typings



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I've been trying to implement socionics intertype relationships in typing and ran across several problems that negatively impact their accuracy, and want to bring these up to attention.



First of all, it takes some time for intertypes to unfold into stable patterns. They cannot be applied to stand alone situations. Example of how to not use them for typing someone: "While watching a video of celebrityA being interviewed by speakerB, it looked to me like they weren't getting along. Since speakerB's type is SLI it can be concluded that celebrityA is EIE or ESE." How do you know that celebrityA or hostB didn't have just have a crappy day that made them cranky during the interview? Intertype relationships must be observed over some lengthy time frame and cannot be applied to brief instances.
Second, it takes high degree of interpersonal sensitivity to accurately discern what is going on between other individuals. Talent in this faculty varies from typer to typer, as does personal experience. If you are not very proficient in accurately evaluating relations, then consider that your attempts at using intertypes to type anyone will likewise not hit the mark. Inability to accurately estimate personal sympathies and antipathies interferes with establishing accurate intertypes from standpoint of the typer.
The "intertype dilemma" from the standpoint of the subject being typed is that people don't often reveal what they truly think of someone else. We hide our thoughts and feelings from others and consciously control what we let out to the outside. How much someone expresses varies from person to person. Some lavishly shower others with compliments and praises such that you might think they get along with everyone. Others find it difficult to show their positive sentiments and attachments. This complicates making an accurate intertype estimation.
Fourth, human social networks are very complex. They are a mesh of needs, ambitions, goals and agendas of various individuals. These interests can and do override socionics intertypes on many occasions. Example: "PersonA wants to obtain a promotion at work. To attain this personA starts cultivating positive relations with persons B and C" which makes it superficially look like they must be in very good intertype relations. Another example: "GuyA spots GirlB whom he thinks is stunningly beautiful and starts to pursue her." Here the girl's looks are the main influence on his disposition towards her rather than her socionics type.
Fifth, many conflicts have their origins in something else than inconjunction of socionics-based values. Hypothetical example: if I am a theist and someone else is an atheist, then our differences and disputes and the fact that we hate each other's guts will have little to do with our socionics types.
Simple arguing does not mean you're in relations of conflict. Some people enjoy arguing, some become more outspoken and contentious on the internet amidst anonymity and in the absence of consequences. This doesn't mean that they are your conflict relations. Conflict partners actually view each other with apprehension and uncertainty which dissuades them from fighting. Conflict fights occur in outbursts, when tension builds up to the point that they can no longer tolerate each other.
There exist other typologies outside of socionics which also factor into relationships, such as enneagram and instinct variants. In enneagram people feel drawn towards their point of integration. Compatibilities and incompatibilities within these other systems can distort socionics intertypes, ameliorating a poor socionics relation and creating a schism in a favorable intertype.
Finally, it is important to realize that socionics intertype relationships are based on ease of information exchange: duals have the lowest communication barrier while conflictors have the highest communication barrier. However, there is a still a gap between how easy you find it to communicate with someone and how you feel about them. While there is some correlation between socionics intertypes and what feelings emerge between people, this correlation is often not as direct as is often assumed.


Referring back to #2 and #3 on that list, there is another reason that accurate application of intertypes necessitates high levels of interpersonal sensitivity: several intertypes feel similar to one another, and while you know your stance towards someone, you can only guess their stance towards yourself i.e. if you like someone, you cannot be sure that they like you too at the same level. This makes it easy to confuse several types of relations which feel similar:

*Activity & Benefit*. It's not uncommon for the Beneficiary to confuse their Benefactor for their Activity relation. Feeling drawn to the person and energized by them, and given that the Benefactor reciprocates to some extent, Beneficiary begins to think of Benefactor as Activity partner. This is further compounded by the fact that Beneficiaries put Benefactors on a pedestal and thus may desire to place them into their own quadra.

*Mirror & Supervision*. Mirror partners will correct one another, refocusing each other's base functions with creative functions, such that these relations can feel like Supervision from both sides (example: IEI frequently arguing with a an EIE types the EIE into LIE). Supervisees feeling drawn to their Supervisors type them into Mirror types wishing to place them into their own quadra (example: LIE looking up to a SLI types that person into ILI).

*Duality & Mirage*. Mirage relations feel more comfortable and soothing than Duality. It's not unusual for people coming together within Mirage relations to feel like they've found their perfect match, foster a rosy perception of their relationship and decide that they must be duals. Duals in contrast keep one another slightly polarized.

*Supervisor & Dual* -- common mistype. Supervisee feels attracted to Supervisor and types that person as their dual. Since Supervisees think highly of their Supervisors, there is a motivation to place that person into one's own quadra ("such a great individual must be part of my quadra!"). On a more rare occasion the opposite occurs: Supervisor mistakes their Supervisee for a dual.

*Duality & Semi-duality and sometimes even Contrary*. This mistype is based on perceived attraction between complementary temperaments, which leads to typings of Contraries and Semi-duals into one's duals.

*Contrary/Extinguishment & Semi-Dual.* Contrary aka extinguishment partners appear astonishing and interesting to one another, which often translates into personal sympathies and leads them to mistake one another for semi-duals and duals (for example an IEI feeling attracted to an IEE types that person as SEE or SLE).

*Business & Identical*. Having the same creative function, they often feel like they "speak the same language" and type themselves as identicals.

*Beneficiary & Identical*. This is a more rare mistype -- typing of beneficiaries into identicals.


It should be also taken into account that after learning about socionics intertype relations people start to consciously or unconsciously modify their relations. "Aha! That person is my conflictor or supervisor, so I won't be as friendly to him." or "This person is my dual so I will be extra nice to her." Thus intertypes become self-fulfilling, self forged and amplified, rather than a natural background to overlay to already existing relationships.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

I've run into beneficiary-quasi identical confusion. It's also common to mistake quasi-identical as identical, as implied by the terms.

But basically, I would not rely on just one technique (eg intertyping) to type people. I find that most work best in conjunction with other methods.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

wow, thanks... this kinda makes the intertype stuff seem very inaccurate.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Thanks for the post! =)!
But I have a question: 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? 
These intertype relationships are just a tendency that could develop in better?


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Another thing! 
In this site there is a Intertype Relationship Calculatorhttp://www.sociotype.com/tools/

and there are also to consider the person's subtypes (1 irrational, 2 irrational etc)!
What are these person's subtypes? How I can know them?

Thank you very much early!!


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Little Cloud said:


> Another thing! In this site there is a *Intertype Relationship Calculator*Socionics Toolsand there are also to consider the person's subtypes (1 irrational, 2 irrational etc)!What are these person's subtypes? How I can know them?Thank you very much early!!


There are various categories of subtypes (starting with Accepting/Producing and multiplying from there). Not everyone takes them seriously. Subtype strength is one of RSV3's personal hypotheses, I think, and not a fundamental part of Socionics 

@_Acerbusvenator_ I wouldn't call them inaccurate, per se. Rather, they are one facet of interaction that can be influenced by many other things (relationship, hierarchy, upbringing, etc). Intertype relations are merely a projection of how your types should communicate on a socionic level, nothing more.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> There are various categories of subtypes (starting with Accepting/Producing and multiplying from there). Not everyone takes them seriously. Subtype strength is one of RSV3's personal hypotheses, I think, and not a fundamental part of Socionics .


Can you tell me something more about these various categories of subtypes? Or can you give me please a link in which there is a deeply explanation about them?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Little Cloud said:


> Can you tell me something more about these various categories of subtypes? Or can you give me please a link in which there is a deeply explanation about them?


Subtype - Wikisocion


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> Subtype - Wikisocion


In which of these theories there are the subtypes rational and irrational, sorry?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

sinigang said:


> I've run into beneficiary-quasi identical confusion. It's also common to mistake quasi-identical as identical, as implied by the terms.


I've mostly seen the opposite occur -- people type identicals into other types because they feel like they cannot fully identify with them. Many socionics beginners have this erroneous notion that their "identicals" have to be identical, and if they don't mesh well together or don't like the other person, then they cannot be of same type. This is especially poignant if their identical happens to be somehow embarrassing to them.



> But basically, I would not rely on just one technique (eg intertyping) to type people. I find that most work best in conjunction with other methods.


Agreed. I usually use a couple of different approaches for typings, as do most socionics hobbyists, but some seem to assign a lot more weight to intertypes than they are worth IMO. 

I've also noticed that heavily factoring in intertypes in typings is more common among Fi-valuing typers. May be it's because they are trying bring all their relationships into harmony, so if they happen to like someone they type that person into some more favorable intertype towards themselves, and v. versa, if they don't like them they type them into an adverse type.



Acerbusvenator said:


> wow, thanks... this kinda makes the intertype stuff seem very inaccurate.


When I just started studying socionics, I used them very rigidly in my typings. Then later when I learned more about other aspects of socionics, like dichotomies, it turned out that I've mistyped a whole lot of people. I've seen a couple other socionics beginners follow the same route as I did. 

People turn to intertypes because they are one of the first things that they learn about socionics, they are very easy to understand and seem like an easy tool to use. Unfortunately, they have not proven themselves to be an accurate method for typing in my experience. They are better used alongside other stuff, as sinigang has mentioned, and not given too much importance.



Little Cloud said:


> Thanks for the post! =)!
> But I have a question: 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?
> These intertype relationships are just a tendency that could develop in better?


Their intertype isn't going to change, but they can take measures and make conscious effort to improve their relations. There were a couple of posts I've seen on 16types.info with recommendations on what to do.



Little Cloud said:


> Can you tell me something more about these various categories of subtypes? Or can you give me please a link in which there is a deeply explanation about them?


One of the more commonly used subtyping method is Inert/Contact, described in this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/14-Type-and-subtype-descriptions-Meged-Ovcharov I've found some extended descriptions in the commentary to that article but it looks like it hasn't been translated yet (you'd need to be logged in to see the comments to those articles).


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> One of the more commonly used subtyping method is Inert/Contact, described in this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/14-Type-and-subtype-descriptions-Meged-Ovcharov I've found some extended descriptions in the commentary to that article but it looks like it hasn't been translated yet (you'd need to be logged in to see the comments to those articles).


Thank you! But I don't understand how I can know the subtypes rational or irrational! 
I'm Italian and maybe is for that that it's so difficult for me to understand all these socionics theories that are written only in English!


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Little Cloud said:


> Thank you! But I don't understand how I can know the subtypes rational or irrational!
> I'm Italian and maybe is for that that it's so difficult for me to understand all these socionics theories that are written only in English!


Rational functions are Fe, Fi, Te, Ti
Irrational functions are Ne, Ni, Se, Si

For ILE irrational subtype would be Ne-ILE and rational would be Ti-ILE.
For EII irrational subtype would be Ne-EII and rational would be Fi-EII.
You have to look at what function the person focuses on, dominant or creative, and see if it's rational or irrational. That determines whether their subtype is rational or irrational.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Rational functions are Fe, Fi, Te, Ti
> Irrational functions are Ne, Ni, Se, Si
> 
> For ILE irrational subtype would be Ne-ILE and rational would be Ti-ILE.
> ...


ok, thank you!! The last question: How can I know what livel or rationality or irrationality has each type? As you could see in the intertype calculator the subtypes are 1-2-3 rational and 1-2-3 irrational!


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Little Cloud said:


> ok, thank you!! The last question: How can I know what livel or rationality or irrationality has each type? As you could see in the intertype calculator the subtypes are 1-2-3 rational and 1-2-3 irrational!


There is no way to know. That calculator is specific to that test. It's not part of socionics.
Subtypes are a gradient with some people being on far ends of the spectrum and others being closer to the center. Those numbers 1-2-3 are supposed to indicate where along the spectrum you might be, but this isn't anything formal.


----------



## Little Cloud (Jan 12, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> There is no way to know. That calculator is specific to that test. It's not part of socionics.
> Subtypes are a gradient with some people being on far ends of the spectrum and others being closer to the center. Those numbers 1-2-3 are supposed to indicate where along the spectrum you might be, but this isn't anything formal.


Ok! I asked you that because the way you put these numbers changes the relationship's type!
I hope that the site will explain more this detail!
Thank you very much for your explanation! ^_^


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Intertype relationships must be observed over some lengthy time frame and cannot be applied to brief instances.


It's not so, but the longer time and less formal behavior give more sharp effects, certainly. If you'll type more correctly you'll better understand how intertype relations reveal themselves.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Sol_ said:


> It's not so, but the longer time and less formal behavior give more sharp effects, certainly. If you'll type more correctly you'll better understand how intertype relations reveal themselves.


It's a difference between basing your conclusions on 1 data point vs 100 data points. If you are involved or observe an interaction over many different instances, the accuracy of your intertype estimates will rise, rather than if you base your conclusion on a single interview or meeting.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Bumping this thread. The past couple of months I saw another instance when two individuals who were in Benefit relations confuse themselves for an Activity pair. They felt drawn to chat with one another, and these online discussions were interesting -- each could add something new and provide constructive criticisms. So they decided that they are from the same quadra. Then they starting meeting offline and things turned out to be different ... The Benefactor said he was very much disappointed because he's gotten his hopes up when they were chatting online only. *This is regarding the danger of trying to decipher intertype relationships from online interaction -- online it is too easy to confuse similar intertypes, like Benefit and Activity.
*
I think Benefit can feel a lot like Activity online because the Benefactor feels supported by Beneficiary in intellectual sense -- the Beneficiary is happy to maintain a conversation with Benefactor, voice correction from his leading function, which the Benefactor finds interesting and useful. The lack of support from creative function becomes perceptible only at closer interaction, but online, if you're online chatting or pm-ing, it's too easy to miss.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

Upbringing is a huge factor. Even a large barrier in social class can make two identicals act like very, very different adults. And if the two don't have the same interests, they're going to focus a lot more on the ways they DON'T relate than the ways they do. I've tried to introduce multiple IEEs as well as ILEs to each other in the past and never got the results I wanted. Usually one felt sort of uncomfortable while the other really did not care for their identical. If I don't tell two people that they're identicals, however, they may occasionally bounce off each other, but otherwise they just totally avoid one another.

In the rare case that you get two identicals with the same interests, the same values, occupying the same social tier and with the same basic maturity level, I'm sure they'd get along famously, but when does that ever happen? 

As for mistaking intertypes, the one I see most often is mistaking conflict for dual. People realize the difference when they actually MEET their dual, who might give off a similar vibe (EST, ENT, ISF, INF), but instead of simply getting along with this person, they actually really look forward to seeing them.


----------

