# In socionics, the mixture of Intuitive and Sensor blood is not an abomination...



## Nico1e (Jul 27, 2011)

...but something to be encouraged.

Before I get to that, I need to mention that a very large number of sensors are being mistyped as intuitives, by the Myers-Briggs test. If you don't know someone's correct type, then you also cannot use your knowledge of their personality type to predict how they will relate to other types. There will be some 'intuitives' who swear that they have a great relationship with each other - for instance, an ENFP and an INTP - when actually, the INTP is a mistyped ISTP, as I myself was. 

In the world of socionics, sensors aren't held in contempt or viewed as inferior the way they are in most of the English-speaking MBTI/Keirsey culture. When I first started learning socionics I was amazed by the attitude of equality: both sensors and intuitives are highly valued. 

Why did I believe socionics was true? I had already decided I was an ISTP. So I looked up a chart of the socionic intertype relations, and saw that my dual (the most comfortable relationship) was an ENFP. Immediately I remembered that the best friend I ever had had been an ENFP who I went to school with as a child. No one else on earth had ever understood me as well as she did. 

And then I saw the the INFJ is my 'activity' or 'activator' relation - another very favorable relationship - and I recalled that my best friend during my college years was an INFJ. No one else has ever gotten along with me as well as the ENFPs and INFJs that I have met.

So that suggested that the socionic system 'knew something' that the Myers-Briggs system did not know. I began studying it to find out how it worked.....

more later.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

This is a good start. Reading MBTI/Keirseyan descriptions, I never got the feeling that Sensors were less valued than iNtuitives as you seem to have implied. Perhaps not as well-understood (as apparent in the various ISFP descriptions at least). Could you explain more, ie. why do you think this is so?

I like intuitives, but then again I don't look at people in terms of their MBTI letters so S/N dichotomy, or any other dichotomy for that matter doesn't have much bearing on my decision to be or not be in a relationship with somebody. It does, however, help me be more vigilant of any potential pitfalls and miscommunications due to type differences.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Issue you should have (as MBTI ISTP that is) is that while we're likely to still rank ISTp in socionics if we're taking the test, our function set gets completely twisted. MBTI ISTP = ISTj socionics going by functions.

The issue I'm having, I identify as ISTP by MBTI's function set quite clearly and can't quite grasp why socionics would re-apply their function set, unless they re-defined the definitions of the individual functions. However, I don't see much of a need for that, given that the definitions / explanations were already given by Jung himself.

With the lack of resources and English literature concerning socionics I don't think I'll be able to dig it anytime soon. Although socionics generally focuses more on intertype relationships rather than self discovery if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, you'll find ISTP's on this forum who love ENFP's, and you'll find ISTP's that loath them. What do we make of it? Is socionics not as accurate as some people wished it was, does it still hold truth to it, or do we accuse the people in question of being mis-typed?

Either way, arguing MBTI vs. Socionics inevitably strikes me as futile, as it's much like debating religion at the end of the day.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

Where is the _sex_ part of this thread?


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Issue you should have (as MBTI ISTP that is) is that while we're likely to still rank ISTp in socionics if we're taking the test, our function set gets completely twisted. MBTI ISTP = ISTj socionics going by functions.
> 
> The issue I'm having, I identify as ISTP by MBTI's function set quite clearly and can't quite grasp why socionics would re-apply their function set, unless they re-defined the definitions of the individual functions. However, I don't see much of a need for that, given that the definitions / explanations were already given by Jung himself.
> 
> ...


A common misunderstanding about socionics is that you automaticlly switch the p/j when converting from MBTI. It's not true. There is no hard fast rule about switching the p/j. An INTP in MBTI could very likely still be INTp in socionics. With extroverts the p/j is in fact usually the same. With introverts its a little more likely to be different but quite often the same.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Another misunderstanding about socionics is that every dual parternship will magically get along like peas in a pod. Socionics does not teach this becasue they know that's not true. In fact duals are so differnt that they quite often don't get along and misunderstand each other especially if they are not used to being with a dual. Duality really only works if both partners come from the same background with similar values and goals and even then it can be a rocky relationship untill the kinks get worked out. I should know, I've been married to a dual for nearly 10 years. We started out with quite a few issues to iron out. The issues gradually decreased over time and after about 8 years I finally realized that I can't live without her.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

zelder said:


> A common misunderstanding about socionics is that you automaticlly switch the p/j when converting from MBTI. It's not true. There is no hard fast rule about switching the p/j. An INTP in MBTI could very likely still be INTp in socionics. With extroverts the p/j is in fact usually the same. With introverts its a little more likely to be different but quite often the same.


I haven't said that, I was specifically referring to the ISTP with it's MBTI function set. The same function set is used by the ISTj in socionics. MBTI ISTP: Ti, Se, Ni, Fe. Socionics ISTj: Ti, Se, Fi, Ne. I'm certainly a Ti, Se by MBTI definition, so either is socionics wrong with their function lineup, or they have re-defined the functions from Jung's original layout. (e.g MBTI Ti = socionics Te).

As stated, if taking the socionics test I'll come out as ISTp as well, however, the whole function system just rubs me the wrong way. By socionics as ISTp my primary functions would be Si followed by Te (MBTI ISTJ).


----------



## Nico1e (Jul 27, 2011)

Okay. I'm going to try to reply to all of these in a general way, without doing a thorough multi-quote. 

Why did I feel that sensors were less valued than intuitives? I think it might have come from reading Keirsey's books. I don't have the books with me right now so I can't do any quotes. It was a 'perception of bias' against sensors. I've read elsewhere on the web that other people feel this same bias against sensors too, but as you said, not everyone feels that way. 

For me, socionics and the intertype relations were useful and important because I was trying to prepare for marriage, and I wanted to know which types of people I was most likely to get along with for the longest period of time. I was trying to get this information from the American Jung/MBTI/Keirsey system (it doesn't really have a convenient 'name' for the system), and I saw lots of different theories as to which types of people get along. They didn't agree with each other, and all I could get from it was that nobody really knew for sure.

For instance, I've seen somewhere - perhaps it was in the Keirsey book? - that people should change every letter of their type, except the S/N, and that's the person who you get along best with. It's the idea that opposites attract, but not complete opposites. So an ISTP would get with an ESFJ.

That's one approach that I saw. However, this went against my own feelings, because I have always felt a dislike or distaste for ESFJs (please, no offense if any are here reading this) and I didn't know why. I didn't see any information about why I might dislike ESFJs. Instead, I just got the impression that the ESFJ was an objectively 'bad' type, and that's why I disliked them. There was nothing to protect me against the idea that some types were 'bad' and other types were 'good.' 

But in socionics, the descriptions of the intertype relations were instantly recognizable to me. It explained why I dislike certain types of people, even though I know that other people like them. I agreed with all the descriptions - they matched my experiences.

In socionics, every single type is paired with every other type on a chart, and the relations are described. The theory explains all the reasons why that person annoys you, or why you like that person. I haven't seen anything that thorough and neatly organized in the American system. (Socionics is 'Russian,' which is why I'm saying 'American' for everything else. Or English, or whatever.) Everything is 'thorough and neatly organized.' 

Socionics has the concept of 'valued' and 'disvalued' functions for each type. You have eight functions, not four. The 'shadow functions' in the American system are not given much importance, and only a few people study them or express much interest in them. But in socionics, the 'shadow functions' are the heart and soul of the whole thing: they tell you who you're attracted to. Every function has a position in the model, and each position shows how you react to other people who have that function, and how you use it yourself. 

Let's hope this 'link' works, since I'm a newbie and I can't post URLs. Look at the one that says 'suggestive function' and 'mobilizing function,' for instance. That's function number 5 and 6. If you have Si in that position, then you are attracted to other people who are better at using Si than you are. 

www . wikisocion . org/en/index . php?title=Introverted_sensing

There is indeed a change in the ordering of functions for the introverts. An ISTP is SiTeNiFe in socionics' Model A. Somebody said (at the16types forum - I don't recall where) that perceiving types - the ones that end with P - should have a perceiving function as their first, strongest function, and it was some kind of logical mistake that the American system started putting the Judging function first (TiSeNiFe for an ISTP, isn't that right?). 

There also may be a change in the definitions of each function. I never recall seeing anything about Se being connected to 'force' or 'commanding others.' Yet in socionics, Se is commonly associated with commanding and force-related behavior, such as directly telling someone 'Go do that.' 

But a Si person (like myself, according to socionics) is uncomfortable giving those sorts of commands, and will ask in an evasive way like 'If it's not too much trouble, could you do that?' I might have overlooked it - I only studied the so-called 'American System' for a couple of weeks before I started reading websites about socionics. This strongly agrees with my personal experience and seems more 'right' to me. I dislike using forceful commands and feel uncomfortable with people who do. It's a 'disvalued function' to the ISTP.

In socionics the ISTJ is TiSeFiNe. This means that they like laws and rules and definitions of what goes where (Ti, as defined in socionics), and they also are interested in forceful commands to make people follow those laws (Se). In socionics it's understood that the ISTJ and the ISTP are in two different 'universes' - quadras - and they don't value the same things. 

The quadras are like the Hogwarts Houses (I'm doing Harry Potter references again), like how Slytherin and Griffindor hate each other, and Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. In socionics, everyone in Alpha (ENTP, ISFP, ESFJ, INTJ) has a strong tendency to dislike, be uncomfortable with, have difficulty understanding and communicating with, everybody who's in Gamma (ENTJ, ISFJ, ESFP, INTP). The same goes for Beta (ENFJ, ISTJ, ESTP, INFP) with Delta (ESTJ, INFJ, ENFP, ISTP). It doesn't mean they hate each other, it just means that if you want to be with people who you instantly, reliably feel relaxed and comfortable with, then the greatest comfort level is with the people in your own quadra, and then, you are moderately comfortable with most (but not all) of the people in the neigboring quadras, and most likely to be awkward and self-censoring and anxious with the people in the opposing quadra.

This is just a rule of thumb, and some particular relations will be more or less uncomfortable than others. But it's so easy to use this arrangement of information and it matches people's real world experiences. I haven't seen any groupings like this in the American system. Do they have anything like 'quadras,' groups of types who reliably all get along well with each other, and groups that don't? Are there any web pages where people have made organized lists of all the type interactions?

This is like learning another language. I'm trying to argue that there are great benefits to learning this particular language. (I only have limited time because I'm writing from the library computer, so I can't get as thorough as I'd like.)

(As for 'where is the "sex" part of this thread'...  sorry, it's rather a dull discussion of 'relationships' without a discussion of sex. However there are some humorous sexual descriptions here on this page, since I'm linking to wikisocion: www . wikisocion . org/en/index . php?title=SLE_domain)

And yeah, I agree, the more realistic socionists do say that duality isn't a magical thing, and in fact it can sometimes be dull, and if there are too many differences in your beliefs and culture, it will be hard to get along. 

I have to rush this because I'll get logged off soon...


----------



## Nico1e (Jul 27, 2011)

Oh, and I forgot. The intertype relations are so reliable that you can use them to double-check what your type is. That's another huge benefit to having the intertype relations. If you go and interact with a group of people who you're 'supposed' to get along with, and you notice that you're still self-censoring and awkward, then you can go wander to some other quadra and try out your relations with them. 

There will always be one quadra who you feel strongly uncomfortable in, two that you feel somewhat or moderately comfortable in, and one where you feel most at ease - and no, it isn't necessarily a MAGICAL LIFE-CHANGING SYNERGY EXPERIENCE, but rather, these are the people who are the least annoying. okay time's up


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

If you replace "MBTI" with "Christianity" and "Kiersey" with "Judaism", then replace "Socionics" with a random new age religion, and "Sensors" with "Gay people"...... then this post suddenly seems to make a bit more sense. Rock on anti-establishment freedom fighter chick.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Nico1e said:


> I was trying to get this information from the American Jung/MBTI/Keirsey system (it doesn't really have a convenient 'name' for the system)


that is because there are several different systems, often amorphously conglomerated into one.

i suggest looking at this even though it has nothing to do with quadras: User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics - WSWiki


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> that is because there are several different systems, often amorphously conglomerated into one.
> 
> i suggest looking at this even though it has nothing to do with quadras: User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics - WSWiki


By those definitions I can certainly comprehend the ISTp function setup in question, although not fully understanding as to how the different definitions came to life. Since both systems claim to base on Jung's work, wouldn't that mean going with Jung's function description(s) rather than altering them?

Now of course Jung could have been wrong for all I know.

Another issue that rubs me the wrong with socionics predictions is the following; As ISTp an ENFp is my supposed dual. Dual doesn't guarantee success, though. I can accept that. Still, if I'm not mistaken, socionics always lists your own type as second best compatible type for relationships, isn't that sort of defying the approach of "opposite attracts" that dual relationships, or socionics in that sense try to promote?

If I took socionics as the measurement standard, my own type being the second best suited for an intimate relationship seems to be rather depressing if anything. Unless of course socionics here intends to merely imply how the general relationship will be perceived with the greatest likelihood, without any necessity involved.

@Nico1e as much as I appreciate the use of analogies, and knowing I'm more than likely part of a minority here; I haven't watched a single Harry Potter movie, or read any of the books. I understood it regardless, though. And yes, I can agree with the listing, from my personal experiences anyway.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Erbse said:


> By those definitions I can certainly comprehend the ISTp function setup in question, although not fully understanding as to how the different definitions came to life. Since both systems claim to base on Jung's work, wouldn't that mean going with Jung's function description(s) rather than altering them?
> 
> Now of course Jung could have been wrong for all I know.


i remember reading on rick delong's site that most people who are involved in socionics seriously (and not as part of the much larger myriad of people who sort of blindly and religiously apply it, have a very personalized interpretation of what the types and IM elements and quadras mean and have different levels of willingness to think about various different hypotheses. to some extent this seems like a natural way of going about doing things; if you think about the subjectivity of the observations that jung made, it is very natural to interpret them as not being literal descriptions of an underlying psychic reality, but to use them as a guidepost for basing one's own interpretation.

personally speaking, i have definitely developed my own unique interpretation. i draw most of my inspiration for my views on socionics from rick delong and user expat on 16t, who are also both people with their own unique interpretations that differ from augusta's classical views in subtle ways. actually, the differences between my interpretation and classical socionics are a bit more extreme and i dismiss a bit more of augusta's constructions than either of they do -- but fundamentally, i think we would all agree that any of our differing conceptual emphases do not mean that we are not talking about the same thing; rick and expat and i could easily share observations about people and agree on the essential formulation and meaning of the language of concepts we're using to speak about personality processes (and this is true also of the classical socionics literature, even if we/i think some of it is a bit misleading in practice). this is clearly not the case when speaking of interpretations that i have about socionics types and random people talking about MBTI; we are obviously speaking about different characters and the meaning of the types is quite different (MBTI doesn't even have a quadra model which to me is by far the most important idea in socionics) -- it is also clearly not the case between me and some other people who have wildly different emphases than me in socionics.

so, yes, it is totally natural that people take jung's work with different emphases and not have interpretations that reproduce it exactly to jung's experience. my ideas place a little more faith in the way that jung went about the situation conceptually than classical socionics does, but probably less in his actual ideas of what functions do.



> Another issue that rubs me the wrong with socionics predictions is the following; As ISTp an ENFp is my supposed dual. Dual doesn't guarantee success, though. I can accept that. Still, if I'm not mistaken, socionics always lists your own type as second best compatible type for relationships, isn't that sort of defying the approach of "opposite attracts" that dual relationships, or socionics in that sense try to promote?
> 
> If I took socionics as the measurement standard, my own type being the second best suited for an intimate relationship seems to be rather depressing if anything. Unless of course socionics here intends to merely imply how the general relationship will be perceived with the greatest likelihood, without any necessity involved.


i don't think it is true that your identical is the "second-best" relationship after your dual. the reason that people would think of it this way is probably most often that identicals share rationality/irrationality whereas other nondual quadra members do not, and coherence on rationality/irrationality is hypothesized for some vague reasons to lead to better matching with lifestyle energy and communication and whatnot. i have never observed this point as something obvious, myself.

further, my view of socionics rejects most of the specific intertype relations predictions in favor of quadra-based accounts of interaction. to me it is not obvious that you would get along better with your identical or your mirror or your activator -- all of these people share your quadra values and have similar cognitive lenses. your identical is someone you might perceive as more similar to you, but also as you said "opposites attract" and your identical is someone that has the same problems and fixations with the DS function as you -- whether or not this speaks to greater compatibility goes out in the wash, in my opinion, and varies extensively depending on the individual manifestation of super-id functions within specific people of given types. the only thing that i think is really usefully modeled beyond this vague idea that duality is better (though as you also noted, duality is hardly "perfect" or the key to resolving all psychological instability like many socionists seem to blindly accept that it is, for many reasons) is the degree of similar outlook between people of a given quadra.

it is also the case that sometimes relationships fail precisely because of similar quadra outlooks -- especially true of beta and gamma quadra types, where beta quadra members might focus on their conflicting ideologies and fight with each other about them constantly, and members of the gamma quadra might exercise harsh judgment on one another and be unable to recognize each other as good people.


----------



## DustyDrill (May 20, 2011)

I had mistyped myself as an INTJ (don't ask me how) and participated in the INTJ forums quite a bit before I came here. Then, when I realized I was actually ISTP and changed my type on the forums, every post I made was largely ignored or ridiculed. It makes me laugh. I have exactly the same thought process as before, but INTJs only found it viable when I had INTJ in my profile.

So I share your frustrations.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Of course, I haven't actually found socionics to work well in real life. If my type is ESFp, then I ought to be up to my neck in pussy. Also, the types conversions are not consistent. I am INTp in both systems. Socionics was developed by a theorist while MBTI was developed using a lot of real life study.


----------



## Nico1e (Jul 27, 2011)

hziegel said:


> If you replace "MBTI" with "Christianity" and "Kiersey" with "Judaism", then replace "Socionics" with a random new age religion, and "Sensors" with "Gay people"...... then this post suddenly seems to make a bit more sense. Rock on anti-establishment freedom fighter chick.


Yeah, that's exactly how I used to feel when I was still stuck in the 'sensors are bad' belief system, which is why I became such a socionics evangelist.


----------



## Saberstorm (Aug 6, 2012)

In Meyers Briggs, I am an INFP, yet in Socionics, I am an LII. I fit socionics, I always found Meyers-Briggs to be worthless. Socionics goes beyond Jung, it corrects him. Socionics is also more empirical, as it is based on group formation. 

The quarta group only forms when the memebers are high functioning. When you are a "loser" you will mostly be out-of-quarta. The quarta is the friends you will have when you are fully realizing your dreams. 

The functions are defined differently and you cannot simply look for a diect translation of your MBTI type to the new system.


----------



## Nico1e (Jul 27, 2011)

Yeah, I sometimes tested as an INFP too when I was still struggling to figure out my MBTI type. I hate the way they word the questions on that test, but alas, they will *never* bother to change or update those questions - we're stuck with them forever! Their goal seems to be to just keep the MBTI exactly the way it is forever and ever. It's copyrighted or something. They don't have any desire to troubleshoot it or improve it or make it more accurate. They seem to be saying, 'Oh, it works well enough,' and yeah, if you're an INFP, it *does* type you correctly. The questions are worded in such a way that an INFP can recognize themselves in the questions, but other types cannot. From the little bit that you wrote, you do sound much more like an LII than an IEI (INFP) to me, just based on my experiences with talking to LIIs. 

Rick at The Socionist blog wrote that some people just don't get along well with anybody no matter what type they are. Those are like the 'losers' you're talking about. Some people have other problems that just make them annoying in general even to people in their own quadra. Some people are hyperactive, autistic, or using drugs that cause them to be extremely irritable and annoying; some people are physically sick in ways that make them miserable and grouchy all the time, so that nobody gets along with them. I've met people like that. I'm sure there are lots of other things that can make people incompatible with members of their own quadra. 

The functions really are defined very differently. I'm interested in a particular model of the functions, but I don't know which Russian socionist created this particular model. I would have to do google searches for Russian words and I would have to use a translator. It's the model where they have two functions in each block, and one has a plus sign and the other has a minus sign, so that, for instance, as a SLI, my first function would be -Si/+Se, my second function would be +Te/-Ti, etc. I first saw this chart in the16types forum, and it was called 'The True Model A.' There were a few threads about it (you can do a search). Anyway, someday I want to read more about that model to find out how it works. That model actually kind of 'fixes' some of the differences between this weird, twisted, Jungian Cognitive Functions model, where they switch around the order of the functions for introverts - it actually makes the two systems a little more similar in some ways, although they still cannot fit together logically. 

I don't even care anymore whether the two systems fit together logically - I have completely given up all hope on the Myers-Briggs and the Jungian Cognitive Functions systems - I agree, they are almost totally useless. The only useful thing about them is that they are very popular in the United States, so I was likely to encounter them, and I thereby discovered the existence of personality types as such, which made me aware that they exist. I immediately recognized the grain of truth in this idea that people have some kind of general personality type, because I had vaguely been aware of that all along, but had no words to describe it. I knew that there were 'types' of people who I did, or didn't, get along with, types of people who annoyed me, types of people who seemed stupid or inferior in some way, types of people who always seemed to be able to make fun of me, etc. It's useful to know that personality types as such exist, but then, it's very frustrating to go for a couple decades not knowing what type you really are, as I did - I learned about the types in 1993 when I was in college, and I went all that time thinking, 'I'm an INTP... I'm an INFP... I'm an ISFP... I'm an ISTP... I'm an INTJ...' and on and on and on as I struggled to understand something which was so unclear and so illogical and so badly worded that it was impossible to understand.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Nico1e said:


> I'm interested in a particular model of the functions, but I don't know which Russian socionist created this particular model. I would have to do google searches for Russian words and I would have to use a translator. It's the model where they have two functions in each block, and one has a plus sign and the other has a minus sign, so that, for instance, as a SLI, my first function would be -Si/+Se, my second function would be +Te/-Ti, etc. I first saw this chart in the16types forum, and it was called 'The True Model A.' There were a few threads about it (you can do a search).


I tried searching for this and I came up with this in English (it does have plus and minus signs, but looks somewhat different from what you described). And in Russian, I found this. I speak Russian, so I guess I can translate a part of the article 



Nico1e said:


> I don't even care anymore whether the two systems fit together logically - I have completely given up all hope on the Myers-Briggs and the Jungian Cognitive Functions systems - I agree, they are almost totally useless. The only useful thing about them is that they are very popular in the United States, so I was likely to encounter them, and I thereby discovered the existence of personality types as such, which made me aware that they exist. I immediately recognized the grain of truth in this idea that people have some kind of general personality type, because I had vaguely been aware of that all along, but had no words to describe it. I knew that there were 'types' of people who I did, or didn't, get along with, types of people who annoyed me, types of people who seemed stupid or inferior in some way, types of people who always seemed to be able to make fun of me, etc. It's useful to know that personality types as such exist, but then, it's very frustrating to go for a couple decades not knowing what type you really are, as I did - I learned about the types in 1993 when I was in college, and I went all that time thinking, 'I'm an INTP... I'm an INFP... I'm an ISFP... I'm an ISTP... I'm an INTJ...' and on and on and on as I struggled to understand something which was so unclear and so illogical and so badly worded that it was impossible to understand.


Well, human personality is too complex to be defined by 8 functions/16 types only. There are some people who fit the model better, there are some who can't relate to any type fully. I'm against seeing people through the lens of their (alleged) personality type in any system. There are some general observations that can be made, of course, but it's an approximation at best.

I think my Enneagram type explains my personality better than MBTI/JCF/Socionics (at least in helped me understand some issues I have), btw


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nico1e said:


> Oh, and I forgot. The intertype relations are so reliable that you can use them to double-check what your type is. That's another huge benefit to having the intertype relations. If you go and interact with a group of people who you're 'supposed' to get along with, and you notice that you're still self-censoring and awkward, then you can go wander to some other quadra and try out your relations with them.
> 
> There will always be one quadra who you feel strongly uncomfortable in, two that you feel somewhat or moderately comfortable in, and one where you feel most at ease - and no, it isn't necessarily a MAGICAL LIFE-CHANGING SYNERGY EXPERIENCE, but rather, these are the people who are the least annoying. okay time's up


I truly have my doubts about intertype. I'm an MBTI INTP, very obviously so, my Ne is well-differentiated and I prefer the alpha quadra and I score LII (INTj) in socionics, but looking at intertype relationships that makes little sense. My good IRL friend is an ENFP for example, and I've noticed a tendency in general where most of the people I've known IRL have been Fi users. What does this say about me and my intertype relationships? I also want to add that I very much enjoy people who have enneagram 458 as their tritype, or at least 8 and either 4 or 5. I also enjoy 4s and 5s, although I prefer 4w5s and 5w4s. Again, it seems like we do not look for differences but similarties. The only exception seems to be that in enneagram, we tend to be attracted to those that express our path of integration. As a core 5, this would be a core 8 for example. There's also the instincts variant part that makes a lot of sense to me in enneagram. This is not addressed at all in socionics and MBTI has barely anything written about intertype relationships.

In MBTI, it's generally wide-spread that you will rather get along well with those who share your dominant perception. In my case it's Ne and this is definitely true. The people I've felt the strongest connection with as of late are all NeTi users, but most importantly, _they also share my enneatype to a very large degree_ _and have a sexual subtype as their instincts variant_. So I am actually going to scratch that whole intertype relationship stuff out of the water when it comes to both MBTI and socionics. I am currently developing an intertype relationship theory about enneagram. I notice that enneagram is the defining factor when it comes to what people you tend to get along well with or not, after that, type seems to matter, but enneagram seems to be the glue that can keep people of different types together.


----------

